Talk:Steele dossier/Archive 8

McCabe testimony
I added the following, and it was removed by User:Slatersteven, with this edit summary: "I think this is misleading, as it implies he could not substantiate it, rather then could not answer the questions they asked (not quite t)"


 * During testimony before the House Intelligence Committee on December 21, 2017, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe repeatedly declined to answer certain questions about dossier, but stood by its veracity:

Steven, please explain more. As I see it, "could not" (your words) and "would not" (the quote) are two very different things. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Would not implies it was because he did not want to answer, Could not implies he was unable to answer the question they asked. But the source makes it clear at least some of those questions involved alterations to the text he was being asked about. I have no idea why they would do that (I can guess but it would be a guess), but he would be unable to say "yes we verified that" if it was in fact no in the document.".Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Steven, so do you still object to my addition? If so, per PRESERVE, how would you improve it, rather than deleting it? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a POV article from an unreliable source. The very title of the Washington Examiner article - "They got nothing" - betrays that it is POV. The meaning of what McCabe said is clear - that he could not state in public what information they had verified, or based on what intelligence. --MelanieN (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Melanie, I agree. Normally I don't use the Examiner, but the part I used got it right, and like any good lawyer, when you can get a hostile witness to admit you're right, you use their testimony. It's much more effective than a friendly witness who would be expected to agree. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In a Google search for ‘’McCabe testimony dossier’’, the only source I found that said McCabe refused to answer questions, or worse yet claimed he said the warrant would not have been issued without the dossier, was Fox News. Even the Washington Examiner reported that “doubts were being cast” on that claim in the memo.  The Daily Beast flatly contradicts it.  --MelanieN (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven and MelanieN, now, do you still object to my addition? If so, per PRESERVE, how would either of you improve it, rather than deleting it? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you please clarify what your proposed addition is? --MelanieN (talk) 04:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, MelanieN. What's right below. The introductory sentence sets the context, and each sentence in the box has interesting content relevant for the Veracity section. It's a good example of how "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." It shows how McCabe, just like all the other FBI and CIA leaders, has been evasive, as they should be during an active investigation. Those who, like Trump, deny Russian interference, try to use that relative silence as proof there is "nothing there". That's a BS argument. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * During testimony before the House Intelligence Committee on December 21, 2017, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe repeatedly declined to answer certain questions about the dossier, but stood by its veracity:


 * Yes as we are still saying he could not substantiate the allegations in the dossier, despite the fact it is clear some of the things he was asked to substantiate were not in the dossier.Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Slatersteven, I'm not sure I understand you correctly. When I look at the article (and these types of questions we've seen over the last year), the operative words used are "would not", not "could not". I think it's clear from this source, and many others, that McCabe and other FBI and CIA leaders "could" reveal much more than they are willing to say while the investigation is ongoing.
 * Not only would revealing which allegations have been confirmed tip off suspects, it would also endanger the lives of sources. One man, a general, has already been killed in Russia, and RS have speculated that it was because he was a source. Steele (or Simpson) has stated that he was not a source, so it's apparently dangerous to even be suspected of being a source.
 * Also, what are those "things he was asked to substantiate were not in the dossier"? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It is also clear (I provided the quote) that in at least some cases it was due to the quotations he was being asked to verify were wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to the words I have bolded here?: "On a number of occasions, when asked about what in the dossier had been corroborated by the FBI, McCabe gave answers such as — these are not precise quotes — I can't answer that, or I don't know how to answer that." I'm not sure how you interpret that, but I think it refers to the words which immediately follow, not to anything else, IOW "I can't answer that, or I don't know how to answer that" were "not exact quotes" of what McCabe said. They were paraphrases. Does that make sense? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * They are what the source claims he said. It gives a context as to why he was unable to answer.Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That answer leaves me in the dark. Say more. I'm really trying to figure out what you mean by "the quotations he was being asked to verify were wrong." What specific quotations are you referring to? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Dont ask me ask the source that makes the claim that is the situation (these are not precise quotes, I just paraphrased that). Either the source is accurate for what he said or it is not, which is it?Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I guess we're talking about the same thing. The author (York) is paraphrasing McCabe's replies ("I can't answer that, or I don't know how to answer that") and not referring to anything McCabe was asked about. York has just prefaced that wording by noting that, in York's opinion, "these are not [McCabe's] precise quotes", referring to McCabe's answers. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * and we have to give those "paraphrases" as a context as to why he was unable to give answers.Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) See my tweaked comment above. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You still make the clam he was unable to verify the contents of the dossier, rather then not being able to answer their questions about it, it is not the same. You still fail to include the fact (the source) claims he said that in at least some cases it was because what they asked did not match the material in the dossier.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I was puzzled the way you presented your initial proposal; I’m still puzzled. Why do you have an introductory sentence and then two additional sentences in a box? I like the introductory sentence, outside of the box. I don’t like what’s in the box. It’s unencyclopedic and kind of redundant. I still don’t like the Washington Examiner source; it’s an op-ed piece in an less-than-reliable publication; but in an extensive search I couldn’t find any other report saying that he declined to confirm details of the dossier but stood by its veracity. I guess we can use this, since that one fact seems credible and neutrally reported. But I don’t see any basis for expanding on it since sources largely ignored this point. Most of the reporting about his testimony is about whether he did or didn’t say the dossier was essential to the FISA request, and I don’t see any need to include that in this article. If we use the first sentence, it should make clear that the testimony was in closed session so we don’t know what he actually said. So I propose using just this: During closed-door testimony before the House Intelligence Committee on December 21, 2017, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe repeatedly declined to answer detailed questions about the dossier, but stood by its veracity. The alternative would be not to mention this at all, since the sourcing is shaky and reliable sources have not reported on it (see WP:WEIGHT). --MelanieN (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I like that version. It's an important point to include. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Which would be my preferred option, leave it out as pure speculation (and likely a bit unduey).Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Unduey, I like that! Neologish! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ahh I see why we argued past each other, it never dawned on me that there was any text outside the box.Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Just so we are clear, the result of this discussion so far seems to be that one person (User:BullRangifer)) wants to include the proposed edit, one person (User:Slatersteven) wants to leave it out entirely, and one person (me) favors either including the single opening sentence or leaving it out entirely. I am going to come down on the side of leaving it out, because of weak sourcing and WEIGHT (i.e., lack of weight) of coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think MelanieN's green text is good and sufficient. On the other hand I generally favor avoiding play-by-play type news updates, and the facts will become clear in due time. So I wouldn't be upset if we left this out. News updates are often hard to do responsibly on WP.  SPECIFICO talk 14:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Merge discussion
There is a merge discussion at Talk:List of Trump–Russia dossier allegations. I was informed that I should have also notified editors here, and that makes total sense. Sorry about the delayed notice. Please participate there. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge discussion closed as "merge". ✅.
 * The "lead" in that section will need to be vastly reduced. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

About the "Allegations" section
Nice work adding the new “Allegations” section, User:BullRangifer. Some comments about the intro to that section: I had expected we would trim the intro drastically when we put it into this article, but actually, it’s a good readable summary of the allegations and should mostly be kept IMO.

I do think we should delete the “Natasha Bertrand” sentence as adding nothing of value, and instead launch straight into the summary: “The dossier contains multiple allegations, some of which are currently unverified and others for which possible verification is classified.[10] The memos allege that Russia has been cultivating a relationship with Trump for decades...” and the rest of that paragraph, then the next, then the paragraph of denials.

Alternatively, we could place the denials next to the allegations, as we already do with the sexual allegations and Schiller’s comments. In other words, something like this: First paragraph, “The dossier contains multiple allegations, some of which are currently unverified and others for which possible verification is classified.[10] Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin have repeatedly denied the allegations, with Trump labeling the dossier as "discredited", "debunked", "fictitious", and "fake news".[72][73]" Then the paragraph that begins “The memos allege that Russia has been…", which names Manafort, Cohen, and Page, including their denials at the end of the paragraph. Then the paragraph with the sexual allegations and Schiller’s comment. I think I would like this arrangement a little better. What do others think? --MelanieN (talk) 23:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have always felt it was best to keep the denials right after the relevant allegations. That satisfies both NPOV and BLP. Go for it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've removed the top paragraph, as I agree that it reads much better that way. I thought we would require a lot more trimming too, but it looks rather nice how it is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  23:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I moved the denials next to the allegations. --MelanieN (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Timeline: The making of the Christopher Steele Trump-Russia dossier
This is a rich source of information:

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Timeline: The making of the Christopher Steele Trump-Russia dossier, The Washington Post, February 6, 2018

Citation quibble
In the “Russian embassy spy” section, there is a quote, several sentences long, with four sources attached. Since it is a direct quote, it seems to me it should have only a single source, namely, the source it is quoting - to make the attribution clear Which source is the quote from? --MelanieN (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point. I'll figure it out. Otherwise your edits are really improvements. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You'll notice that I split the "Ukraine" section into two sections, "Ukraine" and "Europe". Please check that I didn't mess up any references or anything. --MelanieN (talk) 18:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Good idea. He was definitely affected by Manafort's lobbying efforts and Page's agreements on his behalf. It affected his changing idea. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

A missing point?
I was checking the Guardian reference and I noticed it quotes the dossier as saying that Putin’s goal in cultivating Trump was “to encourage splits and divisions in the western alliance”. I’m wondering if we should add that somewhere in the Allegations section, since it does appear to have been carried out by Trump’s subsequent actions. --MelanieN (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. That ref would justify including that wording from the dossier. The subject of "divisive" is mentioned in the section "Kremlin pro-Trump and anti-Clinton". I'll get on it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. I ended up putting it higher up. Feel free to tweak or move. It's definitely tied to the political goals of the two men, so maybe a new section for such stuff would be in order. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Huff Post also mentions that as one of Putin’s goals. “According to the dossier, Putin’s wish list includes lifting sanctions on Russia, turning a blind eye towards its aggressive efforts in the Ukraine, and creating a divisive rift amongst western allies.” --MelanieN (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Another reason to get this "wish list" into the allegations section: there is evidence that Team Trump was planning to lift the sanctions as soon as they took office . (They were prevented from doing so by congressional moves to enshrine the sanctions into law and the January release of the intelligence community's assessment about Russian interference). Still, more corroboration of Trump attempts to enact Putin's wish list. --MelanieN (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This is very important. The dossier alleges that Page made the Rosneft agreement with Trump's "full authority" and confirmed that lifting the sanctions was one of Trump's intentions. $11 BILLION is a great motivator! It was always about lifting the sanctions, and the two (related) motivators were (1) the money from the Rosneft deal and (2) Manafort lobbying Putin's interests about Ukraine. The sanctions was also the subject of the Trump Tower meeting. "Adoptions" and dirt on Hillary were never the real subjects. I think the Russian lawyer admitted that. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. "Adoption" was and is the Russian cover story for "lift the sanctions". "Adoption" has been the supposed focus of the lobbying by the two Russians, Veselnitskaya and Akhmetshin - but what they really mean is "lift the sanctions and then we will allow the resumption of adoptions". It was because of sanctions that Putin retaliated by banning American adoptions of Russian orphans. And ever since, they have been saying "let's restore American adoptions" as their quid-pro-quo or introductory line for what they really want: "lift the sanctions". --MelanieN (talk) 04:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * LOL! Yes and no. I was primarily referring to the story about "dirt on Hillary". That was just a ruse to have a meeting about lifting the sanctions (yes, "adoptions" is indeed code for "lift the sanctions"). They don't care about the kids, but about the money made by lifting the sanctions. "...the attorney wanted to talk about adoptions rather than giving incriminating information on Clinton."
 * The members of that meeting, a rather important constellation of people who "just happened" to meet there, had no special interest or special knowledge about "adoptions", but they all had lots of interest in lifting sanctions and making money from it. You've probably heard the joke about that meeting: "A lawyer, a spy, a money launderer, and a mob boss walk into a bar. The bartender looks up and says, "you must be here to talk about adoption"."
 * LOL! No, I hadn't heard that one. --MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The dossier's allegations, confirmed by subsequent real-life actions by these people, make it clear that a large part of the Trump-Russia relationship is built on this theme. (Trump is allegedly promised $11 billion if he lifts the sanctions and doesn't defend the sovereignty of Ukraine.) Other information indicates that Saudi Arabia and nuclear power may play an even bigger role, but the dossier says nothing about that angle as it was not the assigned task. The dossier does mention China, and that crimes there are allegedly far worse than what happened in Russia. Time will tell about that. (Yes, the joke is "not a forum" territory, but still on-topic ). -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 07:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Important improvements to the article...
...are being done without me getting involved and that makes me a sad panda.
 * I'm being facetious, of course. Good job, guys. It's looking better every time I check it out. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


 * MPants at work, your help would be very appreciated. More eyes are usually a good thing. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I seriously meant what I said above: you guys are doing a great job so far. Except for your question in the section above (which I'll have an answer to in a moment), I'm honestly at a loss as to where to begin. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

"Background and reactions to specific allegations" subsection?
Should we have such a subsection to the "Allegations" section? (Or some other related wording.)

Right now we have such information scattered around in the lead of the "Allegations" section, the "Carter Page testimony" section, and in the "Reactions to specific allegations" section. I think it would be better to collect it in one place, as a subsection in the "Allegations section".

To see how that looks, see here.

The "Events interpreted as confirming veracity" section could also be made a subsection of the "Allegations" section. What do you think? Pinging MelanieN. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 07:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree this type of material could use better organizing. Let me think about it. For starters, I am not fond of the "reactions to specific allegations" section, where we cherry-pick one or two comments (we seem to have preferred comments that use the word "treason," although "bribe" seems like a better description). I wouldn't mind deleting that whole section. For that matter, haven't any sources pointed out that there is no evidence that the alleged Rosnoft offer was ever a real thing? The payoff certainly doesn't seem to have happened - but then, Trump hasn't been able to lift the sanctions (not for lack of trying). --MelanieN (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * RS have indeed reacted to specific allegations, so we should add more, rather than remove, content to that section.
 * There were several articles which dealt with the sale of 19.5% of Rosneft, Carter Page going to Moscow when it happened in Dec. 2016, and how the money then traveled through a series of mysterious shell companies, and at least one illegal (in Russia) bank transaction (which could not have happened without Putin's approval). The last destination was a Cayman Islands account. We have no evidence that it has been paid out to Trump. I can dig up those sources and see if it can be worthy content. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * MelanieN, regarding "...haven't any sources pointed out that there is no evidence that the alleged Rosnoft offer was ever a real thing?" Sure, there are lots of sources, mostly Trump friendly, which have claimed the whole dossier is fake and made up, just to hurt Trump. Serious sources have seen bits of evidence. Carter Page's own testimony undermines the fringe denialist views. He nearly admits the contents of the meeting, after initially denying (as all the Trump people do) any meeting happened. When testifying under oath, his story changed, and his memory "improved". We cover that in the article. Something did happen, the privatization sale did happen, some very weird and unusual financial transactions then occurred for unknown reasons. This would be expected if the allegation is true. Mueller's investigation will bring more clarity, so we must be patient. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Otherwise, what do you think of the idea of consolidating this scattered, but related, material? To see how that looks, see here.-- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems a little wordy to me, not in terms of the prose, but just squinting and looking at the relative size of the section compared to other sections. There might not be any way to fix that, I'll take a good read of it and see if I can make it a bit more concise. Otherwise the only critique I have is that "Background and reactions" seems a little stiff. Maybe just calling it "Reactions" would be best, as the background info provided there was actually all given out as part of the reactions, anyways. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * MPants at work:
 * The heading is a bit long and awkward. Any improvement is welcome. We have another "Reactions" section, but just dropping "Background and" might be good enough. They are two very different types of reactions, but maybe using a different word for one of them would be even better.
 * By "wordy", are you referring to the (1) number of entries or to the (2) actual size of each entry? The latter can be dealt with using normal editing procedures, so in that regard there is nothing unusual here.
 * This suggestion is more radical: What about just folding the "Events interpreted as confirming veracity" into this? The diff doesn't show it, but content added later shows many sections are on the same topics.
 * We could also limit the depth of the TOC so that third level doesn't show.
 * Did any of that address your concerns? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You raise a good point about the existence of another reactions section. Perhaps, instead of having two sections, we could merge them and re-write them to ensure that the responses to specific allegations were given, but without a bunch of section headers or pseudo-section headers.
 * By "wordy" I meant the second definition you gave, and yes, I agree that it's no big deal, just something I noticed. It will end up getting corrected, if not by me, then by someone else.
 * Regarding your suggestion; I don't know. I keep waffling back and forth and side to side on it. I'll have to give it some more thought before I'm quite sure what I have to say on that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have tried a new heading. Instead of "Events interpreted as confirming veracity", I changed it to "Veracity of certain allegations". I also added more subsections (from 4 to 7) and much more documentation. There are multiple events which RS have documented, and some RS make a direct connection between those events and the allegations in the dossier. They make the synthesis, so we can use those sources here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that's a better title. Whether or not they confirm the veracity is up to the reader (except where it's stated directly by the sources, of course), but the less equivocating title ties it back to the larger subject better. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, and where it is an opinion, we attribute the source. Obviously there can be disagreement among sources about whether an event confirms the veracity of the dossier's claims, but if RS make that type of connection, they are fair game here.
 * Regarding headings, I'm sure some headings could be more concise, while still giving the gist of the subject, so there is still work to be done. More eyes welcome. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've taken a stab at shortening some of the longer section titles, see here. They're not as spot-on now, but I think the reader will get the idea from the body of the sections. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * New titles are much clearer, thx! — JFG talk 21:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Great job! -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Primary source?
Politrukki has tagged a source as a "primary source". The source is NPR's "Fresh Air", where Terry Gross interviews Luke Harding, a subject expert on this subject. Terry Gross "has been in this position since 1975 and has conducted thousands of interviews over her 42 years at the job." NPR is a very RS, and such interviews are normally fair game here.

Is there a real problem here? In what way is this different than any other interview in any other RS?

Since I added that content, I won't remove the tag. Others may do it, and we can also discuss a proper way to resolve this. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Is there any reason why we should make an exception here and use primary sources? NPR interviews are not subject to editorial oversight. I have no idea whether they are subject to corrections. An interview of Luke Harding is likely a reliable source for claims about Luke Harding, but it is easier to assess due weight if content is supported by a secondary source or more.


 * Similarly, The Honorable James Comey is an intelligence expert, yet, on this article, we should not cite any transcript of Comey's testimony directly, but through secondary sources. Politrukki (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not a primary source for the content in question. It would be if we were discussing the interview itself. In any case, the tag does nothing to improve the article so I've removed it.- MrX 🖋 19:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please don't remove cleanup tags until the issue has been resolved. Politrukki (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue was resolved by there not being an issue in the first place. Thus, the erroneous tag was removed.- MrX 🖋 00:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have cited Howard Blum for similar claim. Hopefully we can now remove the redudant Harding blurb. Politrukki (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The Harding comment is hardly "redundant". Blum's comment is rather vague and spreads smoke over the issue because it speaks of "over the years", and there is no doubt that some people ("collectors") are paid. Depending on how that vague comment is interpreted, it can be taken as a general statement with little bearing on the very specific issue fo whether the "unpaid sources" were paid (creating a contradiction) or is a subtle attempt to undermine Steele and Orbis.
 * The Mayer article describes the paid sources as "collectors" (they are not the sources used for content). One can assume that they are people who are a slight distance from their own sources, who are the ones who actually provide the information, IOW those who were not paid for the information in the dossier. "Collectors" are not the sources, but collect the reports from sources, and those sources are too close to the key people, like Putin and Sechin, to be alerted to the fact that they are being used as sources. They are unwitting (and obviously unpaid) sources. They wouldn't deliberately betray a trust, but someone is listening to them and repeating what they are saying.
 * The Mayer article explains this: "The collectors harvest intelligence from a much larger network of unpaid sources, some of whom don’t even realize they are being treated as informants." Maybe we should include that quote, which includes mentions of collectors. (Done.)
 * I know that there are right-wing conspiracy theorists who spout all kinds of ideas on unreliable sources to undermine the dossier, Steele, etc, and some of that sneaks into what are normally RS. If editors wish to include such theories here to undermine what the weight of RS say, then we need to discuss what can be used, and whether such content is undue, even if it comes from a RS. Is that Blum statement of that type, or is it just so vague that it should not be used because it confuses the issues? Should it be removed? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

In keeping with our normal policies, Harding's opinion is attributed to him. That is normal for such content. Interviews on RS have always been fair game here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Reliable source ?
Will the editors on this page accept this http://www.weeklystandard.com/a-doozy-of-a-dossier/article/2011865 as a valid and reliable source? Xerton (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Good question. Hyperpartisan sources are in a borderland. The Weekly Standard occupies the same position as Reason and National Review on the right-wing/conservative side as Democracy Now!, Jacobin, and The Intercept for the left-wing/liberal side. (Although I'm a left-wing liberal, I don't recall ever using them here.) They all offer complex analysis, rather than straightforward original news reporting, so they offer as good or bad opinions as the author. In this case it's musician Eric Felten, who also writes about political subjects for the Standard.
 * As with many legitimate questions of this type, it all depends on how the source is used. For documentation of its own POV in its own article, and sometimes other articles, there would be no question. Then questions of due weight come into play.
 * I'd like to hear other editors' opinions, but it would be much better if you provided us an example of how you'd like to use it. We might even be able to polish it into something usable. I like to work with editors who hold opposing POV. Together we can produce better content than either alone.
 * Pinging the other editors currently active on this page: User:MPants at work, User:JFG, User:MelanieN,
 * BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The source cited makes a relevant analysis of the dossier and the circumstances around its creation. Therefore some of the points not made elsewhere deserve attributed inclusion. For example, the author questions how Steele could get any high-level access to government sources while being persona non grata in Russia for years. I have no opinion on the political leanings or general reliability of the Weekly Standard. I don't mind that much about partisanship of sources, unless they print obvious garbage. For example I found that The Intercept often publishes quality investigative reporting irrespective of its political orientation. — JFG talk 02:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Since the article in question is commenting on this article by Jane Mayer, one can get the original context for the commentary and form a judgment of whether it's fair or unfair commentary. Search the Mayer article for these words "Unlike some of his former M.I.6 colleagues, he has not been declared persona non grata by Putin’s regime,...", then check several of the preceding and following paragraphs to get the full context. If Felten makes that claim, then he's wrong.
 * Steele and Orbis have several layers of sources, with varying abilities to penetrate security measures and get wind of overheard conversations, etc. Search for these words and their context: “we’re a bit like the bridge on the Starship Enterprise—we’re a small group but we manage an enormous ship.”
 * Many expat and exiled Russians live in England, and some of them have intimate knowledge of current affairs and insider knowledge. They make for good sources. Since the British, American, and other intelligence agencies trust Steele so much, and his work has been quite noteworthy and accurate, I'd tend to believe them more than a musician/amateur political opinion writer. None of them have question these things. Keep in mind that the dossier is a rough draft, not a polished document.
 * I also noticed another claim where Felten exaggerates a simple typo into a conspiracy theory. The "26 July 2015" date (it should be 2016) on page 6 of the dossier is clearly a simple typo, but he then spins a story without evidence. It's just a typo. Nothing more. The context is a longer exposition on Russian cyber crime and cyber operatives, which happens to give nice background understanding for the whole DNC hacking affair. The correct year date is in the text on the page: "1. Speaking in June 2016, a number of Russian figures with a detailed knowledge of national cyber crime,..." This is an instance where partisanship tends to affect objective thinking, and why we tend to avoid hyperpartisan sources on both the right- and left-wings. Extremists on both sides do this type of thing. That's why I would likely never use Democracy Now!, Think Progress, Daily Kos, Alternet, etc., even if I tend to agree with their basic POV. They aren't always reliable for the nitty gritty details, and that damages their credibility for facts.
 * Felten is trying to make a case for the conspiracy theory view pushed by Nunes and company, but he makes the fatal mistake pointed out here (from this article): "Steven L. Hall, former CIA chief of Russia operations, has contrasted Steele's methods with those of Donald Trump Jr., who sought information from a Russian attorney in June 2016: "The distinction: Steele spied against Russia to get info Russia did not want released; Don Jr took a mtg to get info Russians wanted to give.""
 * With all that said, I'm not prepared to outright reject the source. Is there some other point that might be worth trying? Fair criticism is often fair game for inclusion. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


