Talk:Steele dossier/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Mayer on Wikileaks

I'm removing the following content:

Main articles: 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak and Democratic National Committee cyber attacks

Mayer agrees with Steele that the Kremlin and WikiLeaks cooperated to release the stolen DNC emails, as stated by the U.S. Intelligence Community. On December 9, 2016, the CIA told U.S. legislators that the U.S. Intelligence Community concluded Russia conducted operations during the 2016 U.S. election to prevent Clinton from winning the presidency. Three U.S intelligence agencies concluded that people with direct ties to the Kremlin had sent hacked emails from the DNC to WikiLeaks.

References

Everything that follows the Mayer citation (#1) fails WP:NOR, one way or another. Either these sources don't mention the dossier – which is unsurprising as they were published before there was public knowledge of its existence – or the claims fail verification. The Time article is supposed to verify something that happened in December 2016 even though it was published in July 2016. "people with direct ties to the Kremlin" is even more problematic because the cited source says the opposite.

The Washington Post:

intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin "directing" the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks, a second senior U.S. official said. Those actors, according to the official, were "one step" removed from the Russian government, rather than government employees.

Other sources I was able to find are consistent with the U.S. official's statement.

Comey's March testimony:

SCHIFF: This is a question I think you can answer. Do you know whether the Russian intelligence service has dealt directly with WikiLeaks or whether they too used an intermediary?
COMEY: We assessed they used some kind of cutout. They didn't deal directly with WikiLeaks. In contrast to D.C. Leaks and Guccifer 2.0.

Telegraph (about Comey's March testimony)

Mr Schiff, the top Democrat on the committee, asked Mr Comey if Russia had direct dealings with Wikileaks.
Mr Comey responded: "We assess they used some kind of cut out. They didn’t deal directly with Wikileaks."

CBS News (about Comey's March testimony)

Comey said that the U.S. believes Russian intelligence used some kind of "cut-out" in dealing with WikiLeaks.

Vox

Days before the Democratic National Convention, WikiLeaks releases 19,000 Democratic National Convention emails provided by "Guccifer 2.0" — a hacker who we later learn was a cut-out, or intermediary, for Russian intelligence.

Bloomberg

The report by U.S. intelligence agencies says Russia’s General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate, or GRU, gave the material to WikiLeaks through an intermediary.

CNN

US intelligence has said the Podesta emails were stolen by Russia and handed over to WikiLeaks through an intermediary.

Mayer's assertion "Kremlin and WikiLeaks were working together to release the D.N.C.'s e-mails" (per the source, while removed content says "Kremlin and WikiLeaks cooperated to release the stolen DNC emails) is unsubstantiated and I don't remember seeing anyone claiming that WikiLeaks was directly in contact with Russian intelligence services. At least after Comey testimony. In light of reporting in reliable sources, I would leave this section out unless there is some evidence of direct contact. Politrukki (talk) 12:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• To the contrary, the text about the connections between WikiLeaks and Russian intelligence and propaganda must be expanded. But yes, it also needs to be better sourced and possibly described in more detail on other pages. Sourcing is not a problem. That was widely published. For example, CBS tells:

According to the the widely circulated January 2017 U.S. intelligence report detailing interference in the 2016 election, U.S. intelligence officials believe with "high confidence" that there is a connection between Russian military intelligence and the entities Guccifer 2.0, DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks that resulted in the deluge of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's associates hitting the Internet in the weeks ahead of the election. Clinton recently called WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange a "tool of Russian intelligence," and current CIA Director Mike Pompeo has dubbed it a "hostile intelligence service." ... The Kremlin's principal international propaganda outlet RT (formerly Russia Today) has actively collaborated with WikiLeaks," the report said."

And so on. Here, here, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of direct connection. Please show a quote that you think proves a direct connection. Remember for example that the ODNI report you cited came before, not after, Comey's public testimony to Congress, in which Comey mentioned the detail about "cut outs". If Comey's testimony has been seriously contested, I would like to know. But this is only for assessing how controversial Mayer's claim is. Any (hypothetical) additional material should be based on reliable sources that directly mention both Wikileaks and the dossier or, like you said, the material may belong to another article. Politrukki (talk) 10:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Ironically, the only direct connection to Russia that is verifiable and clearly evident is the connection between Steele and the Russian spies who provided the contents of his dossier on Trump. That is the only "statement of fact" that we can feel confident about publishing. Assange has repeatedly denied the allegations that the Kremlin was involved in the leaks. Several high-ups in the FBI have been fired or demoted, and there are ongoing criminal investigations. We need to stick to verifiable statements of fact and not get carried away with the conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated allegations that appear to be politically motivated. Our encyclopedia should not be used to support political disputes, or base entire articles on nothing more than speculation and journalistic opinion. Certainly it's fine to add a paragraph or two using in-text attribution to whoever is making such a claim, but when unsubstantiated allegations comprise the bulk of the article, we're getting into conspiracy theory territory and that is what concerns me most. Please let's not do that to our pedia. ^{Atsme📞📧} 11:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2018

(Redacted) Vixinews (talk) 08:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done - This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".- MrX 🖋 11:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Parts of dossier "proven" false?

The only source I see that asserts parts of the dossier have been proven false is this from December 2017, which has been referenced in the article:

Certain parts of the dossier have either been confirmed or proven false

The source does not state what was proven false, but it's likely to be the assertion that Cohen met Russians in Praque, which Cohen "disproved" by showing his passport to Buzzfeed, revealing no Czech Republic stamp. Republicans assert this as "proof" here, but they omit this qualifying information from the source they cite:

Cohen’s passport would not show any record of a visit to Prague if he entered the EU through Italy, traveled to the Czech Republic, and then returned to his point of EU entry. A congressional official said the issue is “still active” for investigators.

