Talk:Bruce Ohr

When did Wikipedia became part of Fake News

WP:FORUM. --MelanieN (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
His wife worked for Fusion GPS, he did not disclose it. And this page claims it is a "right wing" conspiracy... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.188.133.129 (talk) 10:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC) Thank you for demonstrating your complete lack of objectivity by invoking the most infantile and most despotic of all neologisms, "fake news." That having been said, unless you can provide proof of your claim, you're part of the partisan white noise (both left and right) that this country needs much less of.Lucas Donald Velour (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Please un"hat" the initial sentence

as it is too brief to constitute a forum and the hatting seems more like making a point. The personal attack after the first sentence might be removable as a personal attack, but since this is a discussion page it should likely be left in as well. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

It would be best to start a new thread at the bottom where it will be seen. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Contact

"Bruce Ohr served as a Department of Justice contact for Christopher Steele, ..."

This implies ongoing contacts, not one contact or occasional contacts. What's the truth here? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

In fact, it implies he was an official contact person. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC) BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

WaPo reports that Ohr and Simpson met in a coffee shop. The nature of Ohr's relationship with Steele is not public, though Sen. Chuck Grassley has requested more records. ^Falling_Gravity 16:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I have removed a link here which goes to a site which flagrantly violates WP:RS and WP:BLP; it is unacceptable as a source and unacceptable for discussion here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

For the record, this is the removal of a link to the very unreliable Gateway Pundit, added here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof:You've got to be kidding me. Fox News is a reliable source. Just because you do not like it doesn't make it unreliable. Every time this has been brought up at WP:RSN, the consensus has been the same.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Try again. The link removed went to Gateway Pundit. If you think Gateway Pundit is a reliable source, you need to re-examine your understanding of what reliable sources are, and you should probably refrain from editing biographies of living persons until you do so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

You can cut the personal attacks. The information you removed was sourced to Fox News, CNN, and the Washington Post. There's no gateway pundit.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:40, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh really? I removed it from this very talk page. Try again. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, now I see, we were talking about two different things, I was talking about the content you removed from the main page.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Who hired him into the DOJ? how long has he actually worked there, for whom, what is his job title? the way this is written now is purely fox news like! 75.183.153.199 (talk) 20:52, August 17, 2018‎ (UTC)

Removed material

I have removed a section of material in this article because I am concerned that it places undue weight on a single event, and in particular, undue weight on a single particular viewpoint about that event; namely, a partisan memo broadly rejected or disputed by other mainstream sources. If we are to discuss Ohr, we have to discuss him in a balanced, fair-minded and even-handed manner, avoiding sensationalism and appropriately attributing partisan opinion, and the wording in question clearly failed that test. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Using that reasoning the Steele dossier can't be mentioned in any article about Donald Trump because its partisan. I think there's a popular saying here, something like "we go by reliable sources". So if reliable sources are reporting the memo, its fair game (assuming we attribute it correctly, which we have).--Rusf10 (talk) 03:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

If you can find anything attributed to the Steele dossier in Donald Trump, you might have a point. But there isn't anything attributed to the Steele dossier in Trump's biography, and indeed, the word "Steele" appears literally nowhere in the article. We have avoided mentioning the Steele dossier allegations in Trump's biography, and rightly so, because they're unproven and defamatory claims about a living person sourced to an allegedly-partisan opposition document. Similarly, we should avoid making unproven and defamatory claims about Ohr sourced to an allegedly-partisan opposition document. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

It's here, BLP applies in all articles so it doesn't make a difference where you mention it. And WP:BLPCRIME doesn't apply to Trump or Ohr since they are both well-known, meaning that as long as it is make clear that the allegations are unproven they can be mentioned if reliably sourced.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, so you admit that there is no mention of the partisan allegations in Donald Trump's biography; rather, there is mention in a separate, related article. Then you agree that we should avoid mentioning these partisan allegations in Ohr's biography; rather, such mention should be included in a separate, related article — for example, our article about the Trump-Russia dossier, perhaps in a subsection about the alleged history of the development of the dossier and contacts with the DOJ. I'm glad you agree. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Way to try and spin my comments. I do NOT agree with you. WP:BLPCRIME, the applicable policy does NOT apply to Ohr as a public figure. The allegations are actually what he is known for and to whitewash the article and not mention them is irresponsible.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Please explain why we would avoid mentioning the Steele allegations in our biography of Donald Trump while prominently featuring the Nunes allegations in our biography of Bruce Ohr. Why is one unacceptable and the other mandatory? Why one and not the other? Do you hvae a rational basis for this, or is it merely because you believe one set of allegations and not the other, and find one set of allegations to be politically convenient but not the other? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

1. The Steele allegations are not what Trump is primarily known for 2. You still mentioned them in another article where Trump is the subject. Bruce Ohr doesn't have mutliple articles, so it gets mentioned here.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