 * BullRangifer said "Many expat and exiled Russians live in England, and some of them have intimate knowledge of current affairs and insider knowledge." While that may be true, it's not very likely that any Russians thus situated have Putin's ear and therefore, it's also very unlikely that anyone in Steele's London orbit has any actual hot skinny on anti-Trump information which Kremlin stooges may or may not want to use against Trump. Does the CIA share it's Putin dirty-laundry with ordinary American expats? Doubtful. This whole "dossier" thing has been stupid from the start and if reading the various links such as this one doesn't make that clear yet, I'm not sure what will. Xerton (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The many steps and links in getting information from very close to people like Putin (How did American intelligence get a copy of the letter handwritten by Trump to Putin?) are many, and involve many paid and unpaid, knowing and unwitting sources.
 * I know you feel this is all "stupid from the start" but that is because you read extremely unreliable sources (the ones you have in your link library, none of which would be allowed here), and therefore "reading the various links such as this one" confuses you. This will only make sense when you stop reading unreliable sources and immerse yourself in reliable ones. If Trump calls something "fake news", it's a source you should follow and likely trust.
 * The best way to make heads or tails out of all this, is to simply read the articles here and read the RS themselves. We actually do pretty good work here.
 * You may want to check out my Reliable sources stash, and start using this diagram to help you focus on using RS (those closer to the middle and the top, especially in the green and yellow boxes). -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Felton's bit is more or less garbage on its face, and as such, it's not entirely surprising that this organ would publish it.  SPECIFICO talk 03:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * User:SPECIFICO Thank you for your well thought out and deeply informative contribution to this discussion. It's always great when my fellow editors invest the time and effort to contrubute high value observations and analysis to the talk pages. Xerton (talk) 06:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thx. Short and sweet can't be beat.  SPECIFICO talk 20:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It depends wholly on what you would like to include. Would you like to propose an edit or could you point your finger at specific parts in the source? Politrukki (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Whether or not the source is reliable depends entirely upon the claim. I could imagine a very few claims of fact I'd be okay with using that source for, I could imagine a larger number of attributed statements I'd accept using that as a source for. I'd need to see the proposed content. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  12:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Only as opinion of The Weekly Standard - After reading the news story, it appears to be more opinion than a critical study of the dossier.  Most notable is their conclusion that the dossier remains "unverified", even though the substantive sections which have been matched to evidence has born out to be verified, thus far, despite some errors of dates and places.  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "unverified" just bolsters this source. That's how reliable sources describe the dossier.
 * "Since the dossier was published by BuzzFeed on January 10, many reports have surfaced over the ever-evolving Trump-Russia saga. But only a few have confirmed details in the dossier." Newsweek
 * "The infamous "dossier" alleging collusion between Donald Trump and the Russian government is filled with inflammatory, uncorroborated and in some cases clearly false claims made by unidentified sources" ABC News
 * "salacious and mostly uncorroborated Steele dossier" Vox
 * "unverified anti-Trump dossier" Fox News
 * "a salacious and mostly unsubstantiated intelligence dossier" The New York Times
 * "Parts of the dossier have been borne out ... but the vast majority remains unverified" The Atlantic
 * "unsubstantiated dossier" Time
 * "the infamous – and mostly unverified – dossier" The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
 * "unverified dossier" Huffpost
 * "the explosive, unverified dossier" Business Insider
 * "unverified" is consistent with other sources and all these sources are pretty fresh. Politrukki (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Seems mostly reliable. I'd say it is reliable for basic facts (for which there are probably better sources, though).  Any analysis or opinion must be attributed, but I think the requirement of WP:DUE weight is met here, so that the analysis could be mentioned here.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Reboot: Steele/Orbis and payment of sources
When Comey was asked by Grassley if it was important to know if sources were paid, he replied: "I think it is vital to know." That statement should be enough for us to see that this subject has weight enough to deserve coverage in this article.

There seem to be conflicting reports in RS about whether or not Steele's sources were paid, so this needs to be sorted out in order to create satisfactory content. This version, as of 15:59, March 12, 2018, which uses five sources, doesn't use all available sources:

In this comment, Politrukki makes some good points. It isn't only pro-Trump and fringe sources which say things which muddy an otherwise generally clear picture (non-payment) from Orbis (Steele and Burrows) and Fusion GPS (Simpson).

Morell and Blum say things seemingly at odds with their statements. Are we interpreting them correctly? Note that Morell and Blum are very early sources. More information later might lead to clearer insights by others. That's my theory.

Politrukki mentions a deletion of mine and the discussion that followed. Below is what I removed, and that deletion seems to have been accepted, but it might be good to reconsider it now. Maybe we should use it after all, but we just need to figure out how to do it:

To analyze this, we need to look at the sources/statements in chronological order:

"Dilanian_3/16/2017" (See quotebox above.)

"Blum_3/30/2017"

"CNN_transcript_5/3/2017"

"Raju_Herb_Polantz_11/16/2017"

"NPR.org_11/21/2017"

"Simpson_Fritsch_1/2/2018"

"Mayer_3/12/2018"

If there are any other relevant sources, please place them in the proper place chronologically. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion
Now how can we use these sources in a better way than currently, because I'm assuming that improvement is always possible, especially since we have a nice mix of editors here. That usually results in better content. Let's see some copy editing skills create brilliant prose out of this! -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Where do we say that Orbis has denied paying the sources? I don't know what Orbis has said but I don't think Blum is at odds with Fusion GPS. Blum just says that Steele has paid the sources before. As I said, I added the Blum blurb because it says the same thing as Harding: (a) the sources were not new and (b) they were trusted.
 * I would
 * Remove Mayer part – it describes a policy at Orbis but says nothing about whether Orbis followed the policy in this instance.
 * Remove Harding interview – primary source and extraneous because of similar Blum comment.
 * Restore Morell comment without speculating "speculating" – you seem to be the only one who has opposed including Morell. I don't remember what my thoughts were when I saw the January discussion but I most definitely did not know (thanks to CNN, I guess!) that Simpson has given contradictory statements.
 * Omit the excerpt from Comey interview – primary source. I provided the source only as a background.
 * Thoughts? Politrukki (talk) 09:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Would you mind creating a paragraph based on your suggestions? It would be a lot easier to evaluate. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that the "Mayer part" is written in the context of Steele's (Orbis) practices and the creation and history of the dossier, so it's very relevant and precisely on-topic.
 * The Harding interview is considered an acceptable type of primary source here.
 * Using the Comey testimony is like directly accessing a court document, and that type of primary source is normally not allowed. It's still interesting.
 * To what degree do we allow early, relatively uninformed sources, trump later, more informed sources? Several things Morell says have since proven to be untrue. Lots of things in the dossier have proven true, so he was speaking from ignorance at the time. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Is content about paying sources "undue" or not?
Politrukki has tagged this content with this edit summary: "tagging with – this is not a direct claim about the dossier and the source says Orbit pays "collectors")"

Is there a real problem here? The content describes how Orbis (IOW Steele) uses and pays sources, including WHEN they don't pay them, and WHY they don't pay all their sources. Since we already have content directly about them "not paying" the sources used in the dossier, this speaks directly to that point and seems to be on-topic.

Should we also add more, including how they DO pay "collectors", IOW those who are NOT the ultimate sources? Mayer's article does add interesting details about why the ultimate sources often don't realize they are being used as sources. Obviously those closest to Putin, Sechin, and other players mentioned in the dossier would not deliberately provide information to a western source which could endanger themselves or their bosses.

Since I added that content, I won't remove the tag. Others may do it, and we can also discuss a proper way to resolve this. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I would lean toward viewing this as undue weight unless a couple of other sources could be found. It seems a big argumentative for an encyclopedia article, and more detailed than necessary. - MrX 🖋 19:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually we don't know whether Steele paid any of their sources. We have conflicting information because Simpson is confused. Michael Morell said "I have subsequently learned that he used intermediaries. And then I asked myself, why did these guys provide this information, what was their motivation? And I subsequently learned that he paid them." Perhaps you remember that you removed Morell's comment because you were subsequently speculating that Morell was speculating?


 * Correct me if I'm wrong but we don't know whether Steele's sources were these so-called collectors. Politrukki (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There have been a few conflicting reports, but they were people who really didn't know. The only ones who knew for sure were people from Orbis, and they say that the sources used were not paid. I believe we attribute that content. If not, we should, and that should settle it. Anyone who says otherwise, without evidence, is speculating, and thus not a RS for that piece of information. (We shouldn't include provably unreliable content, unless it's been the subject of much debate in RS.)
 * IIRC, Morell was describing what the FBI often did, and speculating that Steele had followed the same practice. The content that is disputed above explains the practices at Orbis, which are not necessarily the same as at other agencies. That may be why they have such a good reputation and track record.
 * One of the reasons why this information is important to include, is that GOP/right-wing conspiracy theorists have argued, without a shred of evidence, that none of the material from the unnamed sources could be trusted, because they would just lie and produce fake information so they could be paid more. That's a very naive accusation coming from amateurs, because it assumes that professionals have never taken account for that possibility. It would be an amateur's mistake. No one like Steele would survive in the industry if their reports didn't turn out to be true because they used unreliable sources.
 * If necessary, for context, we could include such conspiracy theory accusations from unreliable sources, but I don't see any reason to go out of our way to include false information, only to shoot it down with the facts. The facts alone, from RS, should be enough. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You said that Morell is speculating, but Morell said "And I subsequently learned that he paid them."[emphasis added], so Morell did not just suddenly think that Steele must have paid sources, but Morell learned that from somewhere. I don't think Morell is peddling conspiracy theories. We also know that Simpson, in fact, was speculating. The relevant portion of Simpson's testimony seems to be on page 271 and 272. Politrukki (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

John Cassidy....is unreliable. He writes: "In any case, when Steele sent in his first memorandum, which was thirty-five pages long and dated June 20, 2016." Wow! Has he even read the dossier? There were 17 memoranda, each 1-3 pages long, and the dossier totaled 35 pages by December 2016. I'm not sure what Cassidy was thinking there, and what happened to the renowned fact checkers at The New Yorker? They are usually good. This one slipped through. Fortunately that content was not added here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand the purpose of this entire paragraph. Is whether Steele paid his sources important or controversial somehow?  Most of the sources cited only seem to mention it in passing, so it's a bit awkward for us to string those bits together into a full paragraph as though this is some sort of breathlessly important aspect of the controversy.  If we have a source saying "it's important whether or not he paid his sources, because that would mean XYZ!", we can cite that, but without that I'd be in favor of completely excising everything after the second sentence, and perhaps merging what's left into another paragraph.  This is already a long, rambling section, and (unless someone can find a source showing how it actually matters) this part seems like a complete digression.  We don't need to cover every sentence in every source, just the broad overview of what's important - is this important? If so, why (and what source can we use to illustrate that?) --Aquillion (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * See the end of my comment above: "If necessary, for context, we could include such conspiracy theory accusations from unreliable sources, but I don't see any reason to go out of our way to include false information, only to shoot it down with the facts. The facts alone, from RS, should be enough." It addresses the fact that false accusations, of Steele paying his sources, have been made by fringe sources, the type we don't normally mention. They throw all sorts of dirt, without evidence, in attempts to undermine the dossier and Steele. It's all part of the cover-up/distract operation going on. I don't see any purpose in litigating false accusations here. Just documenting the facts should be enough. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd say we'd be better off killing the entire paragraph. The whole thing about whether he framed his sources seems trivial and are asides even in their sources, which don't even really seem to be framing them as criticisms, just random bits of trivia.  Putting it together into an allegation and response risks WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, since none of the sources seem to treat it as particularly important or worth discussing - so why cover it at all?  The section is bloated, and this is trivia.  Kill the paragraph, aside from the first two sentences.  (Orbis was hired between June and November 2016, and Steele produced 16 memos during that time, with a 17th memo added in December. In total, Perkins Coie paid Fusion GPS $1.02 million in fees and expenses, $168,000 of which was paid to Orbis by Fusion GPS and used by them to produce the dossier.)  Merge that into some other paragraph.  Everything after that is umimportant trivia, at least unless someone can come up with a source that actually seems to care about it rather than mentioning it in passing. I get what you're saying about people "throwing all kinds of dirt", but it feels more like editors here are doing that in this case - the sources we're citing don't even present this as 'dirt', just as a random bit of trivia.  In other words, John Cassidy isn't even presenting it as something important, just as one note in a long list of events.  In fact...  hrm.  I'm going to remove it, then write a longer bit about my problems with it. --Aquillion (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * At least two intelligence experts think it is vital information. Please review this archived discussion. In the removed content Morell explains why it is important whether the sources were paid. BullRangifer removed the content because it contradicted with what Simpson said in the opinion piece or in the testimony, according to sources familiar with the matter, according to CNN.
 * The Honorable James Comey refused to, at least in public, comment Grassley's question about Steele's sources, but answered generally that it is "vital to know" whether the sources were paid. Politrukki (talk) 15:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Politrukki, you make some important points, so I have created a new section below to reboot the discussion in a manner which will hopefully result in a rewritten section on the subject. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I've killed the paragraph. While it seems undue to me, my biggest objection (and the reason I leaped to removing it immediately) was because it seems to me that the "meat" of the section under dispute is this contradiction: Simpson has stated that Steele did not pay any of his sources. According to John Cassidy, Simpson acknowledged in his Congressional testimony that he never asked whether Steele paid his sources.. In context (as an editor unambiguously admits above), this framing is intended to make Simpson look unreliable by contrasting the statements from two different sources; however, this connection is not made in any of the sources. Cassidy, in other words, never implies that Simpson said otherwise; and the difference between the two sources may simply be a matter of differing interpretations or perspectives on what was said, rather than a contraiction by Simpson. Either way, without a source unambiguously raising that point, it's WP:SYNTH to try and force those two separate and unrelated sources together in a way that attempts to encourage the reader to believe that Simpson contradicted himself; and with that part removed, the rest of the paragraph (which is mostly further WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to argue this insignificant point) becomes irrelevant as well. If we want to discuss this at all, we need at least one WP:RS that steps back and describes the whole thing as a meaningful controversy, rather than just two different cites that an editor personally decided to juxtapose. --Aquillion (talk) 01:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow! That's a pretty serious violation of WP:PRESERVE (a policy), without any form of consensus. We have really tried to AGF here and edit collaboratively. This violates all that and poisons the atmosphere.
 * Removing the Cassidy part is a good idea, but the rest of the content is not OR or SYNTH. You are the first one to even mention those objections. All the content is from RS which discuss this in the context of the dossier and Steele's work on it. Please restore and let's discuss your "I don't like it" ideas. Getting specific would help. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That also killed almost all our coverage about sources, a pretty important subject. Not good. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've partially self-reverted, but... what's the context that makes the rest of the paragraph meaningful?  As I said, it looks, to me, like an overgrown back-and-forth over payments that isn't really treated as important in any of the sources.  If we want to discuss Steele's sources, maybe the parts on that could be salvaged elsewhere in the article (eg. perhaps a section about Steele?) - but do they really belong in the history section?  What aspect of the history do you feel that the paragraph conveys to the reader, which they need to understand, and which is worth devoting so much text to?  It reads like a bunch of disconnected quotes and factoids strung together by editors hashing out a dispute over payments, not like an actually important part of the history.  Seriously, try stepping back and reading this entire section from the beginning as if you're an uninvolved editor only vaguely-familiar with the topic.  It's a bloated mess of back-and-forth bits like this, many of which do need fairly drastic cleanup.  Randomly going into an entire paragraph on Steele's sources midway through the history section is bad for readability; this section should be condensed into a timeline of events, with less timeline-significant assessments like that getting spun off elsewhere.  --Aquillion (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * See below. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Sources, their payment, and more...
Thank you for that move. This can be resolved through discussion. Here's the restored content, minus the Blum comment at the end, which is also out of place:

Now let's work on this. I'll comment more, but will save now before an edit conflict occurs. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * It looks like this covers:


 * 1) The time period, number of memos, and contract situation
 * 2) The non-payment of sources
 * 3) The Orbis method for using sources and informants
 * 4) The trustworthiness of Steele's sources
 * This all seems pretty relevant to me. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The actual order and format might be improved. Any suggestions? That's how PRESERVE works.
 * I don't see any evidence of undue weight, SYNTH, or OR. The CNN source is about sourcing and payment, and the reason is that certain congressmen think it's pretty important, enough to create a fuss in their attempts to discredit the dossier. That makes it important enough for us to cover. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Aquillion, regarding the current placement of this content in the History section..., well, your concern sounds quite legitimate. It just happens to have been there for some time, and gotten developed there, but, now that it's outgrown that section, it could just as well be moved down to its own (sub)section, something about "Sources of (or "for") allegations". Is that heading descriptive enough? Other suggestions are certainly welcome. (That first sentence is certainly historical, so it could stay in the history section, right where you placed it.) -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have experimented with the content in its own subsection here. Is that better, or would it make more sense below the Authorship section? It seems to have more relation to that subject than to history. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with Aquillion, Politrukki, and MrX here. Paragraph seems undue. PackMecEng (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Dossier-Daniels lawsuits intersect
Hmmm... Interesting development. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC) BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Reactions
In the "Reactions" section there are 13 paragraphs and approximately 15 people and organizations are quoted. Of those only two (Woodward and Peskov) express negative opinions or skepticism about the dossier. How is this considered balanced especially on a controversial Wikipedia article?

What's even worse is that when I added a third reliably sourced opinion from a prominent person, who worked for Hillary Clinton and expressed a negative opinion about the dossier, it was immediately removed. What is going on here at Wikipedia?

PZP-003 (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Dynamic and automatically updated OR
This edit and its edit summary brought my attention to something we must avoid.

These refs are only used in the lead, and have been co-opted for conclusions about the future. That's wrong, as they can only be used for when they were said. They also need attribution and use in the body of the article before being used in the lead

This is a case of dynamic and automatically updated OR:



We can't do that. I have therefore moved it here for improvement:


 * , the dossier's allegations of collusion have not been corroborated.

There are two sources, and somehow that must be stated in relation to the time the sources were written. We can't use a code like that to make statements - written at one point in time - apply to future events. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Quickly produced approximate timeline of edits:
 * 1 January 2018 adds content "and as 2017 drew to a close the dossier’s allegations of collusion were yet to be proved or disproved."
 * 30 January 2018 changes the content to ", the dossier's allegations of collusion have not been corroborated."
 * 13 February 2018 changes "December 2017" to "February 2018"


 * Only the last edit is really controversial. I'd suggest either (a) going back to Anythingyouwant's version or (b) just simply saying "the dossier's allegations of collusion have not been corroborated", without specifying date and switching Vox source to a source that focuses more on the dossier, for example this piece from The New York Times. This is all very uncontroversial stuff. No need for attribution and we can add about one sentence to the body to state the same. Politrukki (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you're right, Politrukki. I would support a variant of Anythingyouwant's version without any date and with a better source as you suggest. But "were yet to be proved" is an awkward construction and possibly not clear to non-English speakers. How about simply "The dossier’s allegations of collusion have not been publicly proven or disproven." (Or if people prefer, "proved or disproved".) --MelanieN (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * On second thought, JFG's version "the dossier's allegations of collusion have not been corroborated" is simpler and clearer - with no date and possibly with the addition of "publicly" (since we have no idea whether the FBI or the Special Counsel have corroborated anything). --MelanieN (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think "publicly" seems a bit trivial – because sources usually say unsubstantiated/unverified dossier without veering into speculation about how much the intelligence community knows – but I would not seriously contest including "publicly". Politrukki (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree that we must not overstep the date of the source. It was significant in the midst of end-2017 recaps of the affair, and I would support keeping that for now. If a more recent "long-term view" source appears stating the same thing today, then we can switch to that one and list the new date. For now, I'd suggest simply switching to past tense:, the dossier's allegations of collusion had not been corroborated. I also think adding "publicly" is superfluous. However, it's good to keep the As of template, because it alerts editors to the need for an update with more timely sources some day. — JFG talk 21:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we should simply say "have not been corroborated" without a date. It's not like we get a new report every month saying "still not corroborated!" Considering the number of us watching this article, I think if any collusion gets corroborated, it will be in the article within the day. And we can change this sentence then. --MelanieN (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree no need to state a date, but "publicly" is critical to avoid any possible misunderstanding. It's not speculation. It may be logically superfluous, so Mr. Spock might not need "publicly" but 1/2 our readers might misunderstand "not corroborated" to mean "rejected" or "disproved."  SPECIFICO talk 22:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: more input for this discussion would be appreciated. Politrukki (talk) 11:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Mark Penn
I have removed a newly added paragraph on Mark Penn's views, cited to an op-ed column by Penn himself. I do not think Penn's opinions are sufficiently noteworthy to include at all, let along in an entire paragraph. The "Reactions" section is already quite long, and it includes only the reactions of (1) elected officials; (2) people with some connection to the case (Steele's former colleagues, Fusion GPS people); (3) Russian authorities; (4) very prominent journalists (Mayer, Woodward, Bernstein); and (5) former U.S. intelligence officials. We don't include random pundits and pollsters and we shouldn't start to do so, as that would lead to a bloated section. Neutralitytalk 04:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If you read through the "Reactions" section it is overwhelmingly biased in one direction (i.e. in the direction that the dossier is legitimate). For this reason alone, as well as WP:WEIGHT, the Mark Penn info should be added into the article. Also you mention "very prominent" journalists, then falsely label Penn a "random pollster". Penn is not a random pollster - he is a prominent political advisor and pollster who has worked for both of the Clintons for many years and even advised Hillary in her 2008 campaign for president. This more than justifies including his reaction in the "Reactions" section. Please re-insert it ASAP; the paragraph should not have been removed in the first place. PZP-003 (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I Agree. Penn is a hired gun. A bigtime corporate Public Relations operative with no reputation for expertise other than POV-pushing and media manipulation -- both skills he's honed to a very high level of competence, but neither of which serves our readers with expert evaluation.  SPECIFICO talk 16:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Neutrality on this. Penn's opinion is not particularly noteworthy. - MrX 🖋 16:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Of course you do....
 * Notice how the two users above just attack the messenger and conveniently dismiss any of the reasoning for including Penn's statement in the article. You can smear him again the same way you smear any reputable person that you disagree with as a "hired gun" and a "PR operative with no reputation" but the thing is he worked for Hillary Clinton on her 2008 presidential campaign. Even if the things you say about Penn are true, the fact remains he worked for many years in politics and also worked for a long time with both of the Clintons. Oh and I forgot to mention he also worked at Microsoft as a senior executive so I'm sure he must be very fringe conspiracy nut type of guy. PZP-003 (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You're misrepresenting the reason he's no good. He does have a sterling reputation -- as an advocate not an expert. PR is great for politicians not so much for encyclopedias.  SPECIFICO talk 20:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * You are hilarious...you always have a conveniently tricky rebuttal for any user who adds RS/NPOV information that you disagree with into an article. FFS more than half of the people quoted in this article could be considered "advocates"...but of course you won't complain about them. PZP-003 (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so the purported rationale for rejecting this op-ed is ... because it's an op-ed? Meanwhile the article is littered with low-quality opinion blog sourcing. Fact checker _ at your service 16:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Revert needed. Two separate investigations are explained.
In restoring the original content, I inadvertently violated the 1RR DS rule, so I have self-reverted and now started this discussion.