And a few days ago we got this:

The Justice Department special counsel has evidence that Donald Trump’s personal lawyer and confidant, Michael Cohen, secretly made a late-summer trip to Prague during the 2016 presidential campaign, according to two sources familiar with the matter.

which discusses how Cohen could've entered the Czech Republic indirectly via a Schengen Area country.

Also, I have found The Hill to have a spotty track record and a seeming reluctance to issue corrections. I tend to avoid relying on them unless another source confirms their reports. So unless someone can provide another source that specifies what has been proven false, and that has not been contradicted, I recommend that this article not assert that anything in the dossier has been proven false.soibangla (talk) 03:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed about The Hill. They can be shoddy and careless, sometimes with reports which are extreme left-, and more often extreme right-wing blog type "news" reports. That's not right. If it's an opinion article, that's fine, and we might use it and attribute it as such, but it shouldn't be confused with news reporting. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Cohen's denial isn't worth much at all. It's full of holes, and rich people can travel all over the world in private jets with no record at all. Only the flight, but not the passengers, are recorded. Trump traveled to the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow on a friends jet, with no record. If he hadn't shown his face, we wouldn't have known. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I've traveled across borders in Europe by car without even coming to a full stop, much less showing a passport. And I'm not rich.:) O3000 (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Same here. My passport shows far fewer countries than I've visited after the Schengen Treaty went into effect. It made traveling so much easier. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

No collusion. SPECIFICO talk 19:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

At this moment nothing in the text of the wiki article says that anything has been proven false. I agree that that The Hill citation should be removed as inaccurate (it doesn't even remotely back up that claim), since there already is an accurate citation to the sentence it cites. GreyGoose (talk) 04:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The only things "false" are a few typos, and no one in their right mind considers such things as "false". So one could say minor errors, but we'd need RS for that. Thus it's better to not use sources which are wrong. I tend to agree with GreyGoose that The Hill citation can be removed until actual evidence is provided by a RS, and then we can use that source and mention the false information. "Unproven" is not "false". -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Even the things that have been called out as supposed typos are possibly not actually typos. "Alfa" being spelled "Alpha" by Steele is simply another transliteration from Russian. If you research closely, it's fairly obvious that some of the lesser companies in that group (owned or indirectly controlled by Fridman, Aven, and Khan) are still called "Alpha", even in their official UK/US names. Russian names (company names and people's names) generally have a variety of transliterations. GreyGoose (talk) 05:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Good point. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

SDNY court filing: The sum and substance of Mr. Muravnik's Report and his deposition is that the "best way to render the name . . . in English" is as "Alpha Bank," rather than "Alfa Bank." soibangla (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

"Even the things that have been called out as supposed typos are possibly not actually typos." – That might be true, but several reliable disagree with you.

1. Buzzfeed says the misspelling is a clear error.
2. The Independent implies that it is a "clear factual error".
3. Vanity Fair says "the repeated misspelling of the name of Alfa Bank—the largest privately owned commercial bank in Russia—as “Alpha Bank” does little to reinforce the report’s unsubstantiated charges of the bank’s illicit cash payoffs".
4. Newsweek says "there are several places where the author seems weirdly ignorant of basic facts about Russia. He or she refers to Alpha Bank rather than Alfa ... The author also misspells the name of Trump associate and Azeri real estate mogul Aras Agalarov.

All examples are from sources that are cited in the article. Politrukki (talk) 11:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Using the common spelling of the word 'alpha' does not 'prove anything false', it merely shows a missed detail or 'spellcheck' is working a little too well. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

It's an "error" per reliable sources. I've seen some sources (don't remember which and how many, maybe one or two) say that misspellings are (I'm paraphrasing) insignificant, but I don't remember seeing any source suggesting misspellings are not errors. Politrukki (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Such are certainly minor errors. Note that two of those sources were writing on the same day as the release of the dossier, and one two days later. One no longer hears of them as errors, except fringe sources which want to exaggerate such minor things into clear evidence of some massive attempt to perpetuate falsehoods. They are hardly worth mentioning, and definitely don't come close to the proven direct contacts by myriad Trump campaign people with Russians, and to the multiple charges filed, arrests made, and convictions. That's serious business. Convictions and confessions are in a different league than minor typos. Trump's own campaign officials are flipping on him. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

In another article, by different writers, The Hill writes "Some of the allegations appear to have been debunked, like a claim that Trump lawyer Michael Cohen travelled to Prague during the election to meet with a Russian official." [2] Frankly, I have no idea whether The Hill still considers the claim about Michael Cohen apparently debunked, but clearly that was not the only claim that appears to be debunked.

Is ABC News cited in our article a reliable source? They write "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". What "false claims" refers to here is not explained, but in another article they say "ABC News was able to debunk some references to him in the unverified document, such as the assertion in the that his Ukrainian-born father-in-law had a vacation home, or dacha, near Russian President Vladimir Putin’s."

Has the allegation about Barvikha been rebunked (see [3], [4])?

The Washington Post has debunked at least one allegation: "we do know that the Podesta emails were obtained through a phishing attempt, not by leveraging botnets, porn or bugs".