If, as you claim, the Nunes allegations are what Ohr is primarily known for, then you have admitted that the article is a one-event BLP and a WP:COATRACK, and this article should be merged/redirected into that article. You can't have it both ways, really. Either this article is about Ohr or it's about Nunes' partisan allegations about Ohr. If it's the former, then partisan allegations about him should be put somewhere else. If it's about the latter, then this shouldn't be a biography. We aren't going to treat a "right-wing conspiracy theory" [1] about Ohr as if it is his entire life. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Now the truth comes out, it's all just a ""right-wing conspiracy theory", you are here to whitewash anything that makes a Democrat potentially look bad. What is a proven fact is that Ohr's wife worked for Fusion GPS, the firm that hired Steele. Whether you like it or not (and whether Ohr's involvement in the matter goes to the extent Nunes suggested), Ohr has become a public figure that has been in the news continually for over six months now. --Rusf10 (talk) 04:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Your problem is that those words aren't mine; rather, it's a direct factual statement published by The New York Times, a gold-standard reliable source. Mr. Ohr has found himself at the center of a right-wing conspiracy theory about the origins of the investigation into Russia’s 2016 election interference. And if you're going to declare the NYT "fake news" like the president does, then indeed the truth shall have come out. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, how do you know Ohr is a Democrat? What source do you have to support your description of his party affiliation? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually the New York Times is clearly engaging in partisan journalism here. While continuing to write about Ohr (they have written several articles about him), they are also trying to claim he is little-known. They can't have it both ways. I am not objecting to using the New York Times article as a source, but it have a blatant bias. This article is a prime example of how they have blurred the line between journalism and opinion. How many other reliable sources are reporting this a just a "right-wing conspiracy theory"?--Rusf10 (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Your personal opinion of The New York Times article is not relevant; your claim that "it has a blatant bias" is unsupported by any other source. That you don't like the NYT is apparent; that Wikipedia considers it a gold standard news source (as does the rest of the non-right-wing-echo-chamber world) is undeniable. This article is a prime example of the fact that right-wing conspiracy theorists don't like their baseless claims about people being exposed for what they are. If you want to engage in InfoWars-level pegs-and-string-on-a-corkboard conspiracymongering about a career federal official, Conservapedia might be more your style. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Rather than personally attack me and try to convince me that the New York Times is the best source ever, just answer the damn question. What other reliable source is referring to this as a "right-wing conspiracy theory"? The Washington Post isn't one of my favorite sources either, but their reporting on the issue is a lot better. Why don't you read this article?--Rusf10 (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure you have read the Wapo article, Rus? It clearly states that Trump's statements are based on claims which are 1)Intricate, 2)Brought forth by people whose loyalties are with the extreme right, and 3)Fail to pass the Pinocchio Test. Aren't those the elements of right wing conspiracy thinking?Rose bartram (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

That's not what the article says, you putting your own spin on it. 90% of the article is pure facts. Only the last paragraph offers an opinion. It says As yet, there is little evidence to support Trump’s contention that Ohr helped Steele find dirt on Trump. He appears to be only a messenger. At this point, it’s unclear what Ohr even told his friend at the FBI about Steele’s information and whether any of that reporting ended up influencing the Russia investigation. There is also, as yet, no evidence that senior Justice Department officials were even aware of Ohr’s sideline communications with Steele about the Russian probe. Trump’s mention of Ohr’s wife appears gratuitous. Her role in the matter, as yet, appears minimal. All of this may amount to a molehill, not a mountain, but the various connections are certainly intriguing. which is far off from what you are claiming it says. In fact at the top of the article it even says "We will not offer a Pinocchio rating."--Rusf10 (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Describing the Nunes memo

I find it hard to believe that an experienced editor like NorthBySouthBaranof would feel that [2] is appropriate content for this article. I've reverted it; this is not the place to disparage Devin Nunes. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that an experienced editor like you would believe that we should uncritically republish scurrilous partisan conspiracy theories about a heretofore-obscure living person who has been targeted by the President of the United States. The veracity of the memo's contents - some of which have been disproven as our own article about the memo states - are entirely relevant when repeating that memo's claims about a living person. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Maybe there's something worse that was removed, but the fact that the memo claims he "was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president" doesn't seem like a potential BLP issue, as it's clearly verifiable whether that is claimed. Everything else is just a bunch of excessive words that say very little. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:52, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

There was other stuff that was removed; furthermore, why is a big long quote of what Steele said in some conversation or other relevant in this article at all? It would seem to belong in Steele's biography, not Ohr's, unless there's some particular, heretofore-unstated relevance of why it matters to Ohr that Steele said that to him. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ... wait, Steele said this, not Ohr? That entire section seems like a lot of hearsay and conjecture. His wife was involved with the Steele dossier, and Trump is now talking about him a lot. Those are the facts. Everything else is just irrelevant details (and stuff like While it has been disclosed that Ohr did pass some information to the FBI, it has not been determined what that information was or what, if anything, the FBI did with it. is too vague to be of any use). I think I'm going to abandon this article now; with WP:1RR it's a pain to make more than 1 edit per 48 hours anyhow. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

...and now you're getting the picture. This is precisely why The New York Times called this whole thing about Ohr a "right-wing conspiracy theory". Again, we need more experienced editors to take on these issues. But they're thorny, difficult, contentious time-sinks. I don't blame you for abandoning it. But yeah, that's just more proof of the problem. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

NBSB, not OK. Drmies (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Well...reading the article for the first time I did not care for using the word "bias" since it almost always suggests prejudice and actually replaced it with the ""was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president" quote - only to find as I read further on that the quote was being used a few sentences down. I think the quote is fine and accurate - though I still don't like the use of the word "bias", though I can't think of a better one... Gandydancer (talk) 13:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Unbelievable. This edit not only misrepresents the source, but it is also detached from reality.

• "widely-disputed" – The cited source absolutely does not say that. How could a source that was published in April 2017 comment the Nunes memo, which was not published until several months later?
• "authored by Republican staff members" – Not in the source.
• "Trump ally Devin Nunes" – Not in the source.
• "has been criticized for allegedly leaking investigatory information to Trump and friendly media outlets" – This is just nonsense. The ethics investigation regarding Nunes was about whether Nunes disclosed classified information in making public statements to the press. Nunes was later cleared, which was conveniently not mentioned in the edit, a BLP violation.
• "friendly media outlets" is not in the source (and no reliable source would say that) and is just personal commentary.
• "allegedly leaking investigatory information to ... friendly media outlets" misleadingly implies that Nunes was doing something in cloak-and-dagger style when in fact Nunes held public press conferences.
• "leaking investigatory information to Trump" is not in the source and makes no sense at all because the POTUS already has access to all classified information. It has also been reported that Nunes's anonymous sources were from the White House.[3] Thus there would be no reason to "leak" anything to Trump.