Either Blindman25 can self-revert, or we need a consensus to revert their two deletions of necessary content. Blindman25 didn't seem to have read more than a few words before deleting content. The content explains about the previous investigation.

My edit summary: "Read the lede and the history section. There was preceding opposition research, and it is frequently discussed/confused in connection with the dossier, hence we must cover it."

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Blindman25, please self-revert so we can move forward. Also read the section below. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Pinging Blindman25. See also below. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Splitting prehistory into own section
The immediately preceding section describes a situation where lack of understanding about the two phases of opposition research has caused confusion. Since this isn't the first time it's happened, part of the fault may also be in our wording, so I'm considering splitting the GOP research into its own section. It is the prehistory to the dossier. This type of confusion should not happen. Feel free to make suggestions, offer constructive criticism, and propose improvements.

Each section mostly uses the exact same wordings, information, format, and sources as currently in the history section, with minor tweaks to their introductions for flow. For example, wikilinks have been moved to their first mentions, which are now in the new introductory sentence(s).

I know that this may seem like painting by numbers, but it should prevent re occurrences of the misunderstandings we've seen. The headings make the two phases very clear. Minor tweaks may need to be made to the lead.

Blindman25 and MelanieN, what do you think? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree There's widespread public confusion about this matter, and it's being used by conspiracy theorists to conspiricize. THEREFORE, I endorse this proposed edit.  SPECIFICO talk 13:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Wholeheartedly support - This subject needs to be carefully delineated for our readers.- MrX 🖋 13:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As written at least, I think there is value in a history section just not this exact wording. A few points, there is a false equivalency on the funding. By stating it was funded by republicans in general it gives the impression that the RNC was involved unlike with the democrats were the DNC was actually involved. A person that donates to republicans is not the same as republican officials, at least in this situation. PackMecEng (talk) 14:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * PackMecEng, you make a good point, so I have tweaked it. I was trying to keep the intro very basic and leave the details for each section. I'd still like to do that, but am not sure how. Is there a better way to keep it simpler, without creating that false equivalence? Take a look and share your opinion. Pinging SPECIFICO and MrX. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the revision is fine and should address PackMecEng's concerns.- MrX 🖋 16:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I think this idea makes sense, although you go to probably excessive lengths to spell out, and spell out again, the distinction between the two. Surely you could eliminate the redundancy and say things just once? (For starters, your introductory paragraph could just say "The first phase was sponsored by Republicans and the second by Democrats.") Also, there are some problems with your wording about who sponsored the research. "Republican sympathizers" is completely uninformative and vague; sympathizers with who? Better wording might be something like "sponsored by a wealthy Republican donor who ordered opposition research on Trump because he favored another candidate during the Republican primary." ("and other candidates"? Is that for real? Up to now I have only heard that it was research about Trump.) And that wording would explain why he stopped funding it when the primary was effectively settled. Also, the second phase was not sponsored directly by "the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Clinton presidential campaign," even though you say it twice. It was ordered and paid for by an attorney who was the counsel to both those organizations. Still a connection, but not the direct connection you are making, and accuracy matters in this kind of statement. --MelanieN (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * MelanieN, I have simplified the first lead by not even mentioning the identities of the two different sponsors.
 * The source does mention that the opposition research was on Trump and several other Republican candidates. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * MelanieN, I see that my continued tweaking after getting suggestions has created some confusion. I suggest you look at the original version and then you'll see the suggestions and the changes they inspired. It's only a few edits.
 * You'll see that at least one of your suggestions was in the original. I wanted to keep the initial introduction super short. By adding more detail, I end up duplicating some content further down. I'd like to get back to a shorter version that isn't complete duplication.
 * Your point about accuracy and the role of Marc Elias is important. I'll take a look at doing something about that. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well no, that is not actually correct. Yes the lawyer for the DNC and Clinton campain paid the money. But what the sources are saying that it was at the DNC/Clinton direction on their behalf. NY Times"Fusion GPS was hired on behalf of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign and the D.N.C. by their law firm, Perkins Coie" and Washington Post "The Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund research that resulted in a now-famous dossier". They mention the law firm, but only as an extension of those two. PackMecEng (talk) 03:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support, taking MelanieN's suggestions into account. The distinction is important. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the Steele dossier was not done in "two phases" - please stop trying to make it appear that way. See the AP correction here: The Associated Press erroneously reported that a former British spy’s work on an opposition research project was initially funded by the conservative Washington Free Beacon. The correction reads: Steele was working for Fusion GPS, a firm initially hired by the conservative Washington Free Beacon to do opposition research on Trump. Steele didn’t begin work on the project until after Democratic groups took over the funding. It may be that most of the cited sources used the original AP report, not the corrected one dated Feb 3, 2018. Atsme 📞📧 17:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Adding - The NYTimes reported what Matthew Continetti (Beacon's editor) and Michael Goldfarb (chairman) said in a statement about the dossier: “All of the work that Fusion GPS provided to The Free Beacon was based on public sources, and none of the work product that The Free Beacon received appears in the Steele dossier,” they said. “The Free Beacon had no knowledge of or connection to the Steele dossier, did not pay for the dossier, and never had contact with, knowledge of, or provided payment for any work performed by Christopher Steele.” Please get the facts straight. Atsme 📞📧 17:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Atsme, this is ancient history and long since resolved on March 31. You really should read and understand the content before commenting. What part of our content implies that "the Steele dossier was" done "in two phases"? We resolved that common confusion a long time ago. Here's what's there now: "There were two phases of political opposition research performed against Trump, both using the services of Fusion GPS, but with completely separate funders. Only the second phase produced the Steele dossier." I hope that's plain enough. BTW, we already use that source, and quote part of it, but we could include more. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no need for this material to be complicated. Just take a look at the time wasted trying to explain why the Beacon research has absolutely nothing to do with the Steele dossier - there are not two phases, which appears to be what you refuse to accept as factual information. Are you saying you do or do not agree with the latter? The Beacon info is irrelevant to this article which is about the Steele dossier - nothing more need be said. The NYTimes article I cited above explains the disconnect unequivocally, and the AP correction even refers to the attempt to connect the two as "erroneous". If the latter was ancient history (I hardly consider Feb 2018 ancient), we would not be having this discussion. The AP report may have been largely responsible for the error (reprints in other RS) because they are a news wire service. The question now is why should WP perpetuate that error and prolong the confusion by connecting the two in such a faulty manner?  Bottomline - THERE WERE NOT TWO PHASES - such a statement is erroneous and misleading. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 19:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's no longer complicated, but it was. You need to go back and read "why" it was necessary to retain mention of the role of the Free Beacon. Then we all worked together (without you) and developed a solution, one which has worked fine. You are the only one who has come along and objected to a thread that should have been archived because the problem is solved, and the content works. You are the only one who objects, because you haven't done due diligence and read the whole thread and the actual content. You've been discussing old content. That is quite evident because you started by attacking a straw man: "the Steele dossier was not done in "two phases"...". Well, that's true, and the article no longer gives that impression because we dealt with it (without you) to clear up that common misunderstanding, and we did it by erecting a wall between the two phases of opposition research (NOT two phases of Steele research). Our wording is clear. Yet, you still press on with "there are not two phases" and even shouting "THERE WERE NOT TWO PHASES". Well, that's true when referring to the Steele dossier, but we aren't referring to it, but to opposition research performed by Fusion GPS against Trump . Our existing wording is clear and unambiguous. If you persist in your IDHT refusal to understand it, that's on you. You're attacking a problem which no longer exists, and hasn't since March 31. This discussion reminds me of a recent tweet by Dara Lind: "Is there, like, a German noun for the phenomenon by which a person with less information rejects the proposal from those with more information, then, as he gains information, reinvents that proposal? 11:02 AM - 12 Apr 2018." Is there? In English we have the expression "moving the goalposts", but I'm not sure that's an exact fit. WP:IDHT does fit. I'm done here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

If you would bother to read the whole thread, from above AND below, you'd discover the next to the last post: You can read my final response to her at the bottom. That marked the end of a nice example of collaborative editing with many editors involved. You were not part of it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry I've been kind of out of touch. This version looks fine. BR, I really appreciate your efforts to get consensus on a wording and the way you work with people's suggestions before putting anything in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Atsme, your complaints have not fallen on deaf ears; I have created a whole paragraph just for you. I hope that we can now close this thread. Enjoy! -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Reboot

 * Original version (not exactly the same as above)


 * Okay, here's another try, with the hope it fixes some of the lacks mentioned above.
 * BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion
Pinging: Blindman25, MelanieN, SPECIFICO, MrX, PackMecEng, K.e.coffman. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Pinging: Blindman25, MelanieN, SPECIFICO, PackMecEng, K.e.coffman. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * It looks fine to me.- MrX 🖋 14:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks good here as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the section titles should just be "Research funded by The Washington Free Beacon", and "Dossier research funded by Marc Elias" or "Research funded by Republican lawyer Marc Elias". There's really no need to mask these entities as "conservative website" or "Republicans" in the section titles. FallingGravity 06:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ?? This does the opposite of masking the funders. It shows the contrast between them. Both sides were doing the same thing--opposition research on Trump, and the difference--their affiliations--is a defining and significant enough detail that it deserves to be in the headings, IMO. BTW, it's Democrat lawyer Marc Elias. No doubt a typo. Let's see what others think. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * In the interests of moving forward, I'm going to install this version unless someone raises more objections or has more suggestions for improvement. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * MelanieN, I'm wondering if it would be problematic, as far as the DS restriction goes, to go ahead and revert the changes by Blindman25:
 * He's been pinged repeatedly, but doesn't seem to care much for the proceedings here. Since his changes were based on misunderstandings, rather than truly a protest or challenge, I don't think the DS terms really apply in this case, but I don't want to get in trouble. What's the right thing to do? Having progress blocked by a technicality that may not apply is a problem that may best be solved by IAR. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ here. It can easily be reverted. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Now the lead has been tweaked to harmonize better with the new content. Hopefully this will prevent any confusion in the future. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I've been kind of out of touch. This version looks fine. BR, I really appreciate your efforts to get consensus on a wording and the way you work with people's suggestions before putting anything in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's the way I prefer to work. "The best content is developed through civil collaboration between editors who hold opposing points of view." (From WP:NEUTRALEDITOR .) We need each other. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

GA candidate

 * Withdrawn -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I think this article is getting better all the time. Considering the notability and significance of the topic, it deserves to be a Featured Article, but I'm inexperienced in producing them. The dossier is "one of the most explosive documents in modern political history..." -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting suggestion. First we would have to get it certified as a WP:Good article, and that would take some work. It's currently rated as C-class, which is obviously too low. Here are the criteria for a Good Article. The main one we would have to look out for is stability, which primarily means an absence of edit warring. If you are interested in nominating it for Good Article, I would be willing to help get it there. --MelanieN (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * MelanieN, the idea was just an impulse, but do you think there is a realistic possibility for a GA? An evaluation would give us some important and constructive criticism. Should we give it a try? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The times in the past I have worked toward a GA (and I haven't done it very often) I found it resulted in a much improved article. Especially when more than one person was working on it. Some GA reviewers are very detailed and specific in their suggestions. Some others (especially when there is some kind of GA contest going on) say "check, check, check, good to go." I would rather have one of the reviewers that really get into how to fix the article, which can mean a lot of work for the rest of us but can be a source of pride when we are done. Yeah, if you want to nominate it, go ahead. If it doesn't quickfail for some reason, we'll have a real project to improve the encyclopedia. --MelanieN (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'd rather get good criticism which improves the article, than just slide by. The better the article is, the more stable it will be. I love to see my content so stable that after 15 years (I've been here since 2003) it's still there, right in some of our most important policies. I must have gotten something right! I'll go ahead and nominate it for GA status. Even if it never makes it to FA, this will be an improvement. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * MelanieN, may I add you as a co-nominator? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure they even do that - this isn't exactly RfA - but sure, if you want. I suspect we may rope in a few more of the regulars here too. It took four of us to bring San Diego to GA status. At that time it was the largest U.S. city to become a GA. --MelanieN (talk) 02:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thinking this is GA material is living in an alternate reality.Phmoreno (talk) 03:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you willing to help? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Possibly.Phmoreno (talk) 03:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Good! We can all work together. We each come with different backgrounds and viewpoints, and thus we can help each other see things from angles we otherwise might not see. This is good. Right now, working with what we already have, there is plenty of room for good copy editing in the form of better phrasing, flow, etc. MelanieD has just done some very nice work. If we find some new RS that can be used, let's bring that to the table. Even in the sources we already use, there may be jewels worth using. Although the dossier is finished, the investigation is ongoing and will no doubt bring forth new revelations. Those that are related to the dossier will also need to be documented. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I see that you and User:Mandruss have been doing a lot of cleanup on the citations. Great! That is exactly the kind of collaborative work that is needed to improve the article - and if Good Article status is the goal it gives us a reason to do it. --MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no. The biggest problem here isn't messy citations, it's article ownership.  Fact checker _ at your service  16:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, but a serious accusation made without evidence. Please provide diffs or withdraw the slur. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I hereby formally withdraw it. Now that we can see there's no need to go marching off to AN/I, could you trouble yourself to respond to my comments below?  Fact checker _ at your service  21:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

On thinking over all the discussions we have been having lately about ways to improve the article, I think we should withdraw the GA nomination as premature. If we do all the things we have been talking about, there will be multiple edits to the article every day and it might not meet the criterion of "stability". I do think we should have the article in the best shape we can before we nominate it. What do you think? --MelanieN (talk) 01:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , I tend to agree. Will do. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll get to work on the introduction to the "allegations" section. --MelanieN (talk) 03:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * MelanieN, I made a lot of changes today, mostly rearranging content after chronology and subject matter. In the process, I found some oddly placed content relevant to the allegations and placed it in the section-lede area before the list starts, for lack of a better place. We may want to create a section for such material and shorten that section-lede. Take a look. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Research funded by Democrats produces dossier
Hi Factchecker atyourservice, and welcome here. I hope we can establish a constructive collaboration to improve the article. That is always welcome. I've been away, so it's first now I can reply to your concerns. As you may have noticed, Mandruss and I have made a whole lot of very small copy edits to improve some details. There are actually several other editors who come by here occasionally. No one owns this article, and admin MelanieN often adds her wisdom and experience to the efforts here.

I see you reverted my change to the section, and you deserve to know why I made my changes in the first place. Let's seek to develop a consensus version, because I don't have any magical powers here; I don't always get it right, and it's best to work together. This was the only recent edit that had any real possibility of being controversial, and you noticed it. Good for you. It's best to iron out such things now so that an improved version will still be here in 20 years time. I love stable content.

For reference purposes, here are the versions:


 * Original version (right before I changed it). It is also the version you restored, with the edit summary: ''"Rv prose change that reduced clarity, e.g. by using term "legal firewall" without explaining what


 * My version
 * Edit summary: "placing funders at top, and leaving out all the detail about Elias."

As you'll see from my edit summary, my main aim was to literally reverse the order in the paragraph, and then to reduce the amount of unnecessary detail about Elias. His article provides those details. I did this to harmonize and follow the style used in the previous paragraph, where the funders are named immediately, not at the end. After re-reading the paragraph several times, it dawned on me that it could appear a bit devious to use a different order. There is no good reason to hide the funders until the end. I don't know if you see that as a logical thing to do.

That I also copied the "legal firewall" term from further down was just a logical thought, at least to me. It seemed like a good place to introduce the language, and leave the explanatory details for further down, where they are located. I tried to find a wikilink for the term, but wasn't able to find one. Do you know of one?

I could be wrong, but it appears that two things happened here, but you only addressed one. You reverted my (1) reversal of the order, and also objected ("reduced clarity" mentioned in the edit summary) to my (2) addition of the "legal firewall" words.

1. Does the reversal make any sense? Would it be okay if we just left out the "legal firewall" words? That would increase the "clarity".

2. What about those two words? Is this a good place to introduce them, or could it be done better?

BTW, I'm cognizant of your other comments, but would rather work on this content first and establish a good working relationship before dealing with some of your other concerns. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Golly. Yes, the source of my concern was "legal firewall" which I think we should leave out, because most publications I'm aware of didn't describe the issue this way, but also because it could mean a lot of things, ranging from "guy whose  goals, actions, methods and general activity were completely unknown to the other party" to "proxy for the other party who put his name on official documents so the other party didn't have to".  The Federal Election Commission has rules for when certain campaign activities can be funded in excess of normal spending limits under the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 11, Chapter I, Subchapter A, Part 109, Subpart C, due to the establishment of a "firewall" restricting communications about the candidate or political party’s plans, projects, activities or needs, thereby theoretically preventing coordination, and it appears from campaign stuff that this was Elias's role, but NY Mag doesn't go into any detail that I saw, doesn't say if they meant he was a formal firewall in the FEC sense, and no other RS that I saw used this terminology at all.  It's a little dense and more detailed than is customary for a WP article but if you wanted to look for sourcing I don't see the harm.  Fact checker _ at your service  04:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay. I see what you mean. (It really is complicated.) I have absolutely no problem with not using the term there. How about the reversed order? Would it be okay, as long as those two words are left out? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. Fact checker _ at your service  05:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Good. A pleasure doing business with you. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I am glad for the psychic pleasure that you have derived from spending so much time and verbiage to make such an inconsequential change. May I politely suggest that we all—both of us, and the WP audience in general—would have been better served if you had just accepted my revert rather than disputing it, and instead focused your energy and attention on the actually serious problems I identified before we began this lengthy discussion about the term "legal firewall" and whether it should be used without any explanation?
 * In answering, please take into account the very significant psychic displeasure that I have derived from patiently explicating a major problem with this article, only to be met with a glib and unctuous discussion of pointless trivia. I'm glad you were so feverishly cooperative on this unimportant matter and I hope this trend will continue as we move on to expeditiously correct those other previously identified issues that are not unimportant.  However I earnestly hope it will proceed at a rate faster than 1 word of article prose changed for every 6 hours and 500 words of discussion.  Fact checker _ at your service  18:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Cohen sued BuzzFeed
Content which was first added with this edit has been removed by Hijiri88, with this edit summary: Here's the content:
 * "Removed close paraphrasing from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-10/trump-lawyer-cohen-sues-buzzfeed-over-claims-in-russia-dossier There were other issues too: the date was not supported, as the source didn't say "today" or any equivalent, and who "him" refers to (Trump or Cohen) was not clear. Please find another source and rewrite."

At some point in time after its addition, it underwent several changes. Now we need to see if this can be saved, per WP:PRESERVE. Bloomberg News is a RS for this use. The date can understandably cause confusion, because the original publication date was January 9, and it was updated on January 10 (the URL says 2018-01-10. I'm not sure what the official MoS says, but I'd tend to use the original publication date. Here's an (hopefully) improved version:

Hijiri88, is that good enough? (Also, should we use the 9th or 10th as the date?) -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess that works. I was reading the Bloomberg article in light of the Wikipedia text and thought it was ambiguous, but on a re-read it's clearly referring to Cohen. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Copyright problems
This article quotes the dossier in verbatim; in total, the quotes consist of roughly 1,100 words (7,100 characters). Per non-free content criteria policy we are allowed to include few brief excerpts from a non-free source if certain conditions are met, but 1,100 words is obviously excessive. I have not confirmed that all quotes appear in the dossier, but a reasonable assumption is that in cases where the quotes are not attributed in-text, they are pulled from the dossier (please correct me if my calculations are way off). The dossier is not quoted directly but through secondary sources, which is cute, but policywise changes nothing. The dossier is copyrighted work or at least we have no evidence that it is not as the concluded

Few months ago copied parts of the dossier to their userspace draft (and repeated the same violation on this talk page), until copied parts (24,373 bytes) were deleted as copyright violations, so there is also a precedent that extensive quoting is a possible violations of copyrights. (Due to revision deletions, I obviously cannot compare the similarities between the userspace page and this article and I don't think similarities are relevant for this discussion, but the large quantity of non-free material is.)

I would suggest nuking the subsections from "Allegations" section because they consist of low-quality/low-effort content, i.e. list of allegations without commentary, mostly copied from List of Trump–Russia dossier allegations. (I participated the AFD discussion of that article but this copyright problem emerged after the discussion was closed.) Politrukki (talk) 12:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This isn't a new subject, and the AfD to merge the list content to the allegations section here took it into account. This is a fair use question, and the public good justifies liberal use (that's how fair use works), and yet, in spite of that, we've kept it to a minimum here. The total number of words is not the relevant part, but the total number in relation to the original content for each allegation. Read the dossier and you'll see this really is a very small part. The words used are the essential minimum to get the points across.
 * Could this use more paraphrasing, using fewer actual quotes? Possibly so, but due to the critical nature of the subject, accuracy is important, and paraphrasing risks running into accusations of OR, but I'm still open to the idea where possible. I don't know what other editors like MelanieN would think about that.
 * Regardless, the current content has been the subject of an AfD and was accepted by the community, on condition it was merged here. That was done. Politrukki, your deletions violate that community decision. I suggest you restore the content and then start a new thread for each specific instance where we could work on improvements. Such improvement is always welcome.
 * You can safely assume that the parts in quotation marks are originally from the dossier, and are only quoted here because multiple RS have done so. The real world considers those quotes to be fair use. Per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, the nature of this subject matter does make a huge difference: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." (my bolding). Also, denials must be included (that's my tweak to the BLP policy). We have done that in multiple places.
 * So restore the content, and start sections here where we can work on improving the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * BTW, I'm just curious about how you arrived at "1,100 words (7,100 characters)". Did you literally extract each word group with quotation marks? That's a lot of work! -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Basically that's exactly what I did. I used wordcounter.net, BTW. If a different method is used, the results may differ because "words" may be defined differently. Politrukki (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The result of AFD was "no consensus". The result of merge discussion (for some reason unknown to me it was an RFC rather than a "normal" merge discussion) at the list article was "merge", but it did not rule what should be merged. Moreover, I have no idea which edits you are referring to with "that community decision" – diffs please. I don't see that I have deleted anything that was inserted as a result of the merge discussion.
 * You know very well that WP:NFC and NFCCP are much stricter than fair use in the US copyright law, i.e. each inclusion must have justification. For example, if a quotation is provided without any commentary, argument for WP:NFCCP and WP:NFCCP is very weak. The question about "extensive" usage defined in NFC can only be decided case-by-case.
 * You should read the rest of BLP policy. It says that an article cannot be temporarily unbalanced. If reliable sources have significantly commented that an allegation is unsubstantiated/questionable/false/corroborated, all such viewpoints should be included without delay. BLP doesn't say that we must include allegations twice, and it doesn't define what an allegations is, i.e. what kind of granularity is warranted. Politrukki (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The dossier is still a copyrighted work, no matter where or how we use its contents, as was made abundantly clear in the Commons discussion. (Full disclosure: I first nominated the file for deletion on 15 January 2017, per WP:COPYVIO.) Now, BullRangifer has put in a lot of work to summarize the dossier's allegations, but in his expansion efforts has reached a point where excessive contents are quoted. I don't think fair use would apply here, at least not the rather restrictive interpretation of fair use as generally admitted on Wikipedia. — JFG talk 16:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * All of it is in quotes and cited, as required. I would have thought it was important to use the exact words since paraphrasing can distort the meaning. You really think we need to go through and convert the direct quotes into paraphrases? And you really think that will improve the article? --MelanieN (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S. And of course the subsections under allegations are "without commentary", that's the whole point of that section: to make clear exactly what the subject of the article says. All the rest of the article can be commentary. --MelanieN (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not have an easy solution to suggest. Quoting via secondary sources does not remove the copyright issue when quotes are excessive, and paraphrasing risks altering the meaning. My hunch would be to aggressively summarize the dossier's contents, and keep only an overall description of the major groups of allegations. I understand that this approach would run contrary to 's efforts towards giving as much detail as possible, and I don't know what is best for our readers.
 * We cannot just have this debate among a small group of self-selected editors. A first step for broader participation would be to identify the relevant forum to enquire about the appropriate amount of direct quotes that can still be considered fair use. Our WP:Non-free content policy states that brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea, and extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited. I can't find a noticeboard to ask this question; perhaps at WP:Copyright problems? Once this expert advice is taken into account, we can either resolve the issue directly, or call an RfC if there are several solutions to choose from. — JFG talk 08:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have requested guidance at Copyright problems/2018 April 7. — JFG talk 09:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * JFG, that's a good idea. I hope we can find some form of middle ground, because the allegations are quite notable and covered by myriad RS. BTW, all your work is appreciated. This page was getting horribly long. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Media copyright questions is A place for help with image copyrights, tagging, non-free content, and related questions. [emphasis added] I don't know how active that is as a forum, but perhaps it would be a better venue for discussion. Politrukki (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Synthesis about "spy" content?
Politrukki, I'm not challenging your edit, but seeking clarity. You reworked some content based on synthesis concerns, but I'm unsure of your point. In what way did your edit fix this "problem"?