The BBC has commented the Newsweek article cited in our article as such: "Newsweek says it 'contains lots of Kremlin-related gossip' and points to factual errors and the misspelling of Russian names." Politrukki (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Elsewhere on WP: During the Soviet era, Barvikha was known as the site of the most desirable state dachas for government officials and leading intellectuals, and many of Russia's wealthiest individuals have built private luxury dachas here since the late 1990s soibangla (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not persuaded, as that sentence is preceded by "Some examples are provided that don’t seem to be related to what happened to 2016" soibangla (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Newsweek specifically says Aras Agalarov was misspelled as Araz, but WP says it's the Azerbaijani spelling: Araz İsgəndər oğlu Ağalarov soibangla (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

(a) Wikipedia is not a reliable source and I don't see what the content you cited is supposed to prove. (b) That's not what The Washington Post says: you have mixed July and December reports. (c) Again, Wikipedia is not a reliable source (and there's no citation for Azerbaijani spelling). You are also cherry picking one part of the name from Azerbaijani spelling and another from English transliteration. Do you have any reliable sources that contradict the sources I mentioned? Politrukki (talk) 06:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Fixed by using the next ref and its wording. No need to use a source which was inaccurate. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The Hill is a perfectly acceptable source for content in this article. Buzzfeed, not so much. No RS is above making an error from time to time, including the NYTimes and WaPo. A different topic - suggested reading: Argument from ignorance - I just read it, hurt my head...read it again despite the fog filling the empty spaces...applied it to the proving something false argument here, and well...read the article and draw your own conclusions. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Amen! Many of those initiallly "ignorant claims" of "error" and debunking were made on the same day and days immediately after the dossier was released. There was a shock-and-awe sense of (ignorant) disbelief at the time. Critics were many, as ignorant criticism is cheap. Now, after so much has been confirmed, and myriad Trump campaign members who lied repeatedly about their many suspicious direct contacts with Russians have been charged, confessed, convicted, and are flipping on Trump...well, now we aren't so ignorant anymore. The argument from ignorance worked in the beginning, but now only for those who depend on unreliable sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

"Now, after so much has been confirmed,... what are you referring to, BR? The only thing I'm aware of that has been confirmed is the Russia to Russia communication. Please provide diffs to whatever else has been confirmed. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

It would be nice if you actually read the article and its sources for once. Start with Trump–Russia dossier#Veracity of certain allegations.

Then follow RS, rather than the spin on Fox News and other unreliable sources, which ignore or downplay the lies about myriad suspicious direct contacts and secret meetings between Trump campaign officials and Russians, the official charges and indictments of those people, their confessions, their convictions, and some are flipping on Trump.

That all contradicts Trump's denials of "collusion", and confirms the dossier's allegation of "a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership." For God's sake, Manafort has been charged, and a "Former Trump Aide Pleads Guilty to Conspiracy Against the United States". -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you have an explanation why at least four sources (one of them is actually from March) that make these "ignorant claims" are cited in our article? Has someone proved them wrong? Here's a part of coverage from January 2018:

1. "BuzzFeed posted the unredacted documents just 10 days before Trump’s inauguration, with a warning that the contents contained errors and were 'unverified and potentially unverifiable'." – The Guardian
2. "BuzzFeed published the dossier in January 2017, noting that the allegations were unverified and the report contained errors." – Politico
3. "BuzzFeed published the dossier last January, noting at the time that allegations in the document were unverified and contained errors." – HuffPost
4. "Buzzfeed's article also highlighted what it said were several outright errors in the document." – NBC News
5. "BuzzFeed published the 35-page document in its entirety in January 2017, noting that the 'allegations are unverified, and the report contains errors'" – ABC News
6. "Buzzfeed published the 35-page document in January 2017, along with a caution that its 'allegations are unverified, and the report contains errors.'" – Times of Israel
7. "Buzzfeed eventually published all the documents in early 2017, while noting that they contained errors." – news.com.au

I don't see any policy-based reason why "contained errors" should not be mentioned in the body and lead, regardless of whether individual editors think the errors are significant or not.

The ABC News report (that debunked some of allegations related to Cohen), another one that says "some cases clearly false claims", and The Washington Post analysis I previously cited in this discussion were published in May, January 2018, and October, respectively. Have they been contradicted? Politrukki (talk) 13:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

My very quick response (I have to leave) is that these mentions of BuzzFeeds original comments change nothing. They are just history. They are just documenting the statements made in January 2017. Even in 200 years, they would still be nothing more than a historical record. They say nothing about the current state of affairs. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Politrukki: if you'll pardon the interjection, I think it's pretty clear that by calling these claims "ignorant", etc., Bull's goal is to insult editors who talk about the claims, and get them to shut up, lest he launch into his speech about "Putin, RT, Sputnik, Fox News, Breitbart, Daily Caller, InfoWars, Townhall, Drudge Report, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc.", similar to the way he is just now berating Atsme above for what he imagines to be her views and reading habits. Factchecker_atyourservice 05:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Factchecker_atyourservice, I'm sure Politrukki won't mind the interjection, but I take issue with the tone of it. I'll drop an NPA template on your talk page (since not assuming good faith and ascribing motives is an example of a personal attack). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Fringe theories section for the conspiracy theories?

Should we have a section which outlines the basic conspiracy theories which run contrary to the RS documentation? They dispute:

1. That the Russians interfered in the election to help Trump win,
2. That the dossier is a serious piece of research which has been partially corroborated.
3. That numerous Trump campaign members, including Don Jr, held many secret meetings with Russians and lied about it repeatedly.
4. That they actively sought and accepted help and information from Russians working to discredit Clinton and help Trump.
5. That several Trump campaign members and friends, including Don Jr, were in direct contact with Wikileaks.
6. That the over 100 charges filed, confessions provided, and convictions obtained, are just.
7. That the Nunes memo has been debunked.
8. That Nunes has acted as an agent of Russian interests.
9. That the GOP leadership are compromised and complicit because they knew that the Russians were interfering in the election, but McConnell ordered the gang of eight to stay silent and allow it to happen.
10. That the investigations on Trump and Co. are not a witch hunt, but the legitimate exposure of a series of self-inflicted wounds.
11. That the FBI and intelligence agencies are doing their job to protect America from an attack on its electoral system, infrastructure, and democracy itself.
12. That Trump is counteracting their efforts by demonizing and obstructing them.
13. That Trump is attacking the very idea of truth and undermining a free press.
14. That.....(please add other elements).

As an exercise, let's outline the basic elements in the conspiracy theory (actually cover-up and gaslighting by the Trump administration). Help by adding any elements I've left out.