Does an editor who does not have a basic understanding of V, NPOV, and NOR (or chooses to ignore them) have competence to edit this article, or any BLPs? Politrukki (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the proposed edits; not only is their neutrality questionable, but this article is about Ohr, not Nunes. However I do NOT agree with calling the competence of other editors into question. You know better than that, Politrukki. Discuss content, not other editors. --MelanieN (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Most, if not all, of the problems that you identified were fixed in my series of edits. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Trump's tweets

Should Trump's tweets about Ohr be mentioned? I'm not sure if it would be a BLP issue to mention them. On the other hand, most people will only have heard of Ohr because of the tweets (and the related coverage in the news media). power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Only to the extent we mention them now: calling him a "disgrace" and threatening to pull his security clearance. --MelanieN (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Never Realized How Partisan Politics Effects Such Entries

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Although not an advocate for outright deletion, this article has an overt bias in favor of portraying the subject's (alleged) dirty tricks in a most sanitized and partisan slant. It appears Trump Derangement Syndrome, or the shattering of liberal expectations in our most recent presidential election, has warped the common sense usually found herein. This article uses shades of blame and malice toward newsworthy facts portraying them as merely, in its overused and outright false propaganda, 'conspiracy' theorist in nature. Holding onto such nonsense in one's writing comes off as blatantly partisan, labels many millions of Trump supporters as whacko, and continues to divide a nation created by very wise, albeit flawed, men. The good news is the founders took even all these slanted points of view into consideration in their efforts to give tyranny no foothold in this land. Those with common sense see through such covering up of governmental abuses and truth will always, eventually, come through. On that note I expect this article to be updated with facts instead of such bounteous displays of left wing CYA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.127.6.252 (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Semion Mogilevich and Jose Reyes (el Feo)

• https://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/15/nyregion/the-rise-and-fall-of-el-feo.html

• https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/27/us/politics/bruce-ohr-trump-justice-department.html

• https://www.politicususa.com/2018/08/28/rachel-maddow-ties-trump-and-the-gop-to-russian-organized-crime.html - The Rachel Maddow Show Aug 28, 2018, Quote: "That specific official who started with the El Feo case and the drug gangs in the Bronx. Who rose to become the head of organized crime and racketeering at the justice department. Who became the Justice Department’s expert on Russian organized crime. The guy who indicted the head of the Russian mafia. The guy who became the Justice Department’s lead counsel for transnational organized crime and international affairs. The guy who had been part of the team banned Paul Manafort’s patron and business partner, Oleg Deripaska from doing business with the United States on his alleged ties to organized crime in Russia. That justice department official. That guy. Is named Bruce Ohr. And he is the object of conspiracy theories and condemnation on right-wing media on a 24-hour loop." --87.170.203.89 (talk) 12:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

"Comprehensive" should be deleted - What is the proof that ABC was comprehensive? ABC? Circular reasoning

Article claims: "A comprehensive report done by ABC News disputes . . . ." The citation to support this is ABC!!! Delete "comprehensive. Who knows if it was comprehensive or selective with propagandist motive. ABC is not a reliable source on comprehensiveness in the context of a debate over Fake News, in which the MSM is heavily involved. (PeacePeace (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC))

You're welcome to park your POV at the door, because it isn't based on RS. The MSM is not "heavily involved" with fake news. That's a right-wing media problem, with hardly any effect on the left-wing media. Read this article which describes research and data analysis on the subject. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

NPOV violation, Democrat Liberal Talking Point use "conservative conspiracy theories"

Article says, "Ohr was little-known until 2018, when he became a subject of conservative conspiracy theories." This is NPOV violation, an attempt to put suspicions and accusations vs Ohr into a pejorative category. It is easy to any number of liberal Democrat sources willing to throw the pejorative category around. For NPOV article could say, ". . . , when he became accused of colluding with others in the Never-Trump movement." The question of Ohr's activities should not be brushed off with a standard pejorative slur phrase. (PeacePeace (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC))

It is not POV to label a conspiracy theory as such. It would be a POV violation to suggest this is any sort of "he said, she said" allegation that has any possibility of being accurate. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Issues

"Ohr was mentioned in the controversial Nunes memo, written by Devin Nunes, chair of the Republican-led House Intelligence Committee, which was released in February 2018. The full committee did not sign off on the memo, and Democrats in the committee produced their own memo which largely contradicted the Nunes memo."