The RS make that synthesis, and we just report it. There is a difference. We actually like it when sources do that. Otherwise, uncontroversial copyediting improvements are always welcome. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The edit removed the highly relevant information that this was regarded by sources as verifying a point from the dossier. I have restored it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's true. The previous revision did not say anything about "key claim" or I would have included it. According to the BBC, the key claim is simply that a Russian diplomat in the Russian embassy was a spy. The BBC does not say that "under surveillance" is part of the allegation. Politrukki (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Good question. Synthesis was inserted by someone who inserted or edited the material. We can break the dossier allegation into multiple parts:
 * (a) There was a diplomat called Kulagin (Kalugin) in Russian embassy.
 * (b) Kalugin was pulled from the embassy.
 * (c) Kalugin was a spy (this was not stated in revision prior to my edit).
 * (d) Kalugin was heavily involved in the meddling operation.
 * (e) The reason for (b) is (c).
 * The BBC has corroborated (a), (b), and (c). McClatchy has corroborated (a) and (b), adding that (d) was being investigated. No reliable source that I know of has directly corroborated (d) or (e). The BBC did not make a leap from (a) to (e) as "this actually happened" implies. Neither did The Guardian, which reported that (a), (b), and (c) have been corroborated and (d) was being investigated, but saying "The allegation seems to be confirmed". Politrukki (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that "he was pulled from the embassy" is verified, but why he was recalled is not verified? Even if it isn't, the fact that he was removed is verified, and so is the fact that the U.S. believed him to be a spy. The dossier information doesn't have to be verified in all particulars to be verified in some of them. And nothing says that WASN'T the reason, just that we don't know the Russians' thinking. So I restored "verified" (in quotes, just as the BBC had it). --MelanieN (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The dossier says "withdrawn from Washington at short notice". The BBC says K "had gone home". The Guardian: "he had left the embassy". McClatchy: "left the country ... he departed". So, to be exact, the dossier allegation "withdrawn ... at short notice" has not been corroborated by reliable sources. K told McClatchy that "his return to Russia had been planned and widely known for at least six months before he departed". That has not been disputed.
 * If an allegation consists of sub-allegations, we must not imply that the allegation as a whole has been verified, unless all sub-allegations have been verified. I have no problem with boldly adding "verified" as long as that word is attached to a claim that verily is verifiable. Politrukki (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The important thing is the assertion by the dossier that he (apparently an innocuous embassy aide) was actually a spy. And that's what the Americans verified. --MelanieN (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

More removed information
Politrukki, you removed two paragraphs at the beginning of the allegations section. Yes, they were unsourced, but they were not controversial; they were like the lead of an article, summarizing the content below. Since that was not an article but a section, maybe it was inappropriate to have a "lead". (It probably was the lead of the merged article.) But I think it was important to summarize for the reader. If you think it needs to be sourced, I will re-add it with sources. --MelanieN (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is that deleted content:


 * As a type of lead for the following section, it doesn't need refs, but if challenged, it probably should have them. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Immediately before that deletion, this last sentence of the content above was deleted:


 * The edit summary was "removing unsourced and possibly unverifiable content". I'm not sure why, but maybe User:Politrukki hasn't actually read or accessed the dossier? It's a relatively short document. A quick search doesn't turn up the word "collusion" or "collude", but does turn up the quote, a very notable one quoted in many RS. At worst, the first part is a bit of easily falsifiable OR, and could be deleted on that basis, but not on the basis in the edit summary. Both aspects of the sentence are very easily verifiable. The only reason I added that (and I remember doing it), was because myriad RS falsely claim the dossier makes charges of "collusion", when it doesn't do it a single time, so I felt a clarification was in order. RS should be more precise, but they are all sloppy on this point. There is a RS which commented on this, but for the life of me I can't find it. I should have saved it. They made the point that collusion isn't necessarily illegal, but conspiracy is, and that's what a member of the conspiracy (a close associate of Trump's) told Steele's source(s). They used the word "conspiracy" to describe their own actions. Collusion which uses secrecy to carry out illegal actions is more accurately defined as a "conspiracy". The evidence is openly manifested in numerous statements and omissions which are shown to be lies covering up secret meetings and actions. Hmmm....where have we seen that type of thing happening? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not. This. Again. Please do not conduct original research. If numerous reliable sources allegedly "falsely claim" something (and if there's no reliable source that alleges that reliable sources are "falsely claiming"), we go with the reliable sources. Please read the essay Verifiability, not truth. Thanks. Politrukki (talk) 05:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the talk page, and there is no "if" about it. You fail to realize that we're dealing with two things: (1) what the dossier actually says (the incontrovertible fact that it only speaks of "conspiracy", and never uses the words "collusion" or "collude", or any other form of the word; and (2) that myriad RS claim the dossier alleges "collusion". (You do know that.) Any search turns up "collusion" far more than "conspiracy", so RS are being sloppy.
 * Can you at least admit that both 1 & 2 are true? I'm not trying to make any other point than that. (If you can't see that, then you haven't done due diligence by reading the dossier or the RS, so you're speaking from ignorance, and that's just plain embarrassing. (In fact, you don't have to read the dossier. Just search it. A Google search takes a few seconds.) It won't make any difference in the article, but in a court of law it can make a difference, because words have meanings.
 * In this article, it won't be dealt with until I can find that source which made the point, or until someone else finds it.
 * In Mueller's investigation, it's entirely possible that convictions will be based on criminal collusion, which is just another way of saying "conspiracy". That's why collusion may or may not be illegal, but conspiracy always involves crime or wrongdoing. We may end up seeing both words used in court. So far there has been at least one conviction, using, among other charges, "conspiracy against the United States": Over 100 Charges, 19 People and 3 Companies: The Mueller Inquiry, Explained -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 07:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I take your word that the dossier does not say "collusion". The charge for "conspiracy against the United States" is very interesting indeed when there is no such offense, as former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy points out: As I pointed out when Mueller first indicted Manafort and Gates, there is no such offense in federal law as 'conspiracy against the United States'. Politrukki (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Your source appears to be nitpicking to undermine Mueller. Here's our article:


 * Considering the source is the National Review, a hyper-partisan conservative/right-wing source, that makes sense. Their spin will defend Trump and ignore contrary evidence. (Otherwise it can be a good source for right-wing opinions.) I would contend that Mueller is no amateur, and he's assembled what is arguably the best prosecutorial team in American history. They don't make that type of mistake. It seems to be an umbrella term which allows for several very serious charges to be made, and that's why we'll see multiple Federal charges in the end. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that Mueller concocted a charge based on a Wikipedia article? Not only would that be outré, but it is also easily verifiable that the article Conspiracy against the United States did not exist before Mueller's indictments. What the heck is allgeneralizationsarefalse.com, who is Vanessa, and what has that site to do with McCarthy's article, which is not mentioned in your source? Rest of you reply is just soapboxing. Politrukki (talk) 12:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If the standard is "likely to be challenged", the material was controversial, and any such material must always have inline citations. It seems that you wrote the material, and then it was copied to this article. If you want to include this material, with proper sourcing, be my guest. Since it was you who wrote the material, you have a major advantage as you need to do a lot less guessing what the author of the material was thinking. Politrukki (talk) 05:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I had forgotten that. When I wrote it, it WAS the lede of an article, thus it summarized the contents without the need of citations. I do think such a summary would be useful before getting into the detailed allegations. I will work on restoring it with proper citations. It will take me a little while. --MelanieN (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * MelanieN, rather than keeping it as is, but adding a lot of refs, I wonder if it might be better to write a more general summary, rather than so detailed. Maybe the current subheadings could provide the framework. The details are in the allegations themselves. That way only a few refs would be necessary. We don't want too much duplication. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Capitalized last names
The author of the dossier capitalized last names to help readers of a lengthy document easily scan it to find relevant individuals. This is a common technique in lengthy professional documents such as legal and policy briefs (and intelligence documents). The capitalization has been carried over into the Wikipedia article. The capitalization can be retained with making the Wikipedia article easier to read, a technique commonly used throughout Wikipedia. Compare:
 * Style 1: The "Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years. Aim, endorsed by PUTIN

vs
 * Style 2: The "Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting for at least 5 years. Aim, endorsed by

Both styles use capitalization, the only difference is font size. With selected quotes from the dossier there is no benefit to having style 1, but there is a benefit to having style 2. It does not run afoul of MOS:PMC because capitalization is retained in style 2. An attempt was made to implement but was reverted and now discussed. -- Green  C  22:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I was the one who reverted. I think it distorts the material - it's not a style that would ever have been used in the original. And the way I read the style guidelines for quotations, we are not supposed to change things like spelling and capitalization. I'm open to discussion/correction from those who are more familiar with MOS than I am. --MelanieN (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * First, I disagree that the smallcaps style is easier to read. Second, I disagree that the only difference is font sizeunlike the original, the smallcaps style uses a different size for the first letter and that's more than a font size change. It also introduces font changes mid-sentence, and a case can be made that that's unnecessarily distracting. I think it's unlikely that MOS addresses this specifically, and on balance I currently oppose the changes. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see a change as an improvement. The MoS primarily focuses on shouting and allcaps in headlines, but this situation is different. It only uses single words (just last names), often in the middle of sentences. Here's an example of one of the allegations:
 * "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."
 * That's quite readable, and the capitalization serves its purpose well. It makes it easier for the reader of the dossier to scan the page for relevant names. I don't see how single words are problematic, at least in this instance. This isn't an example of shouting. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Very simple: leave full caps when quoting the dossier verbatim, otherwise use normal wiki style. Do not use the small caps trick. In all the excerpts I have summarized below I did not once have to quote a name verbatim from the dossier. Look ma, no caps. — JFG talk 00:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * leave full caps when quoting the dossier verbatim, otherwise use normal wiki style. Unless I misunderstood, there is no disagreement on that point. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I didn't read every last comment, but it seems we all agree. — JFG talk 01:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. That's it. Only do it when quoting. That is now very few times. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Allegations to shorten
I have succeeded in significantly shortening the quotes in several allegations, but here are some allegations I'm having difficulty shortening. I believe that some should remain as is, the wording is that important, but others may see this differently. A combination of paraphrasing and shorter quotes might work. Each can be discussed and revised in its own section. Go for it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I have suggested much shorter prose below. There is a lot of fluff in Steele's writing style. Cutting it down to the essential points is very easy. — JFG talk 00:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Excellent! This effort should resolve the copyvio objections. As long as the main points are made, we're good. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe the essential points are preserved, and possibly expressed more clearly than in spy-speak. Should I start putting the short versions in the article? — JFG talk 01:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I hadn't seen this comment. Yes, you've already done it, and it's much better now. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow! A whole lot has been accomplished today, thanks to great teamwork. There is only one item left, and User:MelanieN has been pinged about that. This quote (see image), from one of my essays, sums up what we've been doing, and I hope we can continue in this spirit. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have settled the suggestion by Melanie. We're all done for today. Yay! — JFG talk 06:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Awesome! -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 07:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Viewed as divisive

 * That "TRUMP was viewed as divisive in disrupting the whole US political system; anti-Establishment; and a pragmatist with whom they could do business. As the TRUMP support operation had gained momentum, control of it had passed from the MFA to the FSB and then into the presidential administration where it remained, a reflection of its growing significance over time. There was still a view in the Kremlin that TRUMP would continue as a (divisive) political force even if he lost the presidency and may run for and be elected to another public office."  (Dossier, p. 29)
 * Agree, that was too long a quote. How about this: That "TRUMP was viewed as divisive in disrupting the whole US political system" and as "anti-Establishment", but also as a pragmatist the Russians could work with. Even if he lost the election, they believed he would continue to be a political force in the country and might run for office again. The operation to support him was originally handled by the MFA, then the FSB, and finally the Russian presidential administration itself because of its "growing significance over time." --MelanieN (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, wait - has this already been shortened? The quote above is not what is in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's all there...in the "Kremlin pro-Trump and anti-Clinton" subsection. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * OIC. I was confused because part of this same quote is also used in the "Cultivation, conspiracy, and cooperation" section. Do we need it both places? Anyhow, feel free to tweak my paraphrases as you wish, and to insert them into the article if you think they work. --MelanieN (talk) 00:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * OMG! Good catch. That belongs in the "Cultivation..." section, but your paraphrase and shortening should be combined with the content there, so much of this may be unnecessary. I'll also move the refs and add the Dossier page number. That may do it. It doesn't even belong where it is, and I don't know how that happened. There are a couple items in the "Cultivation..." section which actually belong here instead. They clearly fit. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I found two more phrases which speak to the point of pro-Trump, anti-Clinton and placed them there. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Shorter yet: That Trump was a "divisive" and "anti-Establishment" candidate, as well as "a pragmatist with whom they could do business". That support for Trump expanded over time beyond the MFA and FSB, and eventually reached the Russian presidency. That Trump would remain a divisive force even if not elected. — JFG talk 00:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Nice! -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ — JFG talk 02:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Merging sandbox

 * From "Cultivation..." section:
 * That Putin's "aim" with supporting Trump was "to encourage splits and divisions in western alliance," and "sow discord and disunity both within the US itself" and "within the Transatlantic alliance which was viewed as inimical to Russia's interests."    (Dossier, p. 1-2)
 * That Putin aimed to spread "discord and disunity" within the United States and between Western allies, whom he saw as a threat to Russia's interests. — JFG talk 01:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ — JFG talk 02:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * From "Kremlin pro-Trump and anti-Clinton" section:


 * That "TRUMP was viewed as divisive in disrupting the whole US political system" and as "anti-Establishment", but also as a pragmatist the Russians could work with. Even if he lost the election, they believed he would continue to be a political force in the country and might run for office again. The operation to support him was originally handled by the MFA, then the FSB, and finally the Russian presidential administration itself because of its "growing significance over time."  (Dossier, p. 29) --MelanieN


 * That Trump was a "divisive" and "anti-Establishment" candidate, as well as "a pragmatist with whom they could do business". That support for Trump expanded over time beyond the MFA and FSB, and eventually reached the Russian presidency. That Trump would remain a divisive force even if not elected.  (Dossier, p. 29) — JFG

Now merge that. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? Do you want somebody to suggest a single paragraph combining the "Cultivation" blurb with this one? — JFG talk 00:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Yes, something like that, if it makes sense. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure they should be merged, because the "Cultivation" part is from the early memos of the dossier, whereas the "divisive even if not elected" part is from the later memos, several months later. But I'll give you a short version of the above section. — JFG talk 01:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * JFG, you're good. That's an excellent point. The "cultivation" aspect was strong in the beginning, and the "co-operation" part continued from there. Keep up the good work. You've made some very good changes. We need to add a "done" template for each section as it's done. Would you help with that? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Now I see you're way ahead of me. Good going. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ — JFG talk 02:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

JFG, did the merge issue above get solved? ("Not sure they should be merged,").. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes it was solved. I simplified both items and kept them separate, but in the right order (first Putin's goals of sowing discord, then Trump matching those needs as a divisive candidate.) – I must say if Putin's goal was to wreck America's unity, he succeeded beyond his wildest dreams.
 * Surely you meant od for outdenting, not os for Ossetic language, although sometimes I wonder what tongue we are trying to parse here. — JFG talk 04:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * LOL. Yes, I meant "od". -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed this: That support for Trump expanded over time beyond the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Federal Security Service (FSB), and eventually reached the Russian presidency. I don't think that correctly reflects the original. It wasn't "support for Trump," it was "the support system for the Trump operation." And as I read it, the system didn't expand to encompass all three named offices; it was passed up the line from the MFA to the FSB to the presidential office. Here's a slight tweak of my original proposal: "Support for the Kremlin's Trump operation was originally handled by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), then the Federal Security Service (FSB), and finally the Russian presidential administration itself because of its "growing significance over time." I still like that better. Or maybe JFG can come up with a shorter version that reflects the original meaning better. --MelanieN (talk) 04:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Eagle-eyed strikes again, kudos! Your update looks great; feel free to insert it in the article. — JFG talk 04:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Good catch. You're right. MelanieN, go ahead and install that version. Peskov probably sits on it for Putin, just as he does with the Clinton dossier. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like Melanie is away. I have amended the sentence. ✅ — JFG talk 06:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Unorthodox behavior

 * That "TRUMP's unorthodox behavior in Russia over the years had provided the authorities there with enough embarrassing material on the now Republican presidential candidate to be able to blackmail him if they so wished."  (Dossier, p. 2)
 * That because of "TRUMP's unorthodox behavior in Russia over the years", the Russians had a collection of "embarrassing material" which they could use to blackmail him if they wished. --MelanieN (talk) 23:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Shorter yet: That Trump was susceptible to blackmail due to his "unorthodox behavior in Russia". — JFG talk 00:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Very good. I'll put it in. Thanks! -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Activated blackmail threat

 * That "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."  (Dossier, p. 11-12)
 * That the Russians have plenty of 'kompromat' (compromising information) on Trump, but Steele believes they have given their word not to use it as leverage against him because of "high levels of voluntary co-operation" from people associated with Trump, "given how helpful and co-operative his team had been over several years, and particularly of late." --MelanieN (talk) 23:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That the Russians hold substantial compromising information (kompromat) about Trump, but that Trump believed the Kremlin gave its word not to use it against him, as a quid pro quo for the Trump team's helpful and cooperative actions toward Russian interests.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Umm, does the dossier say that TRUMP believed this? My understanding is that it is STEELE's belief. And I object to "quid pro quo", a legal term meaning an explicit agreement. If Steele thought there was an explicit agreement between the parties on this point, I don't think he ever said so. It's very important that in paraphrasing him, we not put words in his mouth. --MelanieN (talk) 00:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * MelanieN, that's a very legitimate question. We must parse this right. This is Steele writing what an "emigre" source reported, so I'll try to rephrase this using the proper identifications:
 * That "Russians apparently have promised [to Trump or his representative(s)] 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 [the emigre source] understood the Kremlin had given its word [to Trump or his representative(s)] 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."
 * Does that make sense? It would be meaningless otherwise. If Trump didn't get that message, then the blackmail threat wouldn't work (IOW, keep up the cooperation or else...), and it was/is working. If so, then we need to work with the content in that light, without OR. If there is any doubt, then use the exact quote. We're already far enough away from any copyvio problems that we could use this full quote. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The words that create confusion are these: "he [the emigre source]". We could just write: "...there was plenty of this," and it was "understood the Kremlin..." -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Shorter yet: That the Kremlin would not use kompromat collected against Trump, "given high levels of voluntary co-operation forthcoming from his team." (The rest is just repetition.) This sentence should be combined with the previous one under a single heading "Blackmail threat". — JFG talk 00:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "...it had collected..." <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 01:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's currently in the only section about that: "Kompromat and blackmail: Trump". -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, but I think verbs benefit from subjects as in "kompromat that it had collected". Up to you. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 02:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * JFG, your version, but with the report that Trump was promised it would not be used. I do fear that tweaking this may introduce OR interpretations. It's hard to avoid, so it may be best to just use it. See my comment to MelanieN above about just using the whole thing. We can do it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Amended following above discussion, to convey that Moscow had purportedly played a mafia protection move against Trump ("it would be a shame to publish this stuff, but as long as you cooperate, we'll keep it in a drawer" -- geez, what a lame spy novel): That the Kremlin had assured Trump they would not use kompromat collected against him, "given high levels of voluntary co-operation forthcoming from his team." Simple, to the point. — JFG talk 01:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Putting that in. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ (so glad you wanted to put it in with me… — JFG talk 02:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

This section now starts with the following text: That kompromat exists on Trump in the form of blackmailable acts of paying bribes and engaging in "perverted sexual acts" in Russia. This is totally redundant with what we say later a lot more precisely about the "golden showers", the "sex in St-Petersburg" and various business bribes in Russia and China. Therefore I move to simply delete this first sentence. Agree? — JFG talk 02:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * JFG, yes, but be careful to keep the refs and keep the page numbers. Go for it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅, but please double-check the page numbers, because you are obviously very familiar with the original document. I read it once when it was first published in January 2017, and can't be bothered to go through this junk again. ("Garbage" is what Bob Woodward called it, iirc.) — JFG talk 02:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

St Petersburg visits

 * That "TRUMP had visited St Petersburg on several occasions in the past and had been interested in doing business deals there involving real estate....[T]hat TRUMP had paid bribes there to further his interests but very discreetly and only through affiliated companies, making it very hard to prove.... [T]hat TRUMP had participated in sex parties in the city too, but that all direct witnesses to this recently had been 'silenced' i.e. bribed or coerced to disappear." (Dossier, p. 27)
 * That Trump had sought real estate deals in St Petersburg and visited the city several times, sometimes paying bribes to promote his interests there, but "very discreetly and only through affiliated companies, making it very hard to prove." Also that he had taken part in sex parties in St Petersburg, but that all witnesses have recently been suborned into silence. --MelanieN (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Shorter yet: That Trump has pursued real estate deals in St Petersburg, and "paid bribes there to further his interests". That Trump had "silenced" witnesses to his "sex parties in the city". — JFG talk 00:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I object, your honor! The dossier does not say that Trump silenced them. It sounds more as if the Kremlin silenced them, through either bribes or coercion. --MelanieN (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Funny, I read it the opposite way. Unless we are missing some context here, the passive phrase "witnesses had been silenced" leaves who did the "silencing" to the imagination of the reader. If that's all we have to work with, we should also use passive voice in the summary. To wit: That witnesses to Trump's "sex parties in the city" had been "silenced". The embedded link is for fun. Do not insert in article space. I repeat: do not insert in article space. This message will self-destruct in five seconds. — JFG talk 00:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * LMAO! Would Carrie Bradshaw object? Samantha Jones wouldn't... . Just sayin' -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As to who allegedly did the "silencing": "i.e. bribed or coerced to disappear". One can only speculate that it was Russians, Trump's representative(s), or both. We don't know. The way that they allegedly dealt with the Romanian hackers (Cohen cleaning up, and both Trump and Putin paying), a joint action isn't impossible, but we can't really use that speculation for anything. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ — JFG talk 02:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

China

 * That Trump's "team were relatively relaxed about" "the negative media publicity surrounding alleged Russian interference in the U.S. election campaign in support of Trump" "because it deflected media and the Democrats' attention away from Trump's business dealings in China and other emerging markets. Unlike in Russia, these were substantial and involved the payment of large bribes and kickbacks which, were they to become public, would be potentially very damaging to their campaign." (Dossier, p. 8)
 * That the people around Trump were not especially bothered by the reports of Russian interference in the election, because the attention to Russia "deflected media and the Democrats' attention away from Trump's business dealings in China and other emerging markets." Those activities allegedly included paying “large bribes and kickbacks which, were they to become public, would be potentially very damaging to their campaign." --MelanieN (talk) 23:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Shorter yet: That Trump associates did not fear "the negative media publicity surrounding alleged Russian interference in the U.S. election campaign", because it distracted attention from his "business dealings in China and other emerging markets", which involved "large bribes and kickbacks" that could be devastating if revealed. — JFG talk 00:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Shall we try this shorter version? I'll put it in. It can always be tweaked. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ — JFG talk 02:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Russian spy withdrawn

 * That a "leading Russian diplomat, Mikhail KULAGIN [sic], had been withdrawn from Washington at short notice because Moscow feared his heavy involvement in the US presidential election operation… would be exposed in the media there." (Dossier, p. 23)
 * That a diplomat at the Russian embassy in Washington, Mikhail Kulagin (misspelled Kalugin in the dossier), had been recalled to Moscow on short notice because he was heavily involved with the Russian interference in the election, and the Kremlin was afraid his activities might be exposed. --MelanieN (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Shorter yet: That Russia had hastily withdrawn from Washington their diplomat Mikhail Kalugin (misspelled as "Kulagin"), whose prominent role in the interference operation should remain hidden. — JFG talk 00:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Both versions resolve the copyvio objections, so going with the longer version. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ — JFG talk 02:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Cultivation of various U.S. political figures

 * That "the Kremlin supporting various US political figures, including funding indirectly their recent visits to Moscow. [The source] named a delegation from Lyndon LAROUCHE; presidential candidate Jill STEIN of the Green Party; TRUMP foreign policy adviser Carter PAGE; and former DIA Director Michael Flynn, in this regard as successful in terms of perceived outcomes." (Dossier, p. 15-16)
 * That the Kremlin had supported various other American politicians and had indirectly funded visits by them to Moscow. The list included Trump campaign associates Carter Page and Michael Flynn; Jill Stein, presidential candidate of the Green Party; and a delegation representing Lyndon Larouche. --MelanieN (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Shorter yet: That the Kremlin had been "supporting various US political figures", had funded Moscow visits by Lyndon Larouche representatives, Jill Stein, Carter Page and Michael Flynn, and was satisfied with the outcome. — JFG talk 00:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ — JFG talk 02:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Gobbledygook: help wanted
Can somebody make sense of this gem?