1. That the Russians did not hack the DNC and that it was an inside job.
2. That Seth Rich was murdered by Clinton people to silence him.
3. That the dossier is fake and without any basis in reality.
4. That Steele is a paid hack who will do anything for money.
5. That the Nunes memo is the accurate version of events.
6. That the investigations on Trump and Co. are a witch hunt.
7. That the FBI and intelligence agencies are corrupt and part of a deep state plot against Trump.
8. That.....(please add other elements).

The sources which push this view are unreliable sources like Trump, Putin, RT, Sputnik, Fox News, Breitbart, Daily Caller, InfoWars, Townhall, Drudge Report, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. We obviously can't directly cite most of them, but we can cite Trump and Fox News, and actual RS which do mention this conspiracy theory. Atsme and other editors here who hold this fringe view would probably love to provide sourcing which we can consider.

I'm really wondering if we should do this. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

What sources do you have? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, but I don't quite understand your question...please clarify. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I want to read the sources before we create some section about fringe theories and/or conspiracy theories. Also Fox was not deemed as unreliable at the latest RS discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_238#Fox_News_reliability_RfC, someone claiming that this is unreliable could come across as a biased and POV pushing editor who is against the mission of Wikipedia. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

"Also Fox was not deemed as unreliable at the latest RS discussion" - ummm, the link you provide just shows that there's no consensus as to whether it's reliable or unreliable. The position that is unreliable does not indicate "bias" or POV pushing (frankly, it rather would show good judgement).Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Are we looking at the same RFC? Because the one listed by a 2:1 margin said it should not be treated any differently than other RS. Though it was withdrawn in less than half a day after the direction it was going became clear. (It shouldn't of been withdrawn imo, but here we are). PackMecEng (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

First, the actual RSN discussion is here. Note that many of the editors who discussed it there were not even aware of this RfC (I certainly wasn't). Second, like you said, it was withdrawn in less than half a day, which might have something to do with it. It's impossible to conclude any kind of consensus based on that. Third, not the "oppose" !votes claim that "it should not be treated any differently than other RS". At least two or three are procedural.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it is not consensus since it was withdrawn so early, I was just confused when you said closed no consensus. Also several of the support votes were certainly, if I may use your catch phrase, WP:IDONTLIKEIT as well. Kind of balances out there. I would someday like to vote on a properly worded RFC to put an end to all this Fox stuff one way or another. I know like every source it is case by case ect, but general community consensus on stuff like that is helpful at times. PackMecEng (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The list of items is missing a lot of evidence in the public domain that cast all sorts of doubts on the dossier and the whole Russia collusion narrative. Kim Dotcom claimed he was present when Seth Rich downloaded the files from the DNC. Dotcom offered to testify before Mueller, but was never contacted to do so. Former NAS director William Binney claims NSA could not trace data packets from supposed hack and also that download speeds of the data exceeded what would be expected in a remote hack. The case of corruption inside the FBI is under investigation by Huber as lead prosecutor. We already know here was fabricated evidence, such as the Trump server communicating with Alfa Bank. Alfa Bank asked the Justice Dept. to investigate and unmask a hacker believed to be located in the U.S. The story was pushed by a Clinton supporter who was sent a letter by Alfa Bank to preserve records. Also, Comey failed to tell Trump who paid for the dossier, then remained silent throughout the time Congress was trying to uncover who did. Several Obama administration officials were referred for criminal investigation in this letter, a few in connection with the conspiracy. There are also sources showing Nunes repeatedly requesting the intelligence leading to the Trump campaign counterintelligence investigation, which he finally got to see. This resulted in his claim that no official intelligence was used to start the investigation. The House Intelligence Committee is continuing their investigation. I have pages of references for all of this.Phmoreno (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Sources

"Kim Dotcom claimed he was present when Seth Rich downloaded the files from the DNC." - you serious??? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Kim Dotcom has a long history of frauds and is currently a fugitive. What next? O3000 (talk) 23:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

What about Alexander Downer of the George Papadopoulos meeting at Kensington Wine Room being involved in this: Aussie Complaints Headed to FBI on Clinton Foundation’s Dealings Down Under Phmoreno (talk) 00:53, April 24, 2018‎ (UTC)

Lifezette is not a RS. Please stick to them. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Inspector General Horowitz is scheduled to testify before Congress on May 8, possibly meaning his long awaited report will be released before than. Sources say the report contains explosive revelations.Phmoreno (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Phmoreno, I trust you have numerous sources, but are they RS, the kind we can use here? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

At this point in time it is too close to the Inspector General's report for me to be spending much time on this. Huber has been a special prosecutor for about 5 months now and the investigation has been very secretive. We probably won't know much more until a grand jury is convened. Phmoreno (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Should be written by critters with no more than 2 legs and published under a reputable imprimatur. Sounds like you're showing nothing like that. SPECIFICO talk 22:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Given your absurd claims and conspiracy theories you're spouting above, I seriously doubt it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Phmoreno, "it is too close to the Inspector General's report" has no bearing on whether you have RS which can be used to create a section which documents the conspiracy theories which sow doubt on the dossier, among other things. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

For god's sake, I'm giving all of you a real chance to document your conspiracy theories. If you can't do it without using unreliable sources, then your failure proves they are not true and not notable enough to be included here, and you should also stop advocating them on talk pages. Sheesh! Please, please, please make a serious effort to find RS to use. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• I'm of the mind that if we simply add a section, Corroborated allegations, (provided there will be more than 2 or 3 sentences), readers can figure out the rest on their own. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• We have such a section called "Veracity of certain allegations", that happens to undermine your conspiracy theories. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• The main article for this is Deep state in the United States. No need to clutter this article with baseless conspiracy theories and speculation. We should stick to what RS say about the dossier. However, if a certain conspiracy theory surrounding the dossier has garnered significant coverage, then it should at least be mentioned here with proper context. ^Falling_Gravity 16:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Falling, I understand and largely agree. I just threw up a number of points, but not all of them are directly related to the dossier. It is those which would be relevant here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• No