This sentence is unnecessarily complex, and poorly sourced. The BBC article makes no mention of the "full committee" not signing off on the memo, nor the significance of the committee not signing off. The inclusion of such a line is synthesis, intended to undermine the credibility of the Nunes memo based innuendo, rather than direct rebuttal by the explicit claims of a source. The BBC article also does not mention a Democratic memo.16:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

The language reflects this source[4]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Political and media scrutiny

@Winkelvi: I do not take issue with your phrasing "after he became a subject of political and media scrutiny over his contact", which is careful and neutral. However, the source used for the sentence explicitly states:

Ohr has come under Republican scrutiny for his contacts to Glenn Simpson, co-founder of Fusion GPS. The opposition research firm hired former British spy Christopher Steele during the 2016 presidential campaign to compile the dossier. (emphasis added - link)

If you could provide a source that accurately reflects your revisions, that would greatly benefit this article! –Zfish118^⋉talk 18:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

No, it isn't careful and neutral if doesn't "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views" represent the sourcing; sources generally describe scrutiny coming from Republicans and thus we have to too. Winkelvi could you explain why you changed the sentence to be unverifiable to the source? Because from my view it looks like you're just inserting your own POV of the situation, without even looking at the sourcing per NPOV. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Revert

I fundamentally disagree with any attempt to weaken the well-sourced description of the claims as a conspiracy theory, and request that any proposed change to this wording be discussed here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Your edits reverting the lead were unacceptable. You removed significant summary of the body of the article, all of it directly and carefully cited to reflect the underlying source. –Zfish118^⋉talk 18:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: You are in violation of the One Revert Rule. Please restore my edit immediately, or I will escalate this. –Zfish118^⋉talk 18:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Zfish118, NorthBySouthBaranof is not in violation that I see; consecutive edits are counted together as one revert. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Apparently you, Galobtter, were the second reverter, not NorthBySouthBaranof. –Zfish118^⋉talk 18:47, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Reverted Content

This diff shows the series of edits that reverted my edits, which are discussed below. –Zfish118^⋉talk 19:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Lead reversion

@NorthBySouthBaranof and Galobtter: Why was the following content that directly reflects the sources twice reverted (1, 2):

Removed Content

when he became a subject of Republican scrutiny over his contacts with Glenn R. Simpson, co-founder of Fusion GPS,[5] as well as his contacts with Christopher Steele, a former British Intelligence agent hired by Fusion GPS to produce a dossier of opposition research against then presidential candidate Donald Trump.[4] Ohr was criticized by President Trump in August 2018 for allegedly abusing his access to sensitive information to aid Steele.[6][7]

New York Times Quote

Conservative allies of Mr. Trump have denounced Mr. Ohr over his wife’s ties to Fusion GPS and for his relationship with Mr. Steele, whom he had known before Mr. Steele began working for Fusion GPS.

New York Times Quote

Mr. Ohr’s name came at the end of a list of former officials whom Mr. Trump accused of leveraging their access to sensitive information for personal gain.

LA Times

Ohr has come under Republican scrutiny for his contacts to Glenn Simpson, co-founder of Fusion GPS. The opposition research firm hired former British spy Christopher Steele during the 2016 presidential campaign to compile the dossier.

The reverted content scrupulously emulates the source language, and directly attributes all claims to the original sources. Its reversion is inappropriate. Please explain exactly which content was inappropriate, or please restore it yourself. –Zfish118^⋉talk 18:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Some of your additions actually might be too close to the sources; might be close paraphrasing. Anyways, part of my revert were to stop the unacceptable change of "Republican scrutiny" to "political and media scrutiny". Also, your additions were very repetitive of what the later sentence "Ohr has been the subject of Republican scrutiny as well as conspiracy theories[6][7][8] over his purported involvement in starting the probe on Russian interference in the 2016 election", said, though they may have had more detail. There is no need to add "According to the New York Times" per WP:YESPOV Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

With such such a bare bones summary, the close paraphrasing is almost unavoidable, hence my in-text references to sources. The redundancy was not my edit, but a following editor, whose edits I agree were problematic. –Zfish118^⋉talk 19:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Huh? The redundancy was indeed from your edit - the sentence I quoted was there in the lead before you inserted your sentences. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I misread the sentence you described as redundant; I had intended to remove that second reference to "Republican scrutiny", but missed it. –Zfish118^⋉talk 20:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Body reversions

Removed content

In 2018, Ohr was added to a list of former official alleged by President Donald Trump to have abused their access to sensitive information for personal gain, despite still being employed by the Justice Department. According to the New York Times, Trump's actions were in response to a "right-wing conspiracy" that alleges Ohr played an important role in starting the probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election, through he and his wife's alleged involvement in preparing the Steele dossier.

New York Times Quote

When the White House announced on Wednesday that President Trump was revoking or reviewing the security clearances of former officials who have emerged as some of his chief political antagonists, the list also included a little-known career Justice Department official, Bruce Ohr.

Mr. Ohr has found himself at the center of a right-wing conspiracy theory about the origins of the investigation into Russia’s 2016 election interference. A lawyer who worked on anti-gang and anti-drug initiatives, he has no direct involvement in the inquiry, but losing his clearance could affect his ability to do his job.

New York Times #2

Embracing Conspiracy Theory, Trump Escalates Attack on Bruce Ohr (Headline)

Sydney Morning Herald

Trump, following conspiracy theory, escalates attack on Bruce Ohr (Headline)

The cited articles reference the so-called conspiracy theories only in direct reference as motives for President's actions. When conspiracy theories motivate the president of the United States, it is the actions of the president and his motives that are notable. The conspiracy theories are only notable because of their influence over important persons and the decision they make.

Both sources only mention the existence of the conspiracy theory in relation to Trump's adverse actions against Ohr. This is the essential context regarding conspiracy theories. Had the these theories not had significant influence over national leaders, they would not be notable for inclusion in Ohr's biography. –Zfish118^⋉talk 19:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Body/lead Reversion #2

Body Content Removed

Ohr had not be found to have mishandled sensitive information, according to the New York Times.

Body Content Reverted to

There is no publicly available evidence that suggests Ohr mishandled sensitive information.

Lead Content Removed

According to the New York Times, no evidence has emerged that Ohr mishandled sensitive information or was involved in the start of the Russia probe.

Lead Content Reverted to

There is no evidence that Ohr was involved in the start of the Russia probe.