What the fsck do they mean? I can only summarize text if I understand what the author wanted to say, and he did a poor job there. — JFG talk 02:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * JFG, yes, it sounds a bit awkward, but I've analyzed and discussed this before. It simply means that there were actually a few on the team who had some sense of patriotism (for America). That's the short version. BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * They didn't mind letting Putin and the FSB interfere in the election and use classic Russian misinformation on Americans, at least just enough to help Trump win, but they objected to: seeing Putin, now that he had been given the "keys to the house" (the most sensitive parts of America), tweak the burglar alarm so it would not prevent the FSB from entering anytime they wished; see him enter and steal not just the one object (the election), but go ahead and steal a whole lot more, install monitoring devices; see the FSB install viruses and backdoors in agency computer networks; install his people in key positions in all the departments of government, now that Trump has gotten rid of the leaders (replacing them with plutocrats who are clueless); and set things up so that we can never know how much Putin is controlling us. We really don't know how much has happened, because he's been given the opportunity, and not been blocked.
 * The only solution is to burn it all down and start over again. It's totally infected. If it were a building, that's literally what we'd do, but this is too complicated. We're stuck with a system that is seriously compromised. Which networks are tapped into? Which employees are actually FSB? We don't know, because the Trump administration has prevented attempts to keep this from happening.


 * Yes, that about sums it up. They got pissed off about that. They thought they could lay down with a pig and not get dirty. They thought they could argue with a fool and not get dragged down to his level. They didn't realize that any form of secrecy automatically compromised them and set them up for blackmail. When you give the key to your house to a thief, you can't stop them from stealing more than you want.
 * There are reasons why Obama, Clinton, and previous presidents and American government officials, would never allow themselves to be placed alone with someone like Putin. Never. Trump has done it repeatedly, even in the Oval Office!
 * Even Trump's own lawyers know better than to meet with him alone. They try to always meet with him in pairs, because he will lie to them, and there have to be witnesses. They need to be able to sort things out later. Someone has to keep track of the truth, except Trump. He doesn't care. Even Trump's own lawyers know this stuff. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * To the extent that it focuses on one of the core narratives that underly WP:WEIGHT and other content decisions here, it's not clear to me that this hatted comment is off topic. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, SPECIFICO. Actually BR hatted his "long version" at the same time as he wrote the original post. I agree with the hat, because while the material on topic, it is pretty much an opinion rant. In fact I'm going to hat the rest of his commentary also, for the same reason.--MelanieN (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Funny, I was just about to flag the same sentence as incomprehensible. My main problem is with "anger at what was perceived by Putin as going beyond..." "perceived by Putin?" This says it was PUTIN who perceived going beyond, and in what way does that make the Trump team mad? I think they meant to say "anger over what was perceived AS PUTIN GOING BEYOND.." We can't change Steele's wording, but maybe we can paraphrase it to make sense. --MelanieN (talk) 03:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * How about... That the Trump camp became angry and resentful toward Putin, because they perceived that he had not limited his objectives to weakening Clinton and supporting Trump, but was attempting to undermine the government and the democratic system. --MelanieN (talk) 03:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's awkward, but you have parsed it correctly. Go ahead and add your version. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this interpretation makes sense. I would start from your prose and tweak it this way:
 * I think the last part deserves to be in quotes. — JFG talk 03:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Excellent version. Use that. BTW, we can still quote. Don't be afraid of that. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably shouldn't be in the article because not discussed in RS. One of those little details y'know  Fact checker _ at your service  04:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's one bizarre comment. Seen and ignored. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's one bizarre comment. Seen and ignored. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

✅ — JFG talk 05:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * As an aside what is the sourcing for the "keys to the house" essay above? Can't seem to google it.  Fact checker _ at your service  16:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, just to reiterate this specific claim is not DUE any weight because there's no RS discussion. Fact checker _ at your service  20:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

NPOV issues
This article is nowhere near being ready as a GAC. The multiple NPOV issues have not been addressed, the allegations have not been substantiated, and many other issues mentioned throughout this TP have not been resolved. Sorry, but it is simply not stable enough to be a GAC. <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 📞📧 20:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) The substantiation of the allegations has zero bearing on policy here. We document what RS say. Per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, we should include the allegations, even if they are never substantiated. They are far too notable to ignore.
 * 2) The way you throw around "NPOV" all the time makes it far too vague to be useful. Your understanding often differs from how other editors see it.


 * It's better to get specific about EXACT wordings and suggest improvements. Actually suggest SPECIFIC changes. If you've been watching at all, you will have noticed that such suggestions get a positive and constructive reception, and editors with opposing POV can still collaborate to produce better content. We're sitting at the same negotiation table, working toward the same goal.


 * By contrast, your constant circular arguments and accusations have never been helpful, so try a different approach. Try being part of the team, rather than standing off to the side and throwing rocks at those sitting at the negotiation table, working together to improve things.


 * We know, as you have made plain many times, that you don't think this article should exist. That's not going to happen, so accept it and seek to be helpful. Obstruction and tendentiousness are not the path you want to continue down.


 * I also removed your NPOV tag on the article as "unhelpful. If you get your way, this tag will be permanent, no matter what is changed. Instead, create specific sections on talk and collaborate instead of complaining." -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * You shouldn't have removed the NPOV tag. You have been advised over and over again about the glaring issues with this article, not to mention the fact that it is highly unstable and filled with opinions, unsubstantiated allegations and speculation. Jiminy Cricket, BullRangifer, you might want to update yourself about what's going on with that dossier, - and there are multiple RS that are covering it. Such activity speaks to the validity/stability of the dossier itself...and here it is in a WP article. You really should have paid attention to what  has already explained on this TP, and at MelanieN's TP. As a GA/FA reviewer myself, I concur with his evaluation. This article is a long way from being a GAC. <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 📞📧 22:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's forget about the NPOV tag and GAC. How about we all work through this together in order of the article? What does everyone think of the lead? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Emir of Wikipedia, that's a good question. The article has grown and been rearranged, so the lead may well need some tweaking. Are there any specific concerns right now? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have any specific concerns, but asking for a WP:Peer review could be helpful for you. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 09:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing and POV problems
(After days without a response I moved this section to the bottom of the page to keep it from being buried by lengthy discussions of trivial matters.)

Serious question: why is this article sourced so heavily to strong-left-leaning British news coverage (Guardian, Independent) and extreme-left opinion blog posts (e.g. Mother Jones, Huffington Post, Slate, Vox) making dire claims about Trump, or declaring that dire claims made by others are probably true—with no reference whatsoever to conservative news or opinion sources or any other materials defending Trump? According to the article, it would seem Putin and Trump himself are the only ones disputing the claims of collusion. Is a neutral encyclopedic tone really served by including 20 separate references to a British journalist who wrote a book called "Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win", while palpably ignoring everything casting doubt on the claims of collusion?

Meanwhile the unpublishable Buzzfeed accusations are laid out in excruciating detail, heavy with citations to some random music writer for a music magazine who happens to have a college degree in poli-sci. What crap is this? Do we really need analysis of classified materials and their implications from a Business Insider marijuana correspondent who recently graduated college with a degree in oceanography? In the lead, no less? What is encyclopedic about a citation to a blog post filed under the hashtag "#Watersportsgate"? What does an angry GQ opinion blogger with a background in music reporting, who graduated college less than 3 years ago and posts internet classified ads offering freelance writing services at an hourly rate, add to our understanding of these claims of espionage and high treason? Meanwhile, real sources by real commentators, such as an op-ed in The Hill by a veteran democratic pollster, is rejected simply because it commits the crime of expressing skepticism of the dossier.

Real journalists from real newspapers, e.g. New York Times/Washington Post are already well and fully on the stick; why are we scraping the bottom of the twentysomething blogger barrel? And again—why not a single op-ed or other reaction defending Trump? Why zero citations to opinions held or published by, e.g., WSJ, National Review, Weekly Standard, Washington Examiner, or Federalist?

Other problems with tone and presentation abound. To cite just one example, we've got former WaPo and current CNN opinion columnist Frida Ghitis observing that, if collusion had occurred, it would have provided blackmail material on Trump. Besides being incredibly obvious, this merits, at most, 10 words attributed to Ghitis. Instead it's transformed into its own section, a nearly 75-word quote given its own heading, and incorrectly described as an editorial statement by Foreign Policy magazine itself when in fact it is an op-ed attributable to Ghitis, which appeared in the magazine's op-ed section. Such puffery is rampant throughout the article, especially with punchy, low-quality opinion blog posts being treated as fact sources. What gives? are you asleep at the wheel? Fact checker _ at your service 16:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * A more up-to-date look at the Dossier that gives a totally different view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5f60:fb10:6cc9:60c6:4f0d:916a (talk • contribs) 02:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * IP2600..., yes, we realize there are different POV on the subject, those based on RS, and those which are not. We use RS here, not conspiracy theories, but don't worry, we will end up with conspiracy theory articles here about all this. There are enough fake news and fringe sources (including Fox News and Russia-based sources), to use. There may be enough actual RS which mention them to justify doing it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The article is built of entirely left-leaning and disproportionately British sourcing for a matter of US politics having only a tangential British connection, contains very-low-quality left-leaning fact and opinion sourcing, and contains zero substantive fact sourcing, analysis or commentary from any conservative source. The result is an anti-Trump article. The closest the article comes to even allowing opinion commentary that doesn't presume Trump guilt is one quote from Bob Woodward calling the dossier a "garbage document". Out in the actual world of published commentary there is plenty of doubt about dossier, its collection, its motivation and funding, its claims of collusion, from both reputable conservative sources and general mainstream sources, and it's all DUE weight in the article. But not an op-ed in sight.

We've got a nice little para about Schiff the Dem intel committee minority leader, and an external document link to his remarks, intoning gravely on the seriousness of money laundering allegations against Trump organization in the dossier, with nothing but Trump's lawyer in rebuttal, contributing to the picture, as I mentioned above, that the only people in the world that doubt the collusion allegations (and perhaps a host of independent federal crimes) are Trump, Trump's lawyer, Putin, and Bob Woodward. In fact the entire "section" on "responses" to the allegations of "collusion", the centerpiece claim without which this whole thing is far less important, consists entirely of an opinion column by a CNN opinion columnist intoning on the seriousness of the collusion allegation, and that op-ed is wrongly represented as an editorial statement of Foreign Policy magazine. Ludicrous. A "responses" section written per applicable content policies would include responses doubting the collusion charges.

It's not my job to go and find the sources to fill this gap. I tried this a year ago trying to get any kind of counterpoint sourcing and was met with, IMO, sandbags. I left in frustration hoping that MelanieN would herd the cats. But no, it was all of your jobs to build the article correctly in the first place rather than acting as anti-conservative gatekeepers tag teaming and wikilawyering against every conservative source while allowing low quality conspiratorial sourcing that simply doesn't belong. Last year when I spent forever just trying to get an attributed word of doubt from a think tank guy, it was rejected on pretty esoteric reasons—nitpicking on the closeness of his area of specialty because he wasn't actually a spook or intelligence analyst, and sniffing at the fact his his Forbes-sites opinions hadn't been discussed in other sources (maybe a fine standard for an activist group, but not a nonpartisan think tank writer).

As I said, that would be all well and good if such a stringent approach were being applied evenhandedly, but instead it's simply serving as a convenient pretext to reject any old conservative expert, politician, journalist, or other commentator.

Instead I come back and find an article that does allow an op-ed in Huffington Post calling Trump a "Manchurian Candidate" to get 75 words of WP prose for his opinion that Trump is serving Putin's "wish list". It's an article that has seven fact citations on a matter of top-level political espionage to some guy writing in "Paste: The Best Music, Movies, TV, Books, Games, Beer & More" We're meant to believe that nothing noteworthy has been said in doubt of these charges, which are so weighty and true that each separate allegation needs lengthy verbatim quoting, and we're larding on citations to some rando on a pop culture website in order to demonstrate how important they are.

This is almost like an act of ritualized fiction to say that something is of encyclopedic importance because it has "appeared" in a "reliable source", but then we see that Mr. Weindling of the Music/Movies/TV/Books/Games/Beer & More website has actually got a list of thirty one such important allegations—yep, it's actually the title of his piece, "The 31 Most Explosive Allegations against Trump from the Leaked Intelligence Document", which, incidentally, also reveals that he is still tendentiously referring to it as a "leaked intelligence document" many many many months after it was revealed to be a campaign dirt file paid for by Clinton. Totally legit, serious journalism here! So this little gem of investigative document-reading from the ridiculously inadequate source is cited seven times for those countless lengthily verbatim-quoted allegations of high trickery.

This canard that allegations ought to be laundry listed because of appearance in such frankly awful sourcing becomes all the more ridiculous when you look at, e.g., the nearly 50-word quote about alleged "anger and resentment" by the Trump team at Russia for, according to the allegation, essentially not colluding closely enough. Here, the only places this can be found in the WP citations for this article, or even in Google searches, are from this Music/Movies/TV/etc website "Paste", and Huffington Post, and a website set up for the specific purpose of publicizing the Steele dossier, and weird Google "books" results that are actually just copies of this Wikipedia article. So we're essentially fabricating its significance. Always great when WP is down in the trenches, making [up] the news.

Hahah! Funny, right! Let's look at another:

"That there was 'evidence of extensive conspiracy between campaign team and Kremlin, sanctioned at highest levels and involving Russian diplomatic staff based in the US....That 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.' That there was 'a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership' to defeat 'Democratic presidential candidate Hillary CLINTON', and that there was a 'Kremlin campaign to aid TRUMP and damage CLINTON'"

"That there was 'a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership,' with information willingly exchanged in both directions. That this co-operation was 'sanctioned at highest levels and involving Russian diplomatic staff based in the US.' That the Trump campaign used 'moles within DNC and hackers in the US as well as outside in Russia.'"

"That Paul Manafort had 'managed' the 'well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership', and that he used 'Carter PAGE, and others as intermediaries'"

Obviously that "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation" involving Trump must be really well-founded since it's mentioned so many different times! Each of these independent repetitions is larded with the same citations to former ThinkProgress bloggers, Financial Times, and Business Insider as supposed evidence that wide RS discussion merits their inclusion. So the really funny thing is that to the 99.9999999% of casual observers out there, who have just been told in WP article prose that some of the allegations are verified and others are not, these lengthy quotations claiming collusion from the political hit piece looks like something that is in some way substantiated by the half-dozen accompanying footnotes.

Even when the sourcing is OK it's still an exercise in hyperbole and misdirection. The WP article prose says the dossier had one of its "main factual assertions verified....Steele's dossier, paraphrasing multiple sources, reported precisely the same conclusion, in greater detail, six months earlier, in a memo dated June 20." We get all this verbiage on how the assertion is supposedly "corroborated", but we get ellipsis dots for what the assertion actually was—if we look at the source, this supposedly corroborating "main factual assertion" is just that the supposed election manipulation was "directed personally by Putin". Well gee, I don't know how much more freaking obvious you can get, Yes, if there's a campaign to SWING THE US ELECTION of course it is personally directed by Putin, the ironfisted tyrant who controls everything in Russia. I wonder why nobody else thought that was the decisive fact? And of course this "confirmation" of the dossier all feeds back into the contrived justification for including every ... steaming... detail... a dubious stance because while some think the evidence is mounting, others do not, and to date nothing has emerged actually linking Trump to any election manipulation or influence campaign with the Russians. The article's content and tone convey just the opposite.

And yet just above, a newbie editor trying to chip away at the obvious imbalance in opinion, by citing an opinion column by a veteran Dem pollster in The Hill scoffing at the credibility of the collusion claims, is bludgeoned into submission because ... uh... essentially because the author was a pollster? Yeah, that's right. In an obtusely Wikilawyered rationale from "Neutrality" that for reasons X Y Z A B C it is not possible to include any opinions or analysis in defense of Trump or even just doubting the collusion accusations (other than that one Woodward quote), because, apparently, they all fail some contrived standard for inclusion that disappears when it comes time to break out the low-quality anti-Trump sources.

Then of course the always-helpful Mr. User:SPECIFICO chimes in (helpfully) that the featured author is, in truth, a "bigtime corporate Public Relations operative with no reputation for expertise other than POV-pushing and media manipulation -- both skills he's honed to a very high level of competence"—breaking out those self-published source rules for an op-ed in The Hill, in case any further rationalization was needed to put the issue to bed and drive the newbie editor away. I just bet he came away from that interaction thinking that WP is a credible platform for fair-minded individuals!

But you don't even have to turn to conservative sourcing to get doubt about the dossier. Let's recall some source commentary I presented long ago which of course is nowhere present in the article, previously discussed on the different subject of whether it was ever responsible to have published the dossier in the first place, but which obviously reflects on the "veracity" and/or constitutes "responses" to the dossier and its claims.

*Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan called it "just a bunch of scurrilous allegations dressed up as an intelligence report meant to damage Donald Trump", also calling it "unverified smears", "rumor and innuendo" (Correction, I noticed that part of this comment is actually referenced in the article, albeit only in the part calling Buzzfeed irresponsible.)


 * The New York Times referred to the allegations as "totally unsubstantiated".


 * Journalistic ethics professor and Guardian columnist Roy Greenslade wrote: "It is disingenuous to publish the document on the grounds that 'Americans can make up their own minds'. Adopting that criterion would allow for the publication of anything irrespective of its authenticity."


 * Wolfgang Blau, chief digital officer of the Condé Nast media conglomerate and a former Guardian executive, tweeted: "Rare that a story stinks from every possible angle: the source, the content, the consequence, the messenger, the target" [Note, this and other Tweets described below were actually reported in RS commentary, mainly the Guardian article.]


 * Brad Heath, an investigative reporter for USA Today, tweeted, "Not how journalism works: Here’s a thing that might or might not be true, without supporting evidence; decide for yourself if it’s legit"


 * Heidi Moore of the Wall Street Journal tweeted, "Listen, it stinks to high heaven. No sourcing, no details, misspellings and geographical mistakes. No one would trust this. "


 * Adam Goldman of the New York Times issued a Tweet implying that both Buzzfeed and CNN's reasons for reporting on the story were contrived ("Sequence of events: @CNN finds way to talk about report and @buzzfeed uses that as reason to publish. Media critics are gonna be busy").


 * Glenn Greenwald tweeted, "My broader concern is this tendency now to treat every leaked, anonymous IC claim as Truth, with a secondary democracy concern. . . . An anonymous person, claiming to be an ex-British intel agent & working as a Dem oppo researcher, said anonymous people told him things. . . . This, ironically, itself has a strong whiff of blackmail."

This article's tone of uncritical acceptance of the allegations against Trump is belied by the commentary the dossier has generated, one entire side of which is being ignored on the frankly absurd pretense that it is ALL not DUE. These problems will persist so long as a group of controlling editors shut out all sourcing that doesn't contribute to the POV of collusion and guilt. Obvious high quality counterpoint sources are out there, they belong per content policies, and I decline to go find them and push the boulder up the hill of abuse that awaits anybody trying to add them. Actually this backbreaking post may be all the effort I have to spare for WP in 2018 because I am ready for another 11 months of Wiki break. Fact checker _ at your service 03:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * SMirC-thumbsup.svg Well said. Total 100% agreement from this end of the peanut gallery. <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 📞📧 04:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your astute observations. You may think you wrote some TLDR essay, but rest assured that some people are reading all of it. You should not be discouraged by editor opposition to "the other point of view". With patience and genuine collaboration, this article can be improved. Just over the last few hours, some of the issues you identified have been corrected. No more repeating three times the exact same sentence, and hopefully soon no more citing 5 scandal-mongering articles to corroborate each line of the dossier's allegations. For my own part, I had not read this document again since its initial publication in January 2017, and when I worked today to make sense of Steele's cloak-and-dagger prose, I felt more like reading a D-class spy novel than a bombshell report whose revelations could jeopardize American democracy and the balance of international relations between superpowers.
 * So please, take a good rest, and come back to improve the article, add sources, remove rants, and enjoy the wiki spirit. — JFG talk 04:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "some of the issues you identified have been corrected"
 * Funny; I don't see that, instead in discussing just a single content item above I see myself being mocked by User:BullRangifer for pointing out that this whole claim doesn't belong in the article at all because, it appears, some HuffPo screed and a blog post on a music website are the only sources that ever "discussed" it.
 * And then you turn around and, though you don't bother to mock me, you completely ignore the problem I pointed out, make no response to my comment, and instead proceed with the edit as if nothing were wrong.
 * I don't know why you think tidying up material that shouldn't be in the article in the first place while ignoring the actual criticisms I raised is any kind of credible response.  Actually it seems pretty similar to the other day when I first posted on these problems and User:BullRangifer responded with this massively verbose Kabuki theater display of doing absolutely nothing while chanting some BS about collaboration.  In any event the article is still built from highly skewed sourcing which prevents it from coming anywhere near NPOV.  Fact checker _ at your service  15:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussable points
Factchecker, I would like to take your points seriously and look into them one by one. But it’s hard to find actual points amid your walls of text and opinion. If you could focus on discussable issues it would really help us collaborate to improve the article. (BTW, in response to your comment that you were “hoping that MelanieN would herd the cats”, please realize I do not function as an admin here; I am just another editor because I am WP:INVOLVED.) Looking for actual items to discuss, I wanted to start with your paragraph disparaging certain sources. You provide lots of personal detail about the authors of the sources, but you give no names or links. Rather than making me search through 200 references to see if I can guess which one you are talking about, could you give me names or a link? Here is the list:

Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * some random music writer for a music magazine who happens to have a college degree in poli-sci.
 * analysis of classified materials and their implications from a Business Insider marijuana correspondent who recently graduated college with a degree in oceanography.
 * a citation to a blog post filed under the hashtag "#Watersportsgate”.
 * an angry GQ opinion blogger with a background in music reporting, who graduated college less than 3 years ago and posts internet classified ads offering freelance writing services at an hourly rate.
 * an op-ed in The Hill by a veteran democratic pollster expressing skepticism of the dossier.