1. Reliable sources report conflicting information. Many sources say the Russians only wanted to cause chaos and discord, paying for anti-Trump social media ads and organizing anti-Trump rallies.
2. "Serious [opposition] research" (sorry for the scare quotes) is not filled with false and defamatory claims, similar to Alex Jones' "serious research" into Pizzagate.
3. Meeting with someone who was born in Russia and lying about it is not in itself notable, other than the media meltdown that immediately followed.
4. Somewhat notable, though to a lesser extent than Clinton and the DNC not only sought help and information from the Russians, but paid for that information as well.
5. Only notable if the communications were nefarious or illegal in nature. I couldn't find any sources that show this is the case.
6. Wikipedia isn't the arbiter of justice, making claims as to whether any convictions unrelated to the election (such as tax fraud, money laundering, etc.) are good or bad.
7. Nunes memo hasn't been "debunked." DOJ Inspector General still investigating FISA abuses alleged in Nunes memo.[5]
8. No evidence for this. Likely a BLP violation. Need good, solid sourcing to essentially accuse a sitting congressman of treason.
9. See above.
10. No serious reliable sources would say whether or not the Mueller investigation is a witch hunt, as this is a highly subjective term dependent on one's perspective.
11. Not notable for this article. That has been part of the FBI/intel community's mission for decades before Trump became the president.
12. Again, no serious RS would say this due to subjective nature of these claims and reliance on perspective.
13. See above. "Attacking the very idea of truth"? Nowhere near appropriate for an encyclopedia.

I would be really surprised if saying the Trump administration is "gaslighting" and engaged in a "cover up" without any sources to support this isn't against one or many Wikipedia policies (even on a talk page) but see below:

1. Need multiple reliable sources that say the hacking was an "inside job."
2. Not relevant to this article.
3. Since almost all of the information has been disproven or unverified, the "fake" adjective is much closer to the side of truth than a conspiracy theory.
4. No reliable sourcing.
5. Too early to tell. We should wait for the conclusion of the DOJ IG's investigation into the allegations contained in the Nunes memo.
6. Again this phrase is not an encyclopedic term, subjective, and depends on perspective. You could say "Democrats have said the Mueller investigation is not a witch hunt, while Trump and Republicans have widely condemned the investigation as a witch hunt."
7. "Corruption" has a high bar for an encyclopedia. I don't think the Strzok-Page text messages, Andrew McCabe-James Comey-Loretta Lynch-Bruce Ohr-etc. OIG investigation qualifies yet. We really should wait for the conclusion of the OIG investigation for much of this content. WP:NOHURRY.

Sourcing information to InfoWars seems like a really bad idea for this article. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I can assure you that no one is suggesting we actually use unreliable sources like InfoWars. I'm asking for RS coverage of the elements of conspiracy theories related to the dossier. See my immediately previous comment in the edit history. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: you cannot simply shout about RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA AND INFOWARS every time you want to shut an editor up as you did to me on Jimbo's talk page (extended version here). I'm not aware of anyone mentioning such sources. All of the references to Infowars in the talk page archives are you giving your Infowars speech, and in any event I practically begged you to use New York Times and Washington Post instead of the crap that is being used to exaggerate the prominence of a lot of these accusations, and you explicitly defended the use of low quality sources to push only these anti-Trump POVs in a one-sided way. You've deleted my comments altogether after I spent hours trying to detail the gargantuan problems with this article. Problems that have taken well over a year to accumulate under your, uh, careful 24/7 stewardship, and you're deleting my lengthy comments six frickin days after I post them, while leaving up your own comments including ones that hadn't gotten a response since April 3rd. And now here you are posting your own unsourceable thoughts and theories on political events as if they belong in the article. Beratement about non-existent references to propaganda and conspiracy theories, shutting down attempts to get outside feedback, and this constant supposition about what other editors think or read—is all disruptive and contrary to civil collaboration. Factchecker_atyourservice 04:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: could you please acknowledge this and promise that you will stop berating editors based on your own totally fabricated ideas about what views they hold and what newspapers they read?

Let others discuss things—no more deceptive shouting about Infowars and Russia Today and all the rest. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

You might want to take a brief respite. Law of holes. Just a friendly suggestion. O3000 (talk) 17:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be better if we could have a talk page where editors are allowed to talk about views and sourcing without being shouted down with irrelevant and insulting verbiage that has nothing to do with the views or sourcing they are talking about, e.g. right here in this same talk page section Bull is barking at User:Atsme to "follow RS, rather than the spin on Fox News and other unreliable sources". I am quite sure from reading her comments that Atsme knows how the RS policy works, and it is frankly none of Bull's business whether or not she watches Fox, which I have never seen her mention a single time. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Mark Penn, redux

The restoration of the Mark Penn opinion (if it belongs at all, it belongs in the Nunes memo section) is a discredited defense of the Nunes memo, and also an attack on the dossier. It is also a basic defense of this conspiracy theory. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Right now this particular one does not belong at all, as its notability has not been established.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 15:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories do not belong in our encyclopedia...period. Ask any skeptic who watches the chem-trail articles. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Not true. We document them if they have received any attention in RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

If you're referring to something similar to Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory, then yes. And when I add it means I'm joking. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. This looks like deep state conspiracy theory, and is undue weight. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Allegations have been made that this is an "attack" on the dossier and a "conspiracy theory", yet throughout this article the dossier is presented as some neutral non-political document instead of what it really is - opposition research paid for by the opposing political campaign. As far as notability it is published on TheHill website (a reliable source). More importantly: Mark Penn worked for Hillary Clinton during her 2008 presidential campaign and is a very prominent political pollster and advisor. He also worked for many years for both of the Clintons and was an executive at Microsoft. His clients include former presidents Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, and also Bill Gates. I understand that many users want to make this about a "conspiracy theory" but Mark Penn is not exactly a fringe conspiracy theorist. PZP-003 (talk) 12:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