The New York Times asserts in its own editorial voice that Ohr had not be found to have mishandled sensitive information. It does not, for instance, quote an external investigation. Using Wikipedia's voice to assert a conclusion made by the Times is problematic, hence close paraphrase directly attributing the conclusion to the Times.

In the lead reversion, a similar issue exists, in the Times' article does not quote an external source, but concludes in its own editorial voice that Ohr was not involved in the start of the investigation. The reverted phrasing emulates the following sentence, which appropriately attributes a similar conclusion directly to ABC News. The removal of the further exculpatory claim that no sensitive information was removed is baffling. –Zfish118^⋉talk 19:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

We rely upon the conclusions of reliable sources, and per WP:YESPOV don't have to attribute things that aren't disputed in reliable sources; that there is no public evidence or that no evidence has emerged appears to be undisputed. I don't see what the issue is with the ny times not quoting an external source. I've added back Trump's accusation of mishandling sensitive information and that there was no evidence on that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

The issue here is that in any other circumstances, the President of the United States would be a reliable source, or at least a one needed to be taken seriously. President Trump publicly concluded that Ohr most likely misused sensitive information; the New York Time and ABC News concluded that Ohr had not. These are conflicting conclusions from prominent sources made using a combination of the facts known and unknown to the public. With so many rumors and innuendos, it is vitally important to carefully document the chain of facts and conclusions. –Zfish118^⋉talk 20:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me, what? No. The President of the United States (or of anywhere else, for that matter) is not themself a "reliable source" for anything other than their own opinion. The mere fact that the president has said something does not require or even permit Wikipedia to treat it as true. Presidents of all parties lie all the time. The president's pronouncements on Twitter are not gospel truth. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Moreover, the Times article you refer to is not an editorial, contrary to your belief. It is, rather, a news article. We are not engaging in a battle of conflicting opinions here. We have an indisputable reliable secondary source making a factual conclusion on the one hand, and on the other hand you propose to use as a source basically a tweet by someone who is widely known to lie. These are not equivalent sources, and Wikipedia has no obligation to treat them as equivalent. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:46, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: I am calling foul. I do not "believe" any of the sources cited in this article are "editorials"; I am stating that they are using their editorial voice to make factual statements and conclusions. This is the very nature of news reporting: to analyze conflicting information to discern the facts. Based the facts it uncovered, the New York Times concluded that the President's claims about Ohr are wrong, and also concluded that the president is motivated by "conspiracy theories". All I am advocating is that the New York Times be explicitly cited for these controversial factual conclusions, since Wikipedia cannot use its own editorial voice to make controversial statements.

To claim that the New York Times, or any other newspaper is "indisputable" shows extreme bias. Newspapers are considered reliable sources because they are accountable for what they report. They openly present their facts, specifically so that any errors can be disputed. Wikipedia's duty is likewise to account for where facts and conclusions come from in its articles so that the reliability of the information can be discerned by the reader.

This is vitally important when sources conflict in their narratives and reliability. The President's words weigh heavily on the public, and most will consider him "reliable" source; thus Wikipedia must treat his statements with serious consideration. This is not a claim that his statements must be treated as true, but a statement that his claims must be carefully attributed to him. Facts and conclusions that contract the President must also be carefully attributed to their original source for accountability. When the President of the United States is known to be sloppy with facts and known to outright lie as you admit, transparency of where facts conclusions are coming from is all the more vital for reader confidence. –Zfish118^⋉talk 06:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

You need to read our foundational policies and guidelines. To quote the Reliable sources guideline, Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The New York Times is a reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Donald Trump's tweets are not, and thus they are not entitled to equivalent weight in this encyclopedia. If you disagree with that, you simply disagree with foundational policy, and foundational policy trumps your personal opinion. You are welcome to attempt to change this policy, or you are welcome to find some other topics to edit. But you may not edit this article in a way that conflicts with foundational policy - that is, to create a false equivalence between the conclusions of a reliable secondary source and the primary-source rantings of an angry man on Twitter.

Wikipedia cannot use its own editorial voice to make controversial statements. Of course it can. Where reliable secondary sources come to a clear factual conclusion, we state that conclusion in Wikipedia's voice. From the Neutral point of view policy: Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested. Uncontroversial in this context means uncontroversial among reliable sources. There do not appear to be any reliable sources contesting these conclusions. (Once again, Donald Trump's tweet-rants are not a reliable source.) For example, we call Jared Taylor a white supremacist. He surely views that label as controversial, but we don't care, because a wide array of reliable sources call him a white supremacist, no reliable source says he's not a white supremacist, and that's all that matters. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no obligation to treat Trump's statements with serious consideration because the public cares about it (can you find any policy or guideline backing that? indeed NPOV states the opposite: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." That the general public may treat him as reliable has zero relevance here).