 * I've already raised easily discussable points both general and specific.
 * If you want to talk about specific discussable issues, there's the weak and in some cases unacceptable sourcing being used to justify the verbatim repetition of practically the whole dossier in an "Allegations" section, including lengthy discussion of claims that are only discussed in crappy sources and thus not DUE any weight at all. E.g. the specific cases above sourced only to Huffington Post and the music website "Paste" but I am confident further inspection would reveal further problems.  What is the justification for lengthy listing of claims that mainstream sources refused to publish and then later ignored?  Why should we have more than a couple paragraphs paraphrasing the most important allegations?


 * Or if you want to talk about general discussable issues, let's talk about the most basic problem of all, which is that the article ignores all sourcing which does not push a POV of collusion and guilt. That means zero conservative op-eds or political figures disputing the centerpiece claim of "collusion", and we're also ignoring center/left sourcing that casts any doubt on the accusations.  Fact checker _ at your service  20:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, well, never mind then. I deal in specifics, so I would have liked to address some of these specific complaints. I'll get back to trying to improve the article. --MelanieN (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with the specific specifics I mentioned Fact checker _ at your service  21:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Show me how to find the sources you are talking about. "The Huffington Post", "the music website Paste" - don't expect me to hunt through the 200 references to find these things so I can evaluate them. Give me a link. Or a reference number from the article. Or something. Then we can talk. --MelanieN (talk) 21:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You are filibustering. Go to article page, locate source named "Paste".  Use CTRL-F if needed.  Note the seven fact citations and then tell me what you have to say about that.  Fact checker _ at your service  22:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I don’t know why you need to be so rude and uncooperative; the burden should be on you to show what you are talking about, and you could have done the search faster than the time it has taken you to repeatedly refuse. But OK, I searched and found the citation from Paste. The search led me to a paragraph that I had previously suggested should be removed: the "Allegation of Rosneft deal" subsection under "Reactions to specific allegations". I will start a discussion about it below. As for the fact citations, I agree that Paste is a weak source and I see no reason why we can’t remove the Paste reference for all of the allegations where it is used. In all cases there are other references so it is not really needed. , would you be OK with removing the Paste references (it’s reference #75)? --MelanieN (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC) (And BTW Factchecker, see what can happen when you deal in specifics? We are not unreasonable or biased people here, and we do want to get the article right. Suggest another source that you think is really bad, and I'll take a look at it too.) --MelanieN (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You could have done a CTRL-F in 2 seconds and instead you spent minutes repeatedly objecting that you couldn't find the source I already explicitly identified multiple times, giving far more information than you needed to quickly locate it. MelanieN, WP is not supposed to be an adversarial WP:BATTLE process where if you defeat me, you get to go home victorious with an article full of crappy HuffPo citations etc... You're supposed to want to fix the article.
 * By pointing out the total absence of any conservative views or any views at all in defense of Trump, the exclusion of every attempt to add any source casting doubt on the collusion accusations, and the abuse of weak progressive sourcing—and by pointing out serious POV organization flaws including multiple specifically sourced problem sections as examples of larger problems—I've thoroughly pointed out basic 5 Pillars problems that it is your job to fix, or at any rate, it is your job not to oppose or roadblock them.
 * You may not like receiving marching orders and they are not marching orders, but I have told you beyond any whiff of doubt what needs to be done to fix this article.
 * And as I said, if you strip away all the weak sourcing from the "allegations" section you will be left with some sections that need to be removed entirely, and others that are sourced entirely to a single author Business Insider, a business-focused website that is less than 10 years old. This is against sourcing policy which requires we use multiple high quality sources for coverage of important factual matter, so again, any of the specific dossier claims that has not been discussed in serious print journalism doesn't belong here.  Fact checker _ at your service  23:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , please stop writing walls of text and telling others what they must do in support of your claims. If there are sources that are not reliable for specific facts, then list the facts, link the sources, and justify your assertions according to policy, not your personal views of the sources.- MrX 🖋 11:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

MrX, not all of us are blessed with the gift of brevity, not to mention the fact that our choices are limited to included details and be accused of saying too much, or summarize and be accused of not saying enough. Annnnyway...I actually appreciate the points has been making, and have debated some of those same issues myself. The problem is not that he's saying too much when he challenges material and sources; rather, the problem is that few understand why the challenged material and sources create policy issues. <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 📞📧 13:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Then maybe you and factchecker can team up and start a blog. But please stop wasting other editors' time on sweeping generalizations, scavenger hunts, armchair analysis of the subject, and commentary about journalists' education. This page is for discussing specific edit improvements, accompanied by sources. WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:EXHAUST apply.- MrX 🖋 13:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Why would you feel discussion is a waste of time? That's what this TP is for, actually. It's not like the arguments being presented here are not valid but it does appear that several of us are having to deal with IDIDNTHEARTHAT or IDONTLIKEIT which forces us to repeat listing the same reasons there are/have been NPOV issues. I've provided source breakdowns and lists of issues, Factchecker has provided sound reasoning for why certain sources don't support speculation and unproven allegations, and has asked for explanations as to why some of the material should be included. In fact, go back into the archives - around Feb 5 or 6 or thereabouts - and work your way forward. It's all there, and what it appears that's happening now is stonewalling. That isn't how to go about improving an article, much less getting it ready as a GAC. And please stop with the unfounded allegations of forum, et al. If you don't want to participate in the discussion, I'm sure there are other places on WP that will keep you busy - like NPP or AfC. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 14:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You really need to stop suggesting that editors with whom you disagree leave discussions. O3000 (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * MrX, please be civil and comment on content, not the contributor.
 * I disagree with many of Factchecker atyourservice's points made, but many – observations about (a) low-quality HuffPost articles (two specific sources, HuffPost's news articles are mostly fine), (b) Paste magazine article, (c) indiscriminate list of allegations, (d) lack of sources "casting doubt on the collusion accusations" (very high-quality sources have cast doubt), and (e) varying standards related to op-eds – are salient.
 * No, I don't assume MelanieN was filibustering (maybe they had a bad day, it happens to all of us, or a perfectly reasonable person could say that MelanieN's request was perfectly fine), but FCAYS's references to Paste and The Huffington Post were not ambiguous, so while FCAYS's reply was blunt, it was also reasonable.
 * Paste magazine has been discussed several times:
 * Talk:Trump–Russia dossier/Archive 7
 * Talk:Trump–Russia dossier/Archive 7
 * On the talk page of the POVFORK article (I'm not going to provide a link to the talk page because it redirects here)
 * On Jimbo talk.
 * The controversial content from Paste magazine has now been removed, at least for now, but why does it have to take so many rounds of discussion to get rid of poor sources? Politrukki (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Jane Mayer quote removed

 * RELATED DISCUSSION ABOVE

This removal by User:Politrukki was accompanied with this edit summary: "removing off-topic content per Talk". That doesn't make sense, as the old talk discussion explained its relevance, at least AFAICR.

It's very much on-topic, as it's in the context of the dossier that the information is proferred. It explains Orbis's normal way of dealing with sources, so it should be restored. Jane Mayer is also an impeccable and reliable source. Highly awarded. She does some of the deepest and most serious journalism around. She digs very deep. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * User:MelanieN, I'd like to see this content returned. It's quite relevant. The removal was spurious. Jane Mayer is a very thorough and reliable journalist, one who digs deeper than other journalists and connects all the dots. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Please review the previous discussions and . Several editors have opposed including the material and you have been the only one who has wanted to include this. My argument is still that Mayer describes practices at Orbis, but there is no indication that practices were followed when creating the dossier. Therefore, the content does not belong. Politrukki (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Jane Mayer's work is miles ahead of others who casually cover these topics or track them day-to-day. She doggedly checks facts, elicits the best-sourced substantive basis for her narratives, and is widely acknowledged to be an expert investigator, reporter and commentator on these subjects. This is unimpeachable and should be returned to the article. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Politrukki, I don't understand your reasoning. You seem to be admitting that Orbis uses a certain method of dealing with its sources, but then you are accusing Steele (a cofounder of Orbis), without any evidence to make the accusation, of deviating from their standard practice, the practice which has gained them such a good reputation for reliable intelligence gathering.
 * How does that make sense? It's quite the bit of OR on your part. The source describes their practice in the context of describing the dossier and the investigation by Steele=Orbis. It's very much on-topic. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You got it backwards. Mayer writes in present tense. It is original research to suggest that Mayer's description of Orbis practices describe the creation ("History" or "Research funded by Democrats produces dossier") of the dossier. This is not an article about Orbis, so the material about Orbis's practices in general is undue here and if the material is placed in a way that incorrectly implies it describes the history of the dossier, that is veering into original research. Politrukki (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Weighing in here - I think this content should remain; Jane Meyer is a very good source and this is squarely on-topic. Neutralitytalk 22:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Please explain, without conducting original research, how the material is directly relevant to the creation of the dossier? Note that the section is about the creation (history) of the dossier, not the history of Orbis. Nothing in the source indicates that Mayer is not writing some general info about Orbis. Politrukki (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to see the source, and I'd rather not dig through 200 references to find it. Can someone post it here? --MelanieN (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC) I'll ask again: where has Steele denied paying the sources? Does the denial only refer to intermediary sources or are sub-sources part of the denial? If reliable sources have covered this, we should include the denial in the article. If the Mayer quote describes Orbis practices in general, there's no contradiction. If it describes the creation of the dossier, there is. You can't have it both ways. "Collectors" are paid and some of the so-called unpaid sources receive quid pro quo deals: "These sources occasionally receive favors—such as help in getting their children into Western schools—", which you have conveniently omitted. That being said, whether there is contradiction or not is rather irrelevant: including or excluding the material should be decided based on WP:DUE, WP:OR, and similar policies and guidelines. Back to the point, you need to self-revert and not include the material unless there is consensus to include. Politrukki (talk) 10:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's this one, I think. Neutralitytalk 22:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Looking over the source as well as the context in the article, I would leave it out. Fusion’s Simpson has said (in the sentence preceding this one) that Steele did not pay any of his sources. Mayer is speaking about Orbis’s general practice; she does not say (and probably doesn’t know) whether any of the information actually in the dossier came from paid collectors. To use her comments to apparently contradict Simpson, even though Simpson knows what actually happened and she doesn’t, seems to me to be inappropriate. (If we do decide to keep it, I wouldn’t attribute it simply to "Jane Mayer," because the natural reaction of most people would be "who is she?" Maybe something like "According to investigative reporter Jane Mayer of The New Yorker… ") --MelanieN (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * MelanieN, she isn't contradicting Simpson. She's just providing the larger context: Orbis/Steele has paid "collectors", but the actual sources are unpaid. Those are the ones Steele did not pay. There isn't any contradiction. An investigation does cost money, but not everyone gets paid, and not everyone knows that their words become part of a dossier. If they knew, they wouldn't talk. Candid revelations are best. They are more honest.
 * As far as attribution goes, I agree with your suggestion. That makes total sense. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, well, include it if you like. I think it reads as contradicting Simpson. And I do maintain that while describing the company's usual practice, she has no idea if that's what Steele did in this case. --MelanieN (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Those who know (Steele and Simpson) state that he did not pay his sources. Several RS confirm that, either by directly quoting them, quoting from sworn testimony, or based on interviews with them. They are not speaking about the "collectors', but about the other, unpaid, sources. No contradiction. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Would you kindly step out of WP:NOTGETTINGIT territory and stop repeating this falsehood that Simpson knows whether Steele paid the sources.
 * I re-repeat: Simpson does not know whether Steele paid the sources. Simpson admitted this to the Congress. Please read pages 271 and 272 in Simpson's testimony. Either the folks who leaked this to CNN or CNN mischaracterised Simpson's testimony. Which scenario do you think is more likely? Later, in the New York Times op-ed Simpson make un unsubstantiated claim that Steele did not pay the sources. If there is a contradiction, Simpson is to blame. Politrukki (talk) 11:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Removed maintenance tags
I tagged two HuffPost articles (four inline citations): that are either blog posts or obviously self-published; published in HuffPost Contributor platform, outside of HuffPost's editorial oversight. These sources have been discussed in the main thread and another subthread.

I was writing a talk page post when MrX spuriously removed the tags. Good luck finding the sources that are being discussed! Politrukki (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Why didn't Clinton campaign use dossier info during campaign? We need that info.
We have info from several sources, including sworn testimony, that the legal firewall established by Marc Elias was apparently TOO effective, with those who could have used the information to help Clinton's campaign not knowing key allegations in the dossier. They seem to have paid a lot of money ($1.02 million in fees and expenses) and gotten no benefit from Steele's research. The only result was that the dossier did get funding ($168,000).

I have no illusions that Hillary Clinton, a seasoned politician, would not use some dirty tricks if it would help her. Such knowledge could have been used to advantage. Most any politician would have used that knowledge.

This question has always bugged the heck out of me:


 * Why didn't the Clinton campaign use the dossier info during the campaign?

Has anyone run across any mention by RS that indicates they might have known, contrary to what they have said? If any information like that is in RS, we should include it. We don't need the many conspiracy theories without evidence, but actual things they said or did which can only be explained by knowledge of the dossier's contents. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

It's as if this satire by Andy Borowitz is true: "Trump Accuses Clinton of Deliberately Losing Election So He Could Be Impeached", showing the ridiculous and nonsensical nature of the Trump/right-wing conspiracy theories. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Good question, BR. I've been gathering a bit of info hoping to find an answer. You might want to look at Richard Epstein's article. It was also published as a Newsweek opinion. There is already enough information to indicate the dossier may be nothing more than false allegations concocted by Russian operatives to disrupt the election. Currently, the article is weighted in support of the theory that the Russians wanted to damage Hillary Clinton and help Trump (per the lede) which is a huge contradiction of the dossier itself. The truth is finally surfacing with actual evidence, and the media is beginning to take it far more seriously than they have in the past.
 * Take a closer look at this Politico article. To begin, it refers to the dossier as universally referred to as “the Steele dossier,” so we might want to revisit the article title once again in the future, keeping in mind that NPOV overrides consensus. The Politico article also states, As far as is public, however, key claims in the dossier amount to near misses rather than corroborated facts. But more importantly: The dossier may be worse than just uncorroborated. In an op-ed this week, former CIA officer Daniel Hoffman wrote that the near misses in the dossier bore the mark of Russian disinformation, “accurate basic facts provided as bait to convince Americans that the fake info is real.” Fact-based information is what should determine the WEIGHT of the article, and right now it's all still up in the air, but because RECENTISM has weighed heavily on this article, the newly discovered evidence and investigations have changed direction, and that's the context we should be including in the lede. It's good to see editors doing clean-up and all, but RECENTISM is still going to play a heavy hand in the direction this article will take...at least until the investigations have concluded and all the evidence has been presented.
 * With regards to your original question...only time will tell, or maybe it won't, but as of April 1, 2017 media speculation is not favoring the Clinton camp. WaPo addresses part of the question you asked, but their answers only lead to more speculation and theory. You're probably not going to like my advice, but if you're truly serious about GA and possibly FA, it's going to be difficult to achieve while the story is still unfolding. You may stand a chance if all the theorizing/editorializing is removed, and it's stripped to a fact-based minimum. Here are some suggestions to consider:
 * "Hints of existence" - it appears to be a timeline created using OR and/or SYNTH - it needs to go...include only the important facts in the Funding section;
 * The Beacon info and opposition research that took place prior to the Steele dossier may be worth a few basic sentences in the body. Present the Steele dossier as the Steele dossier, and maybe include something in the Background section to quickly explain-away the mistaken reporting - something simple along the line of...Fusion GPS specializes in opposition research, and was contracted by (insert name) during the primaries to conduct research on then-candidate Donald Trump. That contract ended when Trump became the nominee, at which time (date?) Fusion GPS was contracted by (insert name) to conduct research on then-presidential candidate Trump. They contracted Christopher Steele, (position) of (name of his company) because of his background yada yada. The end.
 * "Research funded by Democrats produces dossier" - lengthy murder-mystery style writing, one-sided, far too detailed, and full of questionable cruft. Strip it down to facts only and include the results in a paragraph in the Funding section;
 * "Veracity" - appears to be an attempt to validate the dossier and the credibility of the players - needs to go - use wikilinks to each player's bio;
 * The lede can probably be reduced to 2 paragraphs once the cruft and questionable material is gone.
 * As long as the dossier and the people involved are under investigation, this article is going to be a work in progress. Only the people who were indicted specifically as a result of the dossier should be mentioned in this article without editorializing or speculating about their "possible" connection to Trump and Russian collusion. Remember the response to Clinton being the catalyst for the birther fiasco? This article deserves the same amount of scrutiny. It's better to stick to the facts and create sections for the key components, such as "Verified allegations", "Unverified allegations", and "False allegations". List each of the notable "key" allegations in their respective sections, and include a brief facts-only summary of each allegation in a dispassionate tone, or something along those lines;
 * Create a section for Investigations, and separate into subsections for Congressional, DOJ-FBI, FISA, Inspector General, Mueller (and probably Huber in the near future). Doing it this way = far less material to delete when the time comes. On the flip side, it will be much easier to add facts when Mueller, Horowitz and Huber conclude their investigations. WP has no deadlines...there's plenty of time to get the article right. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 19:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, your suggestions to remove most of the meat from the article are interesting, but are not likely to be followed, considering how much coverage this subject has gotten. The question in this thread is whether there is any evidence that the Clinton people knew about the dossier during the election, so let's not go off on tangents. If there was any sign that the Democrats had used the information it could help to bolster the blame-the-Democrats theory, but so far there is absolutely nothing. It appears that even though the Clinton camp was paying for the information, they either didn't have it or didn't use it. But that's what BR is asking - has any Reliable Source come up with anything to show that they did? --MelanieN (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * To state a necessary (but possibly POV) point in response to the title of the section: the reason the HRC campaign didn't use the dossier allegations was because they were largely non-credible. This is still a mixture of ridiculous "piss-tape" allegations, and other allegations which were either vague or common knowledge. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 00:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Just because something is newsworthy doesn't necessarily make it encyclopedic which is addressed by WP:NOTNEWS Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. And there's also RECENTISM that applies: When dealing with contemporary subjects, editors should consider whether they are simply regurgitating media coverage of an issue or actually adding well-sourced information that will remain notable over time. Yes, unneeded content can be eliminated later, but a cluttered "first draft" of an article may degrade its eventual quality and a coherent orientation may not always be attained. This article is cluttered with unneeded content that still remains unproven, not to mention still under investigation. The Carter material is a perfect example. <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 📞📧 13:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

If you guys want to make the argument that there's some POV in the article then you really need to provide examples, along with sourcing problems, rather than write long WP:NOTAFORUM violating rants about what YOU think the dossier is or isn't.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The same applies to you regarding what the dossier is or isn't. Difference is, the arguments that have been presented are supported by PAGs. Oh, and a very important detail you keep overlooking as being the reason behind these discussions is NPOV: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. At least 4 different editors have challenged the NPOV issues so how do you propose we resolve them in light of what policy states? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 14:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Come on, you can't really use the "I know you are but what am I?" argument. You want to argue there's NPOV problems. Fine, which part, which source, which text? Not general rants, but specifics.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You'll find some of the specifics in this analysis. <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 📞📧 18:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Any dossier allegation that hasn't been directly discussed in NYT/WaPo should not be in this article
Currently a mishmash of lefty blog citations are being used as justification to list every single allegation. Worse, the wording of the section and the piling on of all the crap footnotes gives a false impression that the allegations are corroborated.