PZP-003, you violated the DS conditions by restoring without consensus. Don't do that. You can be blocked. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

You write: "the dossier is presented as some neutral non-political document instead of what it really is - opposition research paid for by the opposing political campaign." That's nonsense. None of that is true. You must not have read the article. Even though Steele didn't know he was actually working for the DNC and Clinton campaign, he did have a non-neutral assignment, and that was to find answers to this question: "Why did Mr. Trump repeatedly seek to do deals in a notoriously corrupt police state that most serious investors shun?" He set out to do that and used his well-established network of sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Penn's article is filled with the conspiracy theory talking points pushed by Trump and the unreliable sources which try to undermine what RS have documented and portray Trump and Co. as the innocent victims of a witch hunt. You are not the only editor here who believes elements of the theory, such as that Steele got his information from "Russian spies who provided the contents of his dossier on Trump."[6]. These are speculations not based on fact. Steele's methods, the ones which have given him success in the past and won him a sterling reputation as an excellent researcher and spy, are described in the article. The ones trying to get information from active Russian spies seeking to undermine American democracy were Trump and Co. From the 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 at a meeting in Trump Tower 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."[196]"

Steele was playing the Russians, while the Russians were playing the Trump campaign, and they knew it and willingly colluded to steal the election with Russian help. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Thx for providing the diff of my argument, BR. Here's a NYTimes article we can share, and another Newsweek article, and since op-eds, like what's in National Observer, are cited in this article, here's the other side of the story, except this op-ed was published in WaPo. Bottomline, until actual evidence is brought forward to prove one way or the other that collusion (which is not a crime) or something worse has occured, it's nothing more than allegations, and partisan fighting for control of how to spend your money and making laws that allow them to do it legally. 😂 ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Have Mark Penn's opinions/views on the dossier received any attention in any reliable secondary sources? A single op-ed in The Hill does not indicate great significance. ^Falling_Gravity 15:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

This is an invented standard. The "allegations" section is filled with allegations that haven't been discussed in RS, let alone discussed in an RS piece that was then discussed in other RS pieces. Factchecker_atyourservice 04:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I see citations to news reports in The Guardian, The Independent, Business Insider, and Vox. These seem to be reliable news sources, not opinion editorials. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

And sources like The New York Times and The Washington post make up a disproportionately, and appropriately, large percentage of the rest. Whether use of a source is appropriate or not is entirely based on how it is used. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Lead - 3rd paragraph

The statement, Some of the dossier's allegations have been corroborated, while others "remain unverified" is misleading, and uses SYNTH to make the corroboration appear to be something it's not. That particular sentence was cherrypicked from passing mention in an article that focused primarily on Trump's tweeted denials and criticisms of the FBI, then ventures off to Obamacare. The WaPo article states: Trump began his day criticizing the FBI and claiming that the now-famous dossier containing allegations about his connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin during the 2016 election is a "pile of garbage." The actual corroborated information is in the cited CNN article which clearly states: For the first time, US investigators say they have corroborated some of the communications detailed in a 35-page dossier.... The article further explains: None of the newly learned information relates to the salacious allegations in the dossier. Rather it relates to conversations between foreign nationals. The only corroboration according to officials involves intelligence intercepts confirming that ...some of the conversations described in the dossier took place between the same individuals on the same days and from the same locations as detailed in the dossier... The 3rd paragraph needs to be fixed. I suggest shortening and rewriting to satisfy DUE and NPOV and include actual statements of fact without the editorializing and SYNTH. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Atsme. We have to be very careful to make sure we match policies and guidelines here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection. The sentence Some of the dossier's allegations have been corroborated, while others "remain unverified" seems to be correct, according to the sources you quote. Some allegations (about meetings) have been corroborated. Others have not. In what sense is this misleading or SYNTH? --MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

See the more complex example in WP:SYNTH which actually demonstrates in their example something very similar except the sentences are reversed. The example states (my underline) "the first paragraph is fine, because each of the sentences is carefully sourced, using a source that refers to the same dispute". In our article, it isn't until later in the paragraph that a single source, CNN, refers to and clearly defines which allegations are corroborated, and not the more general (misleading) statement that "some allegations have been corroborated". The isolated sentence at the beginning of our paragraph does that by citing a different source in order to make such a general statement without naming the specific corroborated allegations, which may lead readers to believe that some of the Trump collusion allegations may have been corroborated based on the context of this article. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I guess we can write "some of the dossier's allegations have been corroborated, but not the existence of the pee tape" if that is the concern here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the "salacious" allegation hasn't been confirmed yet, unlike many other allegations. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed rewording #1

Suggested change: The media, the intelligence community, and most experts have treated the dossier with caution, whereas Trump has denounced the report as "a pile of garbage". In February 2017, some of the conversations between foreign nationals were corroborated to have taken place "between the same individuals on the same days and from the same locations as detailed in the dossier", but none of the information relating to the salacious allegations has been corroborated. (cite CNN) I chose to use Trump's own words as they reflect his lack of PC. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose This is well established consensus. Please view RFC here . WP:DROPTHESTICK.Casprings (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Casprings - Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_can_change. In this particular case, the first sentence was recently changed. However, it requires more change to be policy compliant. Not my fault, but the only corroborated allegation in the dossier relates to Russian officials talking to Russians, and that is how it should be presented. Getting to that point took a lot of time to corroborate which is why RECENTISM is an issue, and why it's better to exercise patience and let these things incubate so we don't have to keep going back and updating the information. Oh, and btw - editor consensus doesn't override NPOV policy. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The sentence already IS policy compliant. It is not SYNTH, as the very sources you quote demonstrate. What the hell does "DUE" have to do with anything? Once again you are just randomly throwing out Wikipedia policy acronyms hoping something will stick, where as the actual motivation is a straightforward WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. And yes, this has been discussed to death and it really is time to drop the stick.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I assume you're suggesting that for the article text - not the lede? We could discuss it for the text, but it is way too detailed for the lede. The lede summarizes the situation in a single sentence, as it should, and does it well. --MelanieN (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) VM, I've provided evidence, and have explained my position to you multiple times. Your rebuttal is unconvincing. Please provide something far more substantive than accusations of IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. It's time for you to DROPTHESTICK, and stop beating up on editors who are trying their best to improve this article. BTW - valid arguments actually cite substantive PAGs that support their position as I have done - not just PAs against an editor you clearly oppose. If you cannot offer a legitimate rebuttal to my argument without resorting to PAs, please do not address me at all. We do have a civility requirement here.