We include his statements because they are widely reported; but we don't have to treat them as having any basis; all we have to do follow NPOV and thus reliable sources. I agree with NorthBySouthBaranof above. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Trump is often cited as a RS for the existence of his own statements, even though he is obviously not a "reliable" source for their accuracy or truthfulness, since many of his statements display his ignorance and/or are proven falsehoods. Therefore we still cite him to prove he said it, even when we know they are false. When in doubt, attribute. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not making a grand philosophical argument disputing the very nature of Wikipedia; all I wanted to do was cite the New York Times explicitly in the text for a particular claim, because the particular claim contradicted misinformation spread by the President himself. All I want is a strong link between the facts and original sources, because, as is cited in this article, there are so many myths and conspiracy theories surrounding this topic. –Zfish118^⋉talk 00:35, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Body reversion 3

Deleted Text Restored

The full committee did not sign off on the memo, and Democrats in the committee produced their own memo which largely contradicted the Nunes memo

The information in this line is not provided in the given source, although an alternative source was mentioned above. It is also redundant to the perfectly appropriate and well-sourced mention of the Democrat's rebuttal later in that paragraph. Without being appropriately sourced, the line is problematic, in that it appears to use Wikipedia's voice to preemptively bias the reader against the Nunes memo, especially before the subject of the Nunes memo is even introduced in the line after it. Without a direct attribution to an outside source, the line must be removed. –Zfish118^⋉talk 19:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I've removed that as a partial self-revert; agree with it being redundant and not being supported by the BBC source; I was looking at the sentence earlier as perhaps somewhat POV. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:51, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. –Zfish118^⋉talk 20:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal article on Ohr's testimony

Highlights from Wall Street Journal article What Bruce Ohr Told Congress by Kimberley Strassel, Aug. 30, 2018

• Ohr verbally told the FBI that his source had a credibility problem and informed them of Steele's "leanings and motives."
• Ohr told the FBI his wife Nellie was working for Fusion GPS. (Gregg Jarrett thinks this violated Federal laws.)
• Ohr's wife contributed to the dossier. (This Wiki article says she didn't.)
• In a note about a Sept. 2016 meeting with Steele, Ohr stated that Steele “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.”
• As noted by this WSJ article and multiple media outlets, but not mentioned in this Wikipedia article, Steele was terminated as an FBI source in Oct. 2016 for talking to the media. Ohr then began serving as a "back channel".
• FBI personnel Ohr communicated with regarding the dossier included (were not limited to) Peter Strzok, Andrew McCabe and Lisa Page. All were aware of his role and his conflict of interest.Phmoreno (talk) 04:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

References

That's a clearly-labeled partisan opinion column, not a news story, and its claims must be used with caution and attribution.

Our article says there is a dispute over whether or not Ohr's wife contributed to the dossier, not that "she didn't."

Considering that Gregg Jarrett is well-known as an apologist for Trump, what he thinks "violated Federal laws" is not particularly relevant here.

Our article already discusses how Ohr documented Steele's opinions.

There's no evidence Ohr had a "conflict of interest." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, good points. It always comes back to using RS. While the WSJ is considered a RS for straight news, its Editorial Board is known for pushing strong pro-Trump opinions, which are obviously often contrary to facts. You'd think they were editors from The Daily Caller, Breitbart, or InfoWars. Strassel is one of the most radical editors, one who pushes conspiracy theories and holds positions contrary to facts and what RS reveal, e.g. her position on the Trump–Russia dossier, which shows how unreliable a partisan she is. She dares to disagree with RS, as some editors here also do. She believes that Mueller's investigation is a witch hunt, that's how far out she is. She'd fit in fine at Fox News and/or Sputnik. She has a right to her own opinions, but not to her own "facts", since they are often contrary to real facts, hence we can't use her. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

BullRangifer, despite your self-appointed status as source police, you are not in charge of who can be used as a source.Phmoreno (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Of course not. You can take my advice or ignore it. So far you've exhibited IDHT and fringe behavior. It's your fate and reputation that's at stake. The more you behave this way, the more eyes will be upon you and notice it, and the shorter the fuse before sanctions are applied. You don't seem to realize that I'm trying to help you. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Typical double standard, BullRangifer has appointed himself as arbitrator of what is/is not a reliable source based on his own personal preferences. Opinion/"New Analysis" articles from the New York Times, Washington Post, etc. are regulatory inserted into articles here as biased as those opinions may be. However, it has been decided that the Wall Street Journal's opinion page is unacceptable since it may lean to the right. Are you now suggesting that the Wall Street Journal opinion page qualifies as a "fringe source"? If so, please take it to WP:RSN. Is this article being used as a source not biased as well? It calls Ohr's involvement a "conspiracy theory" Ohr's own testimony to congress confirms that he was involved with Steele and the Russian dossier. [5] Now, I don't know if Ohr's wife helped write it or not, but the facts are there was clear connections between both Ohrs and Steele with regard to the dossier. Threatening another editor for referring to an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal is not the way to go.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Rusf10, there is some history here that is independent of this thread, and that is what I was referring to. You couldn't know that. Phmoreno's attitude toward the use of very unreliable sources like The Daily Caller is the background, and he refuses to learn and take any advice. An IDHT and uncollegial attitude. I'm trying to help him stay out of trouble, but he won't listen. His comment is pretty much identical to comments made elsewhere by him. That's the context. It's a larger issue. He disputes my opinions about RS in any sense at all. I hope that clears it up.

My response to him had nothing to do with this WSJ opinion article. I already stated my opinion about it. When opinions are based in fact, they can be useful, and that applies to both left- and right wing sources. When they are misleading and twist and ignore the facts, like Strassel usually does, it can be problematic to use them. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

No, that's not what the source says. It says that Ohr has been targeted in a right-wing conspiracy theory about the origins of the investigation into Russia’s 2016 election interference. That he was involved in transmitting information from Steele to others in the FBI is not in question. That he (or Steele) were the origins of the investigation, and that there has been an attempt to cover this up, is indeed a conspiracy theory. The origins of the investigation are well-documented to have been well before any of these conversations, as discussed in reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Here are several quality articles dealing with Ohr:

• https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/russia-probe-timeline-moscow-mueller/story?id=57427441
• https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/17/us/politics/trump-conspiracy-bruce-nellie-ohr.html
• https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/doj-bosses-bruce-ohr-offered-russia-probe-sources/story?id=57367588
• https://apnews.com/4ac772445073491aa7d3ca9e558e0144/AP:-Justice-lawyer-was-told-Russia-had-%27Trump-over-a-barrel

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

"Issa told reporters after Ohr had testified for nearly four hours that Ohr revealed he had multiple “handlers” at the FBI who received information he provided on Steele’s dossier, but Issa declined to name them.