It's a junk sourcing practice that flies in the face of both WP:V (for failing to use multiple high quality RS's for important factual claims) and WP:DUE (for exaggerating the prominence of weak sourcing). Pick a few high-quality sources at most, and track their coverage. Fact checker _ at your service 21:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There is more to high quality sources than just the NYT/WaPo. We should not WP:CENSOR just because some sources have not mentioned something. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't use low quality blogs and Business Insider to gauge the importance of top-level political matter, nor is there any reason why the newspaper coverage should be heavily slanted towards strong-left British outlets on a matter of US politics. Currently the practice is to list every allegation and just slap on a footnote showing it has appeared in somebody's blog post.  As I said, this is a crappy practice and not in accord with policy.  Fact checker _ at your service  21:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Factchecker_atyourservice, there are a few things you say that need to be addressed:
 * Business Insider is a perfectly good source. It also tends to be rather neutral.
 * I'm not even sure what you mean by "gauge the importance..." I don't recall using sources for that purpose. Most sources are simply used according to what they say, not so much by why they say it, and if "gauging" is what they're doing, then we let the chips fall where they may.
 * While The New York Times and The Washington Post account for a large percentage of the sources used, several British sources are indeed used (but not as many as you make it sound) because we are not limited to American sources. The investigation was headquartered in the London offices of Orbis and largely occurred in Europe. British sources tend to be much more objective, and often better informed, than American sources. The BBC and Guardian are among the best sources in existence. Why not use them? Your objections would be laughed off the RS/N board. Britain has excellent journalists.
 * "...to list every allegation and just slap on a footnote..." Really??? That's exactly backwards of what happened, and the methods for developing some of the content has been explained before. There has been no attempt to "list every allegation"; there are many more allegations in the dossier which are not mentioned here at all. That's because this started, not with the dossier, but with the RS which dealt with it. If multiple RS dealt with an allegation, then that allegation could be used in the article. If not it got ignored. That's my way of working, and it's in harmony with our sourcing rules. RS dictate content. For sensitive BLP matters (some of the allegations fall in that category), they must be higher quality, IOW, the National Enquirer or Hollywood Reporter won't do, but serious articles that aren't clickbait can be used, and they can be from a wide variety of sources. If they're serious, their commentary can also be used. Otherwise all RS can be used for the mere documentation of the existence of an allegation, and that's how most of the sources have been used.
 * Hopefully we won't be hearing those types of objections from you again. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * These comments don't merit much response. (1) Business Insider is an offbrand business website and Natasha Bertrand has no reporting pedigree.  (2) Of course these sources are being used to establish the importance and/or credibility of these claims; that is the only thing they are being cited for. (3) The Brit sources are almost exclusively a couple cranks from The Guardian peddling sensationalism; (4) "British sources tend to be much more objective, and often better informed, than American sources" is absurd.  (5) I didn't complain about BBC did I?  (6) The suggtion that using low-quality blogs and websites to justify inclusion of all this lengthy uncorroborated nonsense from the dossier is... silly.  Fact checker _ at your service  03:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said above: show us which sources are "somebody's blog post" and we'll see if we can replace them with better sources or (if none are available) eliminating the information. Work with us here, guy. We can't do a thing if all you are going to do is spout generalities. --MelanieN (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ok lets start with what i already posted work with me here girl kk ?? Fact checker _ at your service  21:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You have posted page-length commentaries and shorter complaints, especially about sources, but you have never yet pointed out a specific source so we can talk. "somebody's blog post"? "strong-left British outlets"? "a mishmash of lefty blog citations"? These are undiscussable; I need a link to the source, the actual article cited in the text here that you are complaining about, or we can't even begin to talk. And I'm not going to waste any more time trying. Ping me if you ever get around to providing some actual details so I can look at an actual source you think is bad. --MelanieN (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You are playing dumb, I already provided you with the publication, the author name, and the title, I also quoted verbatim one of the article sections where it was used -- but here you go girl. https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/01/the-31-most-explosive-allegations-against-trump-fr.html
 * Furthermore it is trivially easy to go to the Allegations section of the article and look at the dozen or two references. Fact checker _ at your service  22:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * See the other thread where I reply about Paste. But no, you have never provided me with an article name or a title. Unless it was in your original wall of text, which I am not willing to wade through. I did quote a paragraph from the wall of text and asked for details, but you refused to give me any. --MelanieN (talk) 23:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh so when you protested over and over and over that you couldn't find the source it's because you weren't reading what I wrote. Obnoxious and dishonest, .  Fact checker _ at your service  03:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We should always try to use the best sources, but I generally agree with Emir of Wikipedia. Business Insider is less than scintillating, but hardly a low quality blog.- MrX 🖋 21:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Anything that only appeared in Business Insider does not belong in this article. Here, the sourcing is being used to demonstrate the importance of the allegations. Strong sourcing is necessary.
 * Folks, there is an endless amount of top quality news coverage and no need to compromise on source quality.  Fact checker _ at your service  21:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Factchecker_atyourservice, you write: "Here, the sourcing..." Please provide the exact URL and exact context in which some article from Business Insider is used in this article.
 * When we have that information, then we can determine if it is indeed used "to demonstrate the importance of the allegations", and if so, if that was improper. If there's a problem, as you allege, then I'll be happy to fix it.
 * That's a pretty simple request. Ping me when you provide the answer. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a pointless makework request and it is very obvious where Business Insider is cited in the Allegations section so go look for yourself. Fact checker _ at your service  03:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it's a serious request. You are making a very vague complaint. There are a number of different Business Insider references. Pick a single one to make your point. Which URL and which allegation? That's what I need to be able to address your concern. Currently they are used to meet the requirements for coverage in multiple RS. Business Insider is perfectly good for this purpose. The articles are serious journalism.
 * Since you seem to mean something special by "to demonstrate the importance...", I need to see an example of what you mean. Without that I don't know what you mean. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Why are you against something from Business Insider but not from NYT? In this recent RSN discussion at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_238 one editor said "the New York Times and Business Insider, both impeccable sources" If you don't consider BI or British outlets strong sourcing then what is? And how is a Russian dossier by a British person a matter of US politics to such an extent that we should abandon non-US sources? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * One is the flagship of modern journalism, and the other is a business-focused website founded in 2009. What a ridiculous comparison!  Fact checker _ at your service  21:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, I have no idea what this section is about. First, the heading states a POV conclusion, which may very well be correct, but is improper. There are refs to blogs without explanation of what blogs and what they say. I’m sure this all makes sense if someone follows the posters and various edits in other sections. But, this is a poor method of starting a useful discussion as anyone poking in hasn't a clue as to what's going on. O3000 (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC) Frankly, several of us have no idea what the article is about. We're dealing with stale news that was reported (all based on speculation and anonymous sources) a year ago, none of which has held up. Chalk it up to RECENTISM. Our readers would be much better served if we presented the substantiated allegations (are there any?) that are contained in the Steele dossier; i.e., the key issues relating to Trump-Russia collusion. Anything that is not about Trump and Russian collusion or that is not cited to high quality RS simply does not belong in the article. The dossier began as opposition research that was paid for by the Clinton campaign and here we are 7345 words of "readable prose size" later with absolutely ZERO that substantiates collusion between Trump and Russia. So what exactly is the purpose of this article? If the FBI and Special Counsel have been unable to verify any of the allegations and even the media is starting to dismiss it, what makes the dossier encyclopedic? A story can be newsworthy and not encyclopedic which is what we're dealing with now because the article is so long and meandering, it's hard to tell what it's about. It looks like an indiscriminate collection of cruft, theorizing, editorializing and speculation. The only facts we can actually substantiate about the dossier include (a) who paid for it, (b) who did the research, (c) the fact that anonymous Russian sources provided the info, (d) some high level people in the FBI were fired over it while others were demoted, (e) the wife of a demoted FBI agent worked for Fusion GPS, and (f) none of the key factors in the dossier have been verified. Here we are over a year later and the context appears to be taking a sharp turn to focus on the Clinton campaign. Let's take the big picture into consideration, and then maybe we can figure out what belongs in the article, what RS to cite, and what the actual context will reflect. <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 📞📧 23:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Atsme, please stick to the facts. Some of the allegations HAVE "held up", and while we have not yet seen any "smoking gun" evidence that Trump himself was involved with the Russians, it is thoroughly proven that many of his close associates were. All of this is FORUM and beside the point. Let's stick to the question here, which has to do with the quality of the sourcing in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is a fact, MelanieN - NYTimes article dated Oct 25, 2017 How much of the dossier has been substantiated? 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. What facts do you have that prove otherwise? <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 📞📧 00:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * See my reply in the next thread. --MelanieN (talk) 04:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Melanie, if you're referring to Business Insider, it clearly states: There is no evidence that Page played any role in the Rosneft deal.. The Newsweek source doesn't substantiate anything beyond the fact that Page was in Russia and spoke to energy execs (which is actually the kind of work he was in before his brief stint with the Trump campaign). The NYTimes and the sources you cited support what I'm saying, so I don't understand what the fuss is about. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 17:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I read the title of the section and first sentence, then I skipped on over to the end. My comment is basically... "what?" Why? Why should we limit to only the content discussed in NYT or WaPo? Where does this "guideline" come from? Where did you get this ridiculous notion? We should write about every aspect of the dossier as discussed in all the reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Summarized, again
It has been complained that my posts have been both too long and not detailed enough, including not providing examples of the absence of conservative or other pro-Trump sourcing disputing collusion claims. Leaving aside the question of how I would do that, or how I can add more detail without making posts too long, I've summarized in general terms the major problem themes while still providing even more examples of sourcing problems that I previously noted. It's a long article so it's a long post.


 * 1. Fact sourcing should be skewed towards newspapers

These are important matters and we should not rely online-only sources, "exposé" books, partisan periodicals, or general-interest periodicals having only a weak or tangential focus on relevant subjects, all of which should be treated with caution if they are used at all.


 * 2. Analysis and opinion sourcing should be representative, i.e. not exclusively anti-Trump and not exclusively left-leaning.

Please note, since matter disputing collusion claims is not in the article, there is no way to cite "specific" examples of this. As I said, a lot of research will be needed to fill the POV void and the fact that I am not going to do it myself does not relieve the community of the burden of doing it. That is because you cannot have a consensus to violate 5 pillars, nor can you "launder" such a consensus by pretending it is a consensus that 5 pillars are not being violated when it's really a tacit agreement to engage in siege combat in favor of a particular POV so that will be the only one the article reflects. The sources are out there—go find 'em, or at any rate, don't beat down the editors that do go find 'em.


 * 3. Per WP:VERIFIABILITY-->EXCEPTIONAL, no specific dossier allegation should be discussed or even mentioned unless it is shown that it has been discussed by multiple high-quality reliable sources.

Although the whole article contains problems, the section listing specific allegations is especially bad and currently contains a lot of weak sourcing. I have already cited problematic material cited to problem sources (Paste, Huffington Post) but numerous other citations and accompanying article material also need to be removed.

We shouldn't be citing Natasha Bertrand at all, let alone use her ubiquitously on dossier allegations—she's a cub political columnist at a business-news website founded in 2009. This is way way way way the hell above her pay grade. Cherry picking a weak source to make dramatic claims is the epitome of POV-pushing. As I said we have real news desks covering these matters so if any sensational claims are being covered by real journalists we can cite to those journalists, not a 25 year old, fresh out of internships, writing at an off-brand and off-topic publication.

I could go on with other sources such as the tiny Washington Monthly blog post, a little gem featuring 250 words of linkwrap titled "Trump and Russians Sowed Discord on the Left" by progressive blogger Nancy LeTorneau, which is being used with another post by progressive bloggers in a progressive blog for the claim that Carter Page orchestrated the Russian dump of DNC emails to Wikileaks. Yes, and ONCE AGAIN, as we saw with the awful Paste/Huffpo sourced items above, if we run a Google search for Carter Page Wikileaks to see if better sourcing exists, the only sources we find making this claim are the progressive blogs and "The Moscow Project", a website set up for the sole purpose of publicizing the Trump dossier claims. So once again,  Wikipedia is manufacturing the importance and credibility of this dire claim .

Or we could look at another one of the most sensationalist collusion accusations, namely that the DNC email hack "had been conducted with the full knowledge and support of TRUMP and senior members of his campaign team." This lurid claim is mentioned by, again, the woefully-inadequate-for-this-purpose Natasha Bertrand, and also mentioned an article in The Week.. ordinarily not a source I'd have any issue with, but not exactly suggestive of robust media coverage in the US for a highly important factual claim about the US president, amounting to treason. I also see it mentioned in a listicle-format article in The Independent (in fairness, another left-leaning source of recent vintage) that essentially just quotes the allegations. It's an unusual claim: even Hillary Clinton didn't accuse Trump of actually being involved with the hack, she only claimed he had knowledge of the hacked emails before they were released by Wikileaks.

Investigating the repporting on this Trump-hack accusation brings us to Luke Harding, the other guy pushing this claim; he's author of the sensationalist book Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win. We should not be using this guy's book, or his writing in The Guardian. Harding actually claims Trump paid the Russians to have hackers hack Clinton and the DNC. His colleague at The Guardian, Julian Borger also repeats this accusation, recounting the dossier's claims on this subject at considerable length. But I don't see this claim getting truck in US papers, and Owen Harding of Newsweek calls it "the most bizarre of all" the dossier's claims, and says, "This makes no sense at all." By contrast in American journalism, what I see credibly by reported, by (surprise!) The New York Times, is that Trump got advance word that the hack had occurred, not that he got advance word that it was going to occur, let alone that he paid for the hack or was otherwise involved. That is the kind of reporting that belongs in WP articles, not partisan speculation from cranks and/or nobodies. Borger on the other hand is no better guide of the credibility of these allegations than Harding, but we're citing him twenty-two times in this article.

So there's Bertrand, and Harding, and Borger, and allllllllll the progressive political bloggers at Vox, and Slate, and HuffPo, and Washington Monthly, and Mother Jones, and Ms. Hannah Smothers the sex and relationships editor at Cosmopolitan whose bio literally comes out and tells us she's not serious ("I’m a sex & relationships editor at Cosmopolitan.com. I’m not very serious. :)") and who is being used as, uh, FACTish sourcing, I guess, for the important and totally credible claim that it was Trump's hatred of Obama that motivated him to commision prostitutes to pee on the bed in a Moscow hotel room, and, again, the seven citations to an article on Paste, a website promising to be "your source for the best music, movies, tv, books, videogames, comedy, craft beer, food, travel, tech, politics and more". And then there's that analysis-free blog post on the website of the left-leaning British newspaper The Independent, this actual top 10 list of dossier claims, which is then cited ELEVEN TIMES when it shouldn't be cited once.

Yes, if we remove all that bad sourcing, that is the lion's share of the sourcing for this endless truth-y recitation of every dang thing the dossier says. All those footnotes do nothing more than deceive the reader; it's Wiki hocus-pocus and the current fact sourcing is drastically, dramatically, woefully, hyperbolically inadequate. Look at one or two top-quality sources, e.g. a long NYT article squarely on the subject, as a guide for what should be included. Delete the entire section and rebuild from this premise rather than trying to untangle the current mess of lengthy and improperly sourced UNDUE quotations.


 * 4. There is considerable other material present in the article that is deceptive and can only be described as "spin"; it needs to be eliminated.

The whole article needs to cite-checked finely to confirm direct correspondence to its sourcing. Again, a lot of work, not doing it myself, but it needs to be done and in the meantime editors need to stop removing tags because those are the things that signal to other editors that there is work to be done.

I mentioned above one example wherein a single opinion column by a CNN contributor (Frida Ghitis) was made to seem almost like a scholarly pronouncement summarizing the import of the collusion accusations, constituting the entire "Reactions" section for the collusion accusation. Somebody since fixed it since I brought it up but there are countless others which someone needs to find and fix. And in any event that section's emptiness and the absence of claims rebutting the collusion accusations make it woefully POV-challenged. But such issues abound...

For example, we've got a lengthy section on the suspicious death of Oleg Erovinkin that unhelpfully distorts the presentation of the published sources, in order to exaggerate the credibility of the accusation. The source, an article in The Telegraph, describes the interview subject Grozev's theory that Erovinkin's death was part of a Russian government cover-up—but then includes this fairly blunt rebuttal:

"Experts expressed scepticism about the theory. “As a rule, people like Gen Yerovinkin don’t tend to die in airport thriller murders,” said Mark Galeotti, an expert on the Russian security services."

So the way the source is presenting it, "experts" (plural) question the claim, and they go on to quote one, who they describe as "an expert on the Russian security services". A second source, in French, that is from some weird recent French equivalent of AOL or Wired or something and probably doesn't belong anyway, nonetheless describes him as a "Russian espionage expert".

So what's our WP article say?

"Mark Galeotti, senior research fellow at the Institute of International Relations Prague, who specializes in Russian history and security, rejected Grozev's hypothesis."

So in what seems like an OR-infused effort to gainsay the sourcing, our WP article is telling readers he's actually someone who specializes in "Russian history and security", a description appearing in none of the cited sources—diminishing the apparent significance of his view on a matter of Russian security services and espionage. Moreover, we're omitting his quote, even though it is presented in the original sourcing as not just an authoritative view in rebuttal, but one of multiple! And by exaggerating the theory in this way, and including it in the Trump dossier article shortly after the Nunes memo, we are now helping to push the idea that the Trump-KGB conspiracy included murder!


 * In conclusion

These are not the first specific examples of problems I've pointed out. It's a lot of work, close reading and typing out responses just to point out one. Moreover I have described general problems with great thoroughness and they can be confirmed without me personally tearing apart this mammoth any further to analyze what's wrong. I said this all in my initial post—it's too much work for one editor, moreso because of the stonewalling and wagon-circling that inevitably follows.

It's your job not to roll this conversation up in an archive the nanosecond I leave, remove the tags, and pretend that nothing is wrong. That is not improving the article, it's a #Resist social club for WP editors. I see from user talk page comments that at least one user, User:MelanieN, has declared that she has no plans to work with me because I do not have any interest in improving the article. With respect, there are a lot of far less labor-intensive things I could be doing if that were true. Look at the above posts—if you think they were no fun to read, how do you think it felt researching and writing them? Fact checker _ at your service 02:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

"Allegation of Rosneft deal" subsection of "Reactions to specific allegations"
Some time ago (can’t find it now) I proposed that this entire subsection should be removed. I don’t know what became of my suggestion, but the subsection is still there. It quotes two sources, both of which call the alleged Rosneft deal "treason". I feel it is inappropriate to include such talk; IMO the word "treason" is way too inflammatory. "Treason" is a word that is thrown around way too freely, but in the U.S. at least it is a well-defined legal term that should not be used loosely. And no such deal appears to have been consummated (of course that could be because the sanctions have not been lifted). Neither of the commentators is a well known or authoritative source. I think we should delete the entire subsection. Comments? --MelanieN (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - an updated Feb 2018 Vox article corroborates it. It also lists the six major collusion claims that remain unproven, and covers what other journalists have reported in recent months - that the Steele dossier might be true, so it provides different views. The update is worth reading. <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 📞📧 23:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That is an interesting and well-balanced update, although it certainly doesn't "corroborate" the Rosneft deal if that's what you meant. --MelanieN (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I boldly removed pending discussion. May all be true; but seems too strongly worded without more good sourcing. O3000 (talk) 00:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, it corroborates that "no such deal appears to have been consummated". The Vox article reported that Page denied under oath that he met with Diveykin or Sechin. The NYTimes article (I linked to just above) also corroborates that none of those claims have been substantiated. When somebody swears under oath they didn't do something, and there's no evidence to prove otherwise I would think that's all we need. Is there actual evidence or witness testimony that disputes what Page has sworn to under oath? <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 📞📧 00:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, Page said he didn't meet with Sechin. Fine. But he also said, under oath, that he met with Sechin's deputy, Andrey Baranov. And when he was asked whether Baranov had discussed "a potential sale of a significant percentage of Rosneft," Page testified that "he may have briefly mentioned it." That's some corroboration, even if Steele got it wrong on which one he met with, Sechin or Sechin's deputy. The NYT article says (in fact everybody agrees) that there has been no corroboration of the salacious stuff. It also says no corroboration of "the specific claims about coordination between his associates and the Russians." Other publications, such as Newsweek, say that some aspects, including Page’s meeting with Rosneft, have been verified. I guess it depends how strictly you define "specific claims about coordination". The NYT article is mostly about who paid for the dossier. In recounting that it prominently mentions the Free Beacon, so there is zero chance we are going to eliminate all mention of that publication from our article. Getting back to the purposes of this thread, I gather you agree that we should remove the two comments chacterizing the Rosneft deal as "treason". --MelanieN (talk) 04:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Disagree. We should keep it, as explained on your talk, but I can see that any effort here is fruitless. It's even been deleted before any consensus was fully formed. That's really bad on a DS article, since restoration can be difficult. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Atsme, User:MelanieN lays it out well above. Below is more evidence. The best evidence is what Page DID say under oath. He grudgingly had to admit things he had denied, and came about as close to a full admission one can get, without actually doing it. He essentially admitted to most of the allegation. From saying no meetings, to admitting "maybe" meeting someone, to admitting meeting with Rosneft officials, and even admitting discussing the exact motive for the alleged transaction (lifting sanctions). Yes, under oath, he admitted that they might have discussed sanctions and might have discuss money. The allegation describes all that. The only thing he didn't admit was making that deal "for Trump", in "exchange for lifting the sanctions", but Trump, with his big mouth, immediately after the deal, started proclaiming how it would be a good idea to lift the sanctions and that he'd do it after the election (just what the dossier said), so Trump added more validation to that part of the allegation.
 * Page was right. After the Russians did their part of the deal by finalizing the sale, Trump proclaimed he was going to do his part by lifting the sanctions as soon as he became president. There is good evidence that the Trump administration immediately sought to do it right after the inauguration, but were stymied in their efforts. So the dossier has been proven right in about 90% of that allegation. Now we just need proof that Trump knew. That's still under wraps.
 * And then Page went to Moscow (a second time for the same deal) on December 8, 2016, the day after the deal was signed for 19.5% of Rosneft to be split off and moved through a series of shell companies in a transaction that experts have really questioned. This was in the news, not in some obscure fringe blog. RS speculated that the Rosneft deal (19.5%), which happened immediately after Trump won the election, looked suspiciously like the 19% figure in the allegation. The promise in the allegation seemed to be in the process of being fulfilled. The last place the money was traced to was a secret Cayman Islands account.
 * How Russia sold its oil jewel: without saying who bought it, Reuters
 * Memos: CEO of Russia's state oil company offered Trump adviser, allies a cut of huge deal if sanctions were lifted, Business Insider
 * Note that here he tells two stories (Later, under oath he admitted to meeting Baranov): "There is no evidence that Carter played any role in the Rosneft deal. But he was back in Moscow on December 8— one day after the deal was signed — to "meet with some of the top managers" of Rosneft, he told reporters at the time. Page denied meeting with Sechin, Rosneft's CEO, during that trip but said it would have been "a great honor" if he had."
 * Cayman company involved in $11B Russian oil privatization Cayman Compass
 * A lot of what is in that allegation did happen. Those are facts, not opinions. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Please read this Vox article. The information is published in a single article that presents all views and doesn't require OR or SYNTH to turn a rumor into what you consider to be "statements of fact". Rumors are not worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia, and as long as the Steele dossier is widely considered to be shady and unverifiable, we need to tread cautiously where BLPs are involved. You are actually trying to make a case against Page by taking a statement he made in one article, adding it to what he said in another article and then combining it together with material published in other articles (in not so reliable sources), and that is what's considered SYNTH and OR, which happens to be noncompliant with policy. Please stop trying to make a case that neither the Senate Intelligence Committee nor the Mueller team have determined to be worthy of further investigation. <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 📞📧 11:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've read the Vox article, and after reading it, I'm not so sure if you have read it. What is your point? Also, this is just an opinion piece.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've already made my points - I'm not so sure you understood them, so please read them again. You should also take a minute and compare the material in the Vox article to what's included in the article, and you may get most of your questions answered. FYI, Andrew Prokop is senior politics reporter for Vox, the article is published in the Politics and Policy section, and I don't see an "Opinion" designation. It must be this iPad screen so please point it out so I'll know how to locate it in the future...not that it matters in this case. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 14:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, you just said "read the Vox article". Ok. I did. And? Sorry, it's up to you to articulate what it is you want to do with that source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * See my comment to Melanie. <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 📞📧 18:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Removed content about Simpson testimony
I just noticed that removed this content, citing "WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE issues":

(mass removal, reinstatement of everything except Cassidy's comment). WP:SYNTH argument does not make any sense. The source explicitly comments the dossier, Simpson, and Simpson testimony. The content is faithful to the source (Cassidy: "In response to a question about whether Steele paid any of his sources, Simpson said that he hadn't asked him that question.".)

John Cassidy is a staff writer at The New Yorker, the magazine that published Cassidy's article.

I have already proved that James Comey and Michael Morell think it is crucial whether Steele paid the source, see:

How does it make sense to remove only Cassidys's comment? Politrukki (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's clearly WP:SYNTH, in context. You're stringing together sources that say different things in order to imply a contradiction (and to imply that this contradiction is important), but none of the sources individually support this - they all treat it as trivia.  I strongly disagree with your assertion that any of them support the idea that it is important, let alone 'crucial', and looking over past discussions it seems like you've repeatedly and consistently been the only person who wants it included. --Aquillion (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You are not making any sense: presenting multiple viewpoints is not synthesis, even if they seem to be in contradiction, if they are not combined improperly. In this case, both viewpoints are independently verifiable. Mere juxtaposition is not synthesis. In some cases, juxtaposition may be misleading, but usually that can be fixed by moving content to a different spot. Contrary to your argument "none of the sources individually support this", if source 1 says A and source 2 makes seemingly contradictory point B, we can present both viewpoints individually; source 1 does not have to touch B, and source 2 does not have to touch A directly.
 * Comey said it's "vital to know" whether the sources were paid. It's difficult to understand why you would think Comey would disagree that this is important.
 * In case I'm not mistaken, my opening post is the first and only time I have mentioned Cassidy. Is that "repeatedly and consistently" as you say? Politrukki (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I found a source that is more recent than the CNN report:

I will summarise this in the article. Hopefully that puts this discussion into rest. Politrukki (talk) 09:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Nice work. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Survey: new line
I removed an extraneous new line, which caused an apparent formatting error. reverted the edit without stating any reason. Should the new line be retained? Politrukki (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed. What good did you think would come from peppering the article with inline tags? By the way, the Huffington Post is not a self-published source.- MrX 🖋 15:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Tags are discussed above. At least MelanieN and you, judging by your beratement of Factchecker atyourservice, had difficulties finding two Huffington Post articles cited in the article. It is disruptive to remove maintenance tags, especially without addressing the concerns, while the discussion is active. Unless the tags are obviously incorrect, of course.
 * "Huffington Post is not a self-published source" – I never said it was. Please pay attention. Politrukki (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You literally placed after this source: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/golden-shower-or-no-donald-trump-looks-to-be-a-gift_us_587d45c7e4b0a7ab06ed2c32
 * Huffington Post is not self-published. Ariana has other things going on in her life.- MrX 🖋 18:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Non sequitur. Please review WP:SPS and then read my edit summary again. If you look really hard, you should find a tag you can use with your false statement. Hint: starts with an "S". Politrukki (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Bruce Ohr, revisited
Previous discussions:
 * Talk:Trump–Russia dossier/Archive 6
 * Talk:Trump–Russia dossier/Archive 6

Including any material about Bruce Ohr has been opposed using spurious arguments like saying that Fox News is not a reliable source (oh yeah, then what about CNN that was cited or dozens of mainstream publications that reported the same thing?) or falsehoods like "coverage mostly limited to sources like Heavy, The Washington Times, Breitbart and the Daily Caller".