Melanie - it is for the lead - see the section title. The body can provide more details. Perhaps an RfC is in order? ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

No, you have not. You've just repeated stuff that's been said, and shot down, many times before. That's why this is just another waste of time you've created.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

And Casprings already sited the relevant Wikipedia acronym. DROP. THE. STICK. There was an RfC on the matter for monkey's sake.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

^^^WP:BATTLEGROUND^^^ - I will not partake. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

^^^^^ Atsme, one of the many problems with your edits on Wikipedia is that what you say and what you do are two completely different things. YOU started this. Pointing out that the matter has already been discussed is NOT "battleground". Bringing up same stuff over and over and over again in order to try and force your way IS "battleground" behavior.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

This proposed text is unsuitable for the lede. Per our guideline, WP:Lede, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." Briefly summarize. Not lay out the whole case for one small aspect of the subject. If you do start an RfC over your proposed text - which I don't recommend; an RfC is supposed to be for when there is genuine disagreement on the page, not when one party disagrees with everyone else - I predict everyone will say "not in the lede, discuss it for the text if you want." --MelanieN (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, you said...We could discuss it for the text, but it is way too detailed for the lede. I've provided a side by side so you can see that it's the current text that is way too detailed, not my proposed changes. All I did was eliminate the editorializing: ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:45, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Current text

Proposed text

Some of the dossier's allegations have been corroborated, while others "remain unverified".[11] Some claims may require access to classified information for verification.[12] The media, the intelligence community, and most experts have treated the dossier with caution, while Trump himself denounced the report as "fake news". In February 2017, some details related to conversations "solely between foreign nationals" were independently verified. Some of those individuals were known to be "heavily involved" in efforts to damage Clinton and help Trump. The conversations "took place between the same individuals on the same days and from the same locations as detailed in the dossier", giving US intelligence and law enforcement "greater confidence" in the credibility of parts of the document.[13]

The media, the intelligence community, and most experts have treated the dossier with caution, whereas Trump has denounced the report as "a pile of garbage". In February 2017, some of the conversations between foreign nationals were corroborated to have taken place "between the same individuals on the same days and from the same locations as detailed in the dossier", but none of the information relating to the salacious allegations has been corroborated. (cite CNN)

Wait - you lost me. Are you now proposing your new wording to replace the TEXT content? So you want to end the current discussion, in which you are arguing to put it in the lede in place of the current lede sentence? That's what the section title says, and that's what you have consistently said. If you are done with that idea, please say so. Then we can start a discussion about whether to put it in the article text instead - if that is really what you are suggesting. --MelanieN (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN - it appears my use of current text is different from yours. I used Current text and Proposed text for the column headers in the table. In the column Current text is the last paragraph of the lead now. In the column Proposed text is my proposed text to replace the 3rd paragraph of the lead. My proposal has always been about the lead, not the body text. The details are already in the body text in the section Reputation in the U.S. intelligence community. That paragraph begins...On February 10, 2017,... Are we on the same page, yet? ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, hello? You made the argument that the text in the lead needed to be simple and short per BullRangifer's agreement with you in his opposition vote below - but as evidenced by the table, the simple and short is the proposed text, not the current text that it's in the lead. Please weigh-in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs)

You confused me by saying “text”. I use that word to mean the article text, as opposed to the lede; you used it to mean the text, i.e., wording, of the lede. OK, I think I finally understand you. The changes you want to make: 1) You entirely remove from that third paragraph the first two sentences - Some of the dossier's allegations have been corroborated, while others "remain unverified".[11] Some claims may require access to classified information for verification.[12]. 2) You keep the sentence about treating with caution (with slight rewording). 3) You remove the sentence Some of those individuals were known to be "heavily involved" in efforts to damage Clinton and help Trump.. And 4) You delete the last part of the last sentence, namely giving US intelligence and law enforcement "greater confidence" in the credibility of parts of the document.[13] and replace it with the very specific disclaimer none of the information relating to the salacious allegations has been corroborated. (cite CNN). Have I got that right now? After I get your confirmation that these are the specific changes you are proposing, I will respond. --MelanieN (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Basically, yes...but I am open to tweaking as long as it doesn't become the heavily weighted, lengthy paragraph that we had prior to this discussion. If we stick to statements of fact in lieu of editorialized speculation, our readers will be far better served to know what has or hasn't been verified, not what might be/could be/should be verified. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll respond below, possibly tomorrow. (I have hardly been online at all this week - just busy in RL.) --MelanieN (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose change. The current content in the lede is perfectly fine. Per MelanieN, we really should keep it simple and short. Details belong in the body. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support The current text is ambiguous. We should not say "some ... have been corroborated" without explaining which. Page's share in an energy company, the "pee tape"? A reader doesn't know without reading the entirety of the body. Atsme's version is specific. Additionally, the conversations between foreign nationals "heavily involved" in efforts to "damage Clinton and help Trump" is cited to a single CNN piece. This seems significant enough that most sources would have reported it. Are there other citations? James J. Lambden (talk) 05:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose this specific change; that's too drastic of a rewrite for one very specific concern. Suggest instead simply changing the first sentence to 'Some of the dossier's allegations have been corroborated, while others, including its more salacious claims, remain unverified." or words to that effect. This is a simple five-word addition that clarifies the situation fairly accurately. --Aquillion (talk) 06:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support The purposed change above. @BullRangifer: since the change has been clarified after you had voted would you be interested in changing your vote since it has addressed your concerns? Keeps the lead even shorter and more to the point while keeping unneeded details in the body. Those last three sentences of the current paragraph are way to awkward. PackMecEng (talk) 13:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose — Here's how I'd write it:

Because of the difficulty in publicly verifying the dossier contents, the media and most independent intelligence experts have approached it with caution, while Trump and his supporters have denounced it as wholly false. Some of the dossier claims may not be publicly verifiable because they require access to classified information. CNN reported on February 10, 2017 that American investigators verified some of the dossier details related to conversations between Russian nationals, some of whom were known to be "heavily involved" in efforts to damage Clinton and help Trump. No other aspects of the dossier have yet been publicly verified or disproven. soibangla (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

According to Vox, during the fall of 2016, the dossier circulated in the media but news organizations largely failed to verify any of its key claims. To say they had "difficulty in publicly verifying the dossier contents" is editorializing unless you're quoting using in-text attribution. It also implies that the allegations may be true, and to that I refer editors to the application of sound editorial judgement - see Copi's quote in Evidence of absence, In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence. — Copi, Introduction to Logic (1953), p. 95 ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Would "Because of the difficulty in publicly verifying or disproving the dossier contents..." allay your concerns? That would neatly dovetail with the closing sentence. soibangla (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not that simple, and is in fact nearly always BS during a criminal investigation. We KNOW that Mueller is not revealing all the available (and coming) evidence, so the public absence of evidence is obviously not evidence of absence, Logic 101. At least be honest about that and don't imply otherwise. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I am not so sure about that. Ever piece of information to date that has been remotely negative has been leaked, sometimes within hours of it being discovered. There is not reason to think they are holding some big bombshell close to the chest at this point. Even RS are starting to move on from Mueller as having nothing much on Trump himself. PackMecEng (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Either BullRangifer or PackMecEng could be write, but these are both just speculation. We follow the RSs, currently they have not revealed that Mueller has hidden some big bombshell do we don't include it for now but if it and is related to the Dossier then we should include it here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

BR, it actually is that simple. We need to steer clear of conspiratorial theorizing. The fact that Mueller is keeping his investigation under wraps is exactly why we should not be editorializing content published in opinion columns, analysis, and/or commentary. In-text attribution is required if the material is considered to be worthy of inclusion. I refer back to our policies: NOTNEWS, NPOV, DUE, BALANCE and OR. Garbage in is still garbage out, and my primary concern is focused on sound editorial judgement to maintain the quality and integrity of our pedia. I can't justify inclusion of speculative material in an opinion piece. Having said that, I realize that I am a lone pebble on the beach and consensus makes the final determination...as long as editor consensus doesn't attempt to supersede NPOV. It is what it is - there is no deadline - let the allegations incubate and keep RECENTISM in mind. Simple. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Soibangla, you asked above...Would "Because of the difficulty in publicly verifying or disproving the dossier contents..." allay your concerns? Well, it begs the question, who had difficulty publicly verifying the allegations? Was it the FBI who wanted to verify it publicly? Who attempted to disprove the dossier's contents? It leads to editorializing when we should be stating facts in a dispassionate tone. What we do know is evidenced in multiple RS - the bulk of the allegations remain unsubstantiated - and the reason for that, is quite simply...we don't know, yet. It may change in the near future...but until then, predictions/speculation makes us noncompliant with CRYSTALBALL, so the best option is to wait until the investigation actually proves whatever it is they need to prove. It doesn't appear to be Trump collusion (which isn't a crime)...lots of questions still left unanswered. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

"who had difficulty publicly verifying the allegations?" Anyone, for any reason, by any means. There is no "they" or motives stated or implied here. This is an evolving current event, so readers come to the article now to discover where the matter stands now, and at some point in the future this article will become strictly an historical document. Until then, we need to dispassionately explain where we are at any given point, and I think my edit accomplishes that. I think you're reading into the edit implications that simply aren't there. soibangla (talk) 21:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

That's OR, and it is noncompliant with WP:NOTNEWS policy. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

How is it OR? As someone else previously noted, you appear to have a tendency to toss out every WP rule you can think of in the hope that something will stick. soibangla (talk) 22:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

^^WP:BATTLEGROUND - I no longer wish to discuss this with you. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:13, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

PROPOSAL: I recommend this language be adopted for paragraph #3 of the article:

Because of the difficulty in publicly verifying the dossier contents, the media and most independent intelligence analysts have approached it with caution, while Trump and his supporters have denounced it as wholly false. Some of the dossier claims may not be publicly verifiable because they require access to classified information. CNN reported on February 10, 2017 that American investigators verified some of the dossier details related to conversations between Russian nationals, some of whom were known to be "heavily involved" in efforts to damage Clinton and help Trump. No other aspects of the dossier have yet been publicly verified or disproven. soibangla (talk) 22:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Soibangla - starting another proposal while one has only been active for a couple of days is highly disruptive behavior - I recommend that you self-revert. MelanieN, it appears you have taken this editor under your wing - please advise him/her. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

We disagree. If you would like another editor to advise me, please address your comment to that editor. I no longer wish to discuss anything with you. soibangla (talk) 22:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Greasy Granola, Atsme! The second proposal is an improvement that builds on the first to make an even more succinct and neutral statement. I like this alternative TWO. SPECIFICO talk 01:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

😂 I'm borrowing that one, SPECIFICO. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Changing to an arbitrary break with the proposed rewrite by Soibangla. I believe Atsme is correct, another proposal is a tad disruptive, especially since it's only a few days old, but more importantly because so many have already voiced their opinions on the previous proposal. If we end up with no-consensus in a few days time, then maybe