“There’s quite a list of names,” he said.

Issa also said lawmakers had continuing questions about Ohr’s wife receiving “only $44,000” for her work at Fusion GPS and that Ohr himself didn’t seem familiar with all of the details of her work.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/28/bruce-ohr-congressional-interview-799031

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

As far as we know, Nellie Ohr's work was mostly for the first phase of opposition research, that done for The Washington Free Beacon, none of which appeared in the dossier. She worked for Fusion GPS, not Steele's Orbis Business Intelligence, which produced the dossier:

• "Although the source of the Steele dossier's funding had already been reported correctly over a year before, a February 2, 2018 story by the Associated Press (AP) contributed to confusion about its funding by stating that the dossier "was initially funded" by the Washington Free Beacon, so the AP posted a correction the next day: "Though the former spy, Christopher Steele, was hired by a firm that was initially funded by the Washington Free Beacon, he did not begin work on the project until after Democratic groups had begun funding it." At no point in time did the Free Beacon have any connection with the production of the Steele dossier, and the Free Beacon stated that "none of the work product that the Free Beacon received appears in the Steele dossier." (From Trump–Russia_dossier)

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Source deleted

The source for my contents was deleted and marked unsourced. This is inappropriate. Please restore the source, and discuss the concerns with the source here. –Zfish118^⋉talk 10:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

As noted, the Washington Examiner is generally not a RS, nor is York. If you can find that content in RS, then use them. If not, it doesn't belong here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Korean descent

This man is of Korean descent. I don't know if there is a Korean surname that sounds like Ohr - but in any case he seems to be entirely East Asian in terms of his heritage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.188.150 (talk) 10:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

(4 years later) Why isn't Bruce Ohr's ethnic heritage or family background mentioned in the current version of this article, if we purport to be an encyclopedic project? 76.190.213.189 (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:26, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Bruce Ohr 302 release 8/8/2019 render conclusions herein incorrect & need correcting

The DOJ released Bruce Ohr's FBI 302s on 8/8/2019 and render the conclusions in this piece of Bruce Ohr & wife having no part in the wrongdoing incorrect. The majority of this article, other than biographical material, is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slowdry (talk • contribs) 18:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Slowdry, can you be more specific? What is incorrect? What sources do you have to demonstrate this? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Slowdry, if you provide what RS say about it, that will help us. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

NPOV tag Why is the December 2019 OIG report being ignored?

The preceding observation by Slowdry is obviously correct, and more broadly, why are the very critical references to Ohr's behaviour within the Oig's report being ignored? 46 references to Ohr as well as the substantial content within the report criticizing Ohr mandates a section devoted to the report, imo. Nocturnalnow (talk) 01:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

In addition, the Blp is using the shiny object of "conspiracy theories" labeling 5 times which not only shows editing bias but also attempts to stifle any and all critical thinking by our Readers. Not nice for an encyclopedia, more like a biased news source. Nocturnalnow (talk) 01:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

There might be something to add here - four paragraphs of extensive quotes would be wildly undue weight. We should probably mention that the IG criticized Ohr's actions - that doesn't mean the conspiracy theories are true. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

We use RS. We don't sift through primary sources and fill the article with direct quotes from them. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof's suggestion is definitely worth doing. Why has no one done it?

Also, is there no concern about the NPOV tag being removed? I've raised that issue on the BLP noticeboard. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Nocturnalnow, we start by working things out on the talk page. We don't start by putting an NPOV flag of shame on the article, which is overly broad and does no good.

We are not "ignoring" things. The report is a primary document, and we are therefore not allowed to perform original research by reading it and picking and choosing the parts we feel are relevant. We must wait (hence the delay) for multiple RS to discuss and quote it. Then we can ONLY use the parts they discuss, mention, and quote. We must use secondary and tertiary sources. This applies to the IG report, Mueller Report, Steele dossier, etc.

Instead of complaining, how about finding those secondary RS and using them here? We'd be happy to help you. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Removing "conspiracy theories" terminology?

Is there a problem with removing this overused and potentially inaccurate labeling? Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

We stick to RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we have to parrot the exact terminology in RS. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

We don't have to use the terminology used by the Washington "Merry Impeachmas!" Post, that is correct. Wikipedia should hold itself to higher standard. I support removing all this "vast right-wing conspiracy theory" gaslighting language and replacing it with neutral wording, especially after the discoveries found in the IG report that was sharply critical of Bruce Ohr's conduct. Architeuthidæ (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Your personal opinion of the Washington Post is noted, yet irrelevant. There's nothing "gaslighting" about describing partisan conspiracy theories as partisan conspiracy theories. That the IG believes Ohr made consequential mistakes is clear; that this vindicates clearly-false conspiracy claims about Ohr's role and motivations is not. For example, the IG report says nothing which supports the conspiracy theories that Ohr helped start the investigation, was biased against Trump, or mishandled sensitive information. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

That is the argument that the Democrats and their media partners are making, which is that Bruce and Nellie Ohr had nothing to do with the dossier and were "just doing their jobs." Republicans and their media partners are making a different one. We should try to work and find a balance, so that we don't make the page look biased or slanted toward one direction. When we regurgitate talking points from only one political party's point of view, it delegitimatizes the page's neutrality. Architeuthidæ (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