The latest complete proposal was 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.

The proposal was opposed with bizarre arguments like "Serious coverage in mainstream sources is outweighed by highly partisan coverage in fringe sources." – even if that were true, no policy or guideline says we must let the so-called fringe sources poison the well.

When inclusion was last discussed (in the beginning of January), I spent few minutes searching for reliable sources that reported Bruce/Nellie Ohr's possible connection to the dossier or Fusion GPS. I came up with this list (limited to one hit per publication; I stopped searching when the conclusion was obvious):
 * 1) https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-says-muellers-russia-probe-angered-and-strengthened-his-base-2017-12/
 * 2) https://www.vox.com/2018/1/9/16863000/trump-doj-clinton-emails-russia-appointees
 * 3) https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-fusion/trump-dossier-firm-republicans-leaked-bank-records-in-retaliation-idUSKBN1E72ZK
 * 4) https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trump-allies-cry-foul-after-former-mi6-agents-christopher-steele-dossier-linked-to-obama-official-0767lxgsj
 * 5) https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-attorney-says-fbi-doj-conflicts-require-second-special-counsel-n828686
 * 6) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/12/12/trumps-lawyer-calls-for-a-special-counsel-investigation-of-alleged-corruption-at-fbi-and-justice-department/
 * 7) https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-lawyer-criticized-by-trump-allies-was-never-involved-in-russia-probe-1513125769
 * 8) https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/12/trump-lawyer-calls-for-new-special-counsel-to-investigate-the-department-of-justice-and-fbi.html
 * 9) https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-07/house-to-subpoena-justice-department-official-on-trump-dossier
 * 10) https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/16/fbi-subpoenas-bob-goodlatte-jim-jordan-299578
 * 11) http://www.newsweek.com/fbi-justice-officials-probe-trump-bias-750797
 * 12) https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/13/us/politics/trump-mueller-russia-republican-campaign.html
 * 13) http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-mueller-politics-20171212-story.html
 * 14) https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/12/donald-trump-lawyer-special-counsel-russia-investigation
 * 15) http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42372603
 * 16) https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/12/trump-russia-collusion-fbi-investigation-steele-dossier-hillary-clinton-campaign/

Later, when Glenn Simpson's testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee was released to the public, it was revealed that Simpson admitted meeting with Bruce Ohr.

When the Nunes memo was released, dozens and dozens of articles mentioned Bruce and Nellie Ohr. There is just no way that avoiding any mention of Bruce Ohr would be WP:DUE. Politrukki (talk) 06:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and propose a properly sourced edit based on the sources above and we'll see if it can be brought up to snuff for the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems like RS have pretty much dropped talking about them because it turned out to be a nothingburger: "There is no public evidence of wrongdoing by Ohr." (Your CNN source) AFAIK, only Fox News and right wing conspiracy sites keep the idea of any wrongdoing alive. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * MelanieN's proposal is an excellent start. Before I make a new proposal, I would like to know how many sources are needed before this thing is taken seriously. Fifty? One hundred? Maybe you could contribute by adding twenty sources or so to the list? I would also like someone to confirm that my sources are not fringe sources.
 * "There is no public evidence of wrongdoing by Ohr." – I noted that, obviously. So what? If the standard of exclusion is "no public evidence of wrongdoing", why is Carter Page mentioned in Trump–Russia dossier at all? If there is no public evidence that Trump or Trump campaign colluded with Russia, why does this article exist? Politrukki (talk)
 * I would support MelanieN's wording or something similar. We shouldn't omit this material given the number of reliable sources that covered it. (Not sure if I inserted this in the right place. The comment below seems mostly unrelated, and the OD is inexplicable.)- MrX 🖋 11:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm removing the confusing outdent. "The comment below" above refers to Atsme's message 08:56, 11 April 2018. Politrukki (talk) 09:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Politrukki, I'm sorry for not being clear. You write: "If the standard of exclusion is "no public evidence of wrongdoing",..." I can reassure you that that is not a Wikipedia standard of exclusion, and therefore not mine either. It's just a notable quote. I agree with MrX that there's enough RS mention to justify some content, possibly a section, so go ahead and prepare something for us to review and improve.
 * The sources you list above are generally considered RS, unlike two of those below (Daily Caller and Washington Times). You probably won't need a huge number, but it all depends on how large a section you can build. I really don't know about that. You may not even need all of those you list. The reason this subject has any notability (not a standard for inclusion, just article creation) is that Fox and right-wing sources have created a conspiracy theory out of it, while RS have lost interest because it turned out that nothing truly serious happened. That doesn't mean some content can't be included. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The entire dossier is unreliable partisan research, yet BR considers a verifiable statement of fact as a nothing burger? Ohr was DEmoted twice since it was discovered he had met with Steele and Simpson, and did not disclose the fact that his wife was being paid by Fusion GPS. That material clearly belongs in this article. I find the "no evidence of wrongdoing" argument rather ironic considering the same "no evidence" argument doesn't apply equally to the entire Steele dossier.


 * The widespread criticism of the dossier's credibility needs mention/weight in the article, including what James Robbins of USAToday called it: ...Fusion GPS “Steele dossier,” the sketchy gossip-ridden anti-Trump document paid for by the Clinton campaign and compiled with input from Russian intelligence sources. All of the major claims in the dossier either remain unproven or have been debunked, such as the debunked claim that Cohen went to Prague. Mr. Cohen took to Prague in late August to meet with Russian agents and devise a plan to cover up the purported Trump team’s role in the hacking. The dossier was referred to in Politico as a series of salacious and unverified claims. Politifact questions if the FBI's investigations had anything to do with the dossier, and if so, how much and what parts? You might also take note of how Politifact and Politico both referred to the dossier as the Steele Dossier, which again supports moving the POV Trump-Russia dossier title to the Steele dossier.


 * What I am interested in knowing now is why it is not considered OR and SYNTH for editors to pick through each claim in the dossier, and pretty much make their own determination as to what is or isn't reliable, verifiable or worthy of inclusion in the 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 📞📧 08:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ???? You write: "...pick through each claim in the dossier, and pretty much make their own determination as to what is or isn't reliable, verifiable or worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia". That hasn't happened. Pay attention. Right from the beginning the process of inclusion has been explained. If an allegation was noted in multiple RS, then it was fair game for inclusion. There are many more allegations in the dossier which are not included, simply because they didn't gain any traction in RS. That's how we are supposed to do things. It is the RS, not our own beliefs, wishes, or preconceived ideas of what should be in the article, which determine the content. Also, see my reply to Politrukki above. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you even read that PolitiFact source you mention? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And therein lies another major issue - what may be newsworthy is not necessarily encyclopedic or worthy of inclusion in WP (see RECENTISM, NOTNEWS, etc.), but some editors seem to think that because multiple sources mention it, it has to be included. Nope. What that tells us is that editors who want inclusion on that basis may not be looking to see if circular sourcing is involved; i.e., an AP report cited in multiple sources still only equals 1 source. Further, it's a contradiction to say in one breath that something is speculation and then in another breath support inclusion of speculation because it's published in RS that support one's POV. See WP:NEWSORG. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 01:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Atsme, thank you for your comment, but you are mostly going off-topic. Also, by using sources as "Daily Caller" and "Washington Times" you are baiting comments that will possibly lead into off-topic discussion about the reliability of those sources. I don't think I can agree with your conclusions on The Washington Times or Politifact article. Politrukki (talk) 09:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Nellie Ohr's ham radio licence
Sources commented that Nellie Ohr became interested in ham radio around the time she went to work for Fusion GPS. Here is a link to her licence posted on the FCC's website:  Amateur License - KM4UDZ -Ohr, Nellie H,  Federal Communications CommissionPhmoreno (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Relevance here? Maybe for her article, if she had one. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

".. any competent prosecutor could use the circumstantial evidence of her taking up ham radio while digging for dirt on Trump to prove her consciousness of guilt and intention to conceal illegal activities. - George Perry, former federal and state prosecutor"Phmoreno (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Huh? An extreme right-wing website used for some sort of conspiracy theory? You'll have to do much better than that. Find RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * That was the answer to your question about relevance.Phmoreno (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * any competent prosecutor could use the circumstantial evidence of her taking up ham radio while digging for dirt on Trump to prove her consciousness of guilt and intention to conceal illegal activities. Yikes, maybe in the McCarthy hearings. I think this is a BLP vio even on a talk page. O3000 (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * BullRangifer, to begin, what supports your comment that The Federalist (website) is "extreme right-wing"? Secondly, even if it were true, so what? Bias isn't an end-all, or there wouldn't be so many left-wing sources cited to our articles, and the majority are as I've proven repeatedly. Perhaps you should re-read WP:NEWSORG which states One signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections. You might also take some time to read the following: 2017 top media corrections, NYTimes article about CNN's retraction of their huge mistakes, The Federalist lists a number of news org mistakes. Another growing problem is WP:RECENTISM, which pretty much relates to this article and many others involving Trump. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 17:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This speculation is not suitable, or even relevant, for this article.- MrX 🖋 18:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Drum roll, please...I AGREE with you, MrX!!! <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 📞📧 00:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Nunes memo

 * Context: Nunes memo section

The Nunes Memo section reads like a mini-coatrack to discredit Nunes and the Memo when it should be providing our readers with information they can actually use to make their own determination. I've included a few RS that published what Trey Gowdy actually said about the role the dossier played in obtaining the FISA warrants. Keep in mind that Gowdy was the only Repub on the House Intel Com who saw the actual FISA apps. The section needs to be rewritten to include what Trey Gowdy said, and the Politifact portion that basically attempts to discredit Elizabeth Foley's statements needs to be removed. <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 📞📧 04:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) The Hill reported Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said in a new interview that the surveillance warrants for a former aide to President Trump’s campaign would not have been obtained without the controversial dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele.
 * 2) The same material was reported by CBS News, and they added that Gowdy was "the only Republican on the House Intelligence Committee who has seen the actual FISA warrant applications."
 * 3) Then there's The Washington Times that reported Gowdy "also said judges wouldn’t have authorized and repeatedly renewed a warrant to spy on the former campaign aide, Carter Page, if it hadn’t been for the material in that very dossier, compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele."
 * Now you've really raised my curiosity:
 * "The Politifact portion that basically attempts to discredit Elizabeth Foley's statements needs to be removed."
 * Why? BTW, it doesn't "attempt" to discredit her. It does do that. Anyone who believes that false claim has no credibility, and in this case that means Trump, Nunes, Foley, and anyone who believes them. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, go ahead and write some content that can be used. Give it a try. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Why? Because WP is neither a forum to discredit people in such a manner nor is it a soapbox to push a POV. The Politifact analysis focused on Foley's claim of what Comey and CNN actually said, which is shown in the quote box at the top of the Politifact page: Says James Comey suggested and CNN reported that the basis of the wiretapping warrant for Trump adviser Carter Page was "all based on a dossier." Their "mostly false" determination was that (my bold underline) the reporting  that Foley said traced the genesis of the Page investigation to the Steele Dossier isn’t cut-and-dried. IOW, it was not exactly what Comey and CNN actually said, not that the information she provided about the dossier was false. I would think that if she had paraphrased Trey Gowdy's comment that the FISA warrant would not have been obtained without the dossier, then her statement would have been rated true. Fact-check sites are a bit tricky that way. The information they provide may be misinterpreted, which appears to be what happened in this article - an obvious stumble getting over the POV hurdle. <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 📞📧 13:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * When RS, like PolitiFact, discredit someone, we document it. That is not soapboxing or pushing a POV. It's just doing what we're supposed to do.
 * Your parsing is also wrong. Foley made a false claim about what Comey and CNN said. They did not claim the dossier was the sole basis for the FISA warrant, only part of it. When she was confronted with her error, she doubled down. PolitiFact's conclusion is correct.
 * Page had been on the FBI's radar for several years, and this was not the first time he was the subject of a FISA warrant. They had been watching him all along, and his Russian activities, especially now that he was working for Trump, were suspicious enough to justify renewing the warrant.
 * They already had their own investigation going because of Papadopoulos and Stone, and the later addition of Steele's report was just enough to reach a critical mass justifying the FISA application. It was not the sole, or even major, reason, but it was definitely part of it, enough for Gowdy to say what he did. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I disagree. <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 📞📧 00:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You may disagree, but the sources do not disagree, and they are valid RS. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There is more than one view that can cite RS. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 01:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Atsme, you're claiming to have RS that are more accurate than PolitiFact, so the burden of proof is on you to provide them for us. Until then, you're just copping out and not admitting you're believing a completely debunked Trump/Nunes conspiracy theory. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Please stop with the my sources are better than your sources argument. It's not about what we believe, BR - it's about context, and whether or not the sources support the material we include. A RS usually includes all views and they fact check. The latter is not always expedient. Sorry, but I don't have the same passion about politics that you seem to have, based on your editing patterns and what you've included on your TP. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 03:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * English translation please? <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 03:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting read. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 03:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Atsme are you going for cognitive immersion therapy or is it by transfusion? Ping us upon return. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, stop the distraction ("my sources are better than your sources argument"). No, it's just a matter of providing regular RS which you apparently believe show that PolitiFact has gotten it wrong. That's all. That's a pretty simple request.

You made a claim, so you are obligated to prove it. I didn't make those rules. That's how it works. If you can't prove your clam, you can still retain your honor and credibility by admitting you are wrong and have learned something, or you must retire discredited from the playing field. We all make mistakes, but only a fool refuses to admit when they have done so.

I have no illusions that I understand this better than PolitiFact. They are the real professionals. No one has yet proven them wrong about this matter, yet you don't believe them and claim you have better sources. Okay, let's see them. I'd love to see sources that are more accurate than them. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have asked you before to please stop the PAs, BullRangifer. Now you are attacking my "honor and credibility". I've already explained my interpretation of the Politifact article in detail, and there is nothing more I can do if you choose DIDNTHEARTHAT. <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 📞📧 11:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Umm...no, that's not how it works. You claim that PolitiFact is wrong, based on your personal interpretation, which is supposedly based on some other sources. What are they? Just present your evidence. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Reboot: OR, SYNTH?

 * Context: Nunes memo section

Here's the content again:

Quick rewrite:
 * "A fundamental accusation made in the Nunes memo is that ..." – Where is this stated in the source? Nowhere. Nunes is not mentioned in the source, let alone Nunes memo.
 * "PolitiFact confirmed ..." – "Confirmed"? Has this ever been disputed? Note that Trump–Russia dossier already says "While Trump and some Republicans have claimed that the dossier was behind the beginning of the investigation into ..." I don't see a reason to mention this twice.
 * "while the dossier does claim 'that Page met with Russians and discussed quid-pro-quo deals ... this did not form the sole basis" – The conclusion is stitched together from different pieces of the article, which is improper synthesis. "Quid pro" is mentioned twice: first in Foley quote and the second time mentioned as claim made in the dossier, but it is not a part of Politifact's conclusions.

As Politifact does not mention Nunes memo, this content cannot be included under Trump–Russia dossier per OR. If this is to be included, where should this go? Politrukki (talk) 09:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Politrukki, very good catch. You make some good points. It doesn't outright mention the Nunes memo, but it's obviously dealing with a key, false, assumption in the memo, one repeated by many Trump supporters who believe the conspiracy theories found in numerous unreliable sources. In this case, PolitiFact debunks Foley's false claim. Hmmmm....how to deal with that? I don't see this as belonging elsewhere, so can this be worded in such a way that it's clear there is no synth violation? SYNTH deals with improper synthesis. When the connection is very obvious, it isn't an absolute requirement that it be mentioned.
 * Right now I'm reserving judgment about your rewrite. It may be good, but I'm not sure yet, as it may need some tweaking. Thanks for bringing this up. We need more eyes on this so we can get it right. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:10, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * As I tried to explain above...the focus of the Nunes memo in relation to Carter Page is not that it was used as the basis for the surveillance warrant on Page. What was actually stated by Gowdy, e.a. is that the FISA warrant would not have been authorized without the dossier...chalk it off to semantics. Gowdy's statement is supported by the following RS:
 * The Hill
 * CBS News
 * The Washington Times
 * There are more RS, but 3 should be enough. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 19:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No one is questioning Gowdy's statement. It's accurate, but don't equate Gowdy with Nunes and his memo. Gowdy had nothing to do with the memo and is one Republican who has disagreed with Nunes on this and other points. Nunes tried to give the impression that the dossier was used as too much of the justification for seeking the FISA warrant, and many have said or implied that the application was "all based on a dossier" (Foley), but the dossier came along after intelligence agencies had already been gathering evidence on Carter Page.
 * The dossier was just what was needed to reach critical mass and justify a renewed FISA warrant, which is what Gowdy means. Page had already been monitored under previous FISA warrant(s), so they had been watching him all along and were concerned after his five day trip to Moscow in July. The dossier seems to have been the final blow. It also indicates that the intelligence community viewed the dossier as largely reliable, or at least that Steele was credible enough for them to continue to seek to verify the allegations in the dossier. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "can this be worded in such a way that it's clear there is no synth violation" – Under "Nunes memo" section? No. We must to stick to the sources. The only possible way to avoid original research would be finding a third party source that ties Politifact article to Nunes memo. If you cannot do that or find a suitable place for the rewritten content, you should remove the content violating WP:OR immediately. Politrukki (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right, so moved here:


 * Here's what she said:


 * She's clearly talking about the FISA warrant, a major subject of the Nunes memo, so there is a connection, even though she doesn't mention the memo itself. Either we need to word the introduction to her comment better, or we need a different location. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Below is an attempt to avoid the implication that she's talking about the memo itself, because she isn't. She's talking about the FISA application. I'll use your rewrite from above.

My quick summary of the Nunes memo: A major theme of the Nunes memo is the basis for seeking the FISA warrant to justify surveillance of Carter Page. The memo alleges that there was too much dependence on the, at that time, unverified dossier. Using your rewrite, here's a new attempt:

Politrukki, how's that? Does that solve the problem? That should make it clear that she's not referring to the Nunes memo, but is speaking about a fundamental concern in the memo, so we should be able to still place this content in the section, as it's the most logical place. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Not good. Nunes memo was released in February. You are jumping from February to January to add editorialisation "Some have taken this concern to extremes". WP:OR is one of the core content policies. You can't just ignore it like that. Politrukki (talk) 05:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Holy crap! You're right. So this idea was in circulation before the publication of the Nunes memo. So, how would you word it? Let's get it right. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The content, without your editorialisation, could go to Reactions section, using level 2 heading, not 3.
 * I just split the "Use in 2017 Special Counsel investigation" into two sections. Alternatively the content could go into the new "Use in the FBI's Russia investigation" section, using level 2 heading. Politrukki (talk) 08:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Politrukki, that all makes sense. I just placed it in chronological order.
 * Go ahead and add the content as you suggested. You've made some real improvements. Good work! -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. Will do soon. I have some comments afterwards. Politrukki (talk) 11:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales
A discussion about this article is currently open at User talk:Jimbo Wales. I stand by my description of this article as a "shit-kabob" (sic), and hope to not have to comment further here. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 03:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Wales hasn't edited this page. Why is this being discussed on his user talk page? Is this some ham-fisted attempt at forum shopping?- MrX 🖋 14:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * People take issues to his talk page all the time. If it brings additional eyes to this article then it is a good thing. It is quite rare that editors using his talk page to promote, erm, other views, to put it politely, find any success. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

What is the best way to contradict Reuters? How much WP editor analysis is needed to show Reuters wrong?
There may be an emerging consensus that we should not cite RS fact sourcing on the issue of Trump collusion evidence, because the RS's are getting it all wrong by making false claims like "Ongoing congressional and FBI investigations into Russian interference have so far produced no public evidence that Trump associates colluded with the Russian effort to change the outcome of the election.".

Helpful WP editors have stepped in to explain why Reuters is wrong. The question is, do we need an unusually large amount of original research to contradict a top RS like Reuters, or will a normal amount of OR do? Separately, can any editor contribute OR or only ones who have correct political views? Asking for a friend. Fact checker _ at your service 14:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there consensus, where?.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe! Above.  Fact checker _ at your service  14:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, not maybe, either there is an obvious consensus or there is not, and I am not seeing an obvious consensus. Also we do not get to override Wikipedia polices here, the proper place for this discussion is either over at the OR or RS forums, not here.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * From what I understand rough consensus is fine as well. It does not need to be 100%. PackMecEng (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Also WP tells us to ignore all rules, and WP:V is merely a rule. Fact checker _ at your service  15:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, but it does have to be a clear majority, I am not seeing that (itt looms rather more like an even split, with a slight lean to oppose).Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes but assuming the final consensus is oppose, we may need to discuss what's the best way to use OR to contradict top fact sources, it's not exactly new ground on Wikipedia but the policies do still technically say we are supposed to use sources. Fact checker _ at your service  15:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If you ignore it why should not I or anyone else who wants to add "and Donald Trump agreed to sell the USA to Russia"? Hell using that logic we can (and should) write whatever we want (can you guess what those things might be?). You want to invoke ignore all rules on this article fine, just be prepared for what will happen. If you start to argue for the inclusion of OR why the hell is your OR better then anyone esles? There is no best way (only worse ways) to use OR to contradict "facts", just a decreasing quality of article as everyone inserts their obvious facts that dispute your obvious facts.Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That is only a problem in theory. In practice, most WP editors know which views are correct, and so the editors supporting the correct views will outnumber the editors supporting the incorrect views.  Fact checker _ at your service  16:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe lets test itSlatersteven (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Ohh for those who are interested the consensus is not "the RS are wrong" it is "the RS do not support the statement "there is no public evidence"" As far as I know no one has said the RS are wrong, just that they are being misrepresented.Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Just so. And you include yourself among that consensus, right Steven?  Do you think you could make some basic attempt to explain why you think the RS's don't say exactly what I said they did?  Fact checker _ at your service  16:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I said this in the above discussion, and this is not the place to reopen the same debate by another name.Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You're the one who tried to continue the debate here, I was merely mocking the absurd idea that it would ever be proper to substitute editor opinions for RS fact coverage. Fact checker _ at your service  16:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * An absurd idea no one has suggested. I think we can close this now as a non serious suggestion.Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's been repeatedly suggested, seeing how most of the "oppose" votes are based on the editor's opinion that the source's claims are wrong because of various editor interpretations of evidence and opinion-article claims that the existing evidence does show collusion. Only a couple people such as yourself and User:Volunteer_Marek are raising the absurd claim that I have somehow misrepresented the sourcing, which obviously false claims ignore the actual wording of the sources.  Fact checker _ at your service  16:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If anyone is opposing based upon "the sources are wrong" that is against policy and is tendentious editing, if they care report them. If you think I am making false claims report me. Otherwise stop this now. This is a frivolous request (which you have acknowledged) that is not designed to improve the article but make a point, and that is against the rules. This is my last comment on this.Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I am trying to improve the article by forcing editors to read English words such as the quoted matter above. If you feel the preferable course of action would be for me to go and spend hundreds of hours of my personal time filing a dozen or more tendentious editor reports, then you are free to go to ANI and try to have me blocked for insisting on talking about what RS fact sources actually say in plain English.  In the meantime, I will keep talking about RS fact sources, plain English, and what words mean.  Fact checker _ at your service  16:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

That said I mistakenly quoted one of the older sources rather than one of the newer ones which defeats the purpose of using it to emphasize RS coverage. Fact checker _ at your service 17:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC) ===Proposal=== For one day we try an experiment, OR is permitted in the article, but must first have majority consensus for inclusion (as worded).Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't forget the scary masks. Fact checker _ at your service  16:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Experiment
We should include the following statement as obviously correct.Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

"It is an irrefutable fact that Donald Trump knowingly colluded with Putin to win the US presidential election."

Agree
QED Fact checker _ at your service  16:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)