You might wish to review WP:FALSEBALANCE. Wikipedia's job is to reflect the conclusions of reliable sources. This does not mean that we give all sides equal credence or space. If one side or the other is preponderant in reliable sources, that side will be given prominence and greater credence. If mainstream reliable sources view something as a conspiracy theory, then so will we. That's a feature, not a bug, of this project. We aren't here to "fix" perceived biases in mainstream sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Architeuthidæ's gaslighting description, although it goes without saying that I do not believe any of our editors are knowingly applying such a technique. NorthBySouthBaranof, are you saying that if we were editing in the 1950s that we would have to use Southern media terminology like "outside agitators" when referring to MLK's followers and their illegal "sit down" demonstrations? Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Basically "yes". We base our content on RS, and what is known to be true at any given point in time will be reflected in our articles. As more information comes to light, RS report it and we then update our content. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

A: At which point

would content from these sources[6][7][8] warrant removal of the "conspiracy theories" terminology?

and B: Are there any objections to inserting content from any or all of those three sources? i.e., does any editor here think of any of those sources as non-reliable?

I'm asking ahead of time to try to save time and avoid any edit reverts. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

FYI, the Examiner is generally considered unreliable and should be handled with extreme care. It can be used in its own article to document its own positions. Find better sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to propose the exact wording you'd like to add and the sources which back them up right here in this thread. Then the collaborative process here on the talk page will refine it into acceptable content. That way, when the content actually is included, you won't have to worry about starting an edit war or having it removed. Such a consensus version will then stand the test of time. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

ok, will do. Thanks. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Response to "whitewashing" allegation

Response to Rusf10's revert of my changes:

• Rusf10's edit summary: "Whitewashing with words like unofficial and indirectly"

Please AGF. I don't "whitewash" content, unless correcting errors, unfactual content, and content based on unreliable sources is considered "whitewashing". If so, then I do it all the time.

The changes I made addressed these three errors:

1. The Free Beacon/Republican-financed opposition research had nothing to do with the dossier, as stated before my edit. The dossier came much later. The Democrat/Clinton phase took over the existing research, and later Fusion GPS hired Steele, and then the dossier was created.
2. The "indirect" wording clarifies that the Democrat/Clinton funding was directly to Fusion GPS, never directly to Orbis/Steele, and they did not know that Fusion GPS had even hired Steele until much, much later. In total, Perkins Coie paid Fusion GPS $1.02 million in fees and expenses, of which Fusion GPS paid Orbis $168,000 to produce the dossier. So the funding of the dossier was indeed "indirect".
3. The "unofficial" wording was added to clarify that Ohr did not act as "the Justice Department contact for Christopher Steele" in any official capacity, as implied by the definite article "the". The two men had known each other for many years, and it wasn't until later that Ohr's superiors realized that he was serving as a conduit for Steele, a function which they did not fully approve (or have I absorbed that "disapproval" idea from unreliable sources?). IIRC, he was told to stop doing so at one point. As it stood, it sounded like Ohr was functioning in an official capacity, and that needed fixing.

It should be noted that Ohr channeled information from Steele to the FBI and the Justice Department. I don't recall if the FBI disapproved of this arrangement, but I think it was the Justice Department that had reservations about the unofficial arrangement.

I could be wrong about some of this, but I was not attempting to "whitewash" anything, just providing clarification. Feel free to enlighten me if I'm wrong. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, User:BullRangifer, I am not going to speculate on your intent here. What I meant by whitewashing is that you seem to be downplaying Ohr's role here. The Democrats/Clinton campaign may not have directed Fusion GPS to hire Steele, but it was part of what they paid for. "Unofficial" is misleading and a distinction that we don't have to make, either someone is a contact or they are not. I certainly have no objection to mentioning his supervisors disapproved, if it can be properly cited. It appears to me that the upper management of the FBI may not have been aware of what Ohr was doing (or his wife's COI), but I don't know if this was the case with his direct superiors or not. We need a source.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Would you mind proposing an improvement that addresses my concerns? -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Rusf10, imo the article is a great and obvious example of unintended whitewashing, from beginning to end. However, imo, there is classic groupthink in play among the regular editors here, which has 3 effects:

1:It will remain whitewashed

2:The regular editors here are blinded by the preexisting groupthink to the reality of the whitewashing.

3:Non-regular editors who drive by and try to decrease the level of whitewashing will quickly realize they are wasting their time trying to break through the rock hard groupthink. Nocturnalnow (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

To make sure that no whitewashing occurs, I have asked (above) Rusf10 to propose improvements. Here is ABC News's good timeline which repeatedly mentions Ohr's role, which no one is trying to "downplay". The more eyes on this the better. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

The ABC timeline mentions Ohr and his meetings with FBI agents many times, but these items really jumped out at me (bolding added):

• NOV. 21/22, 2016: Ohr speaks with officials at the FBI. According to information since provided by the Senate Judiciary Committee, this is the first known contact between Ohr and the FBI about Steele’s information. (Strzok later tells Congress that he and Ohr spoke as many as five times in late 2016 and early 2017. Ohr does not give Strzok any documents, according to Strzok.)
• MAY 8, 2017: Ohr speaks with someone at the FBI. According to top Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, this conversation covers Ohr's contacts with Steele. Another “302” report is produced by the FBI. Ohr still does not tell his bosses in the Justice Department what he is doing related to the Russia matter.
• LATE 2017: Despite Ohr and Steele working together for so long, Rosenstein’s office first learns that Ohr has been in contact with Steele, and Ohr is transferred to a different office.

I'm not sure that any wrongdoing is implied, or what can be done with that information, but it's interesting. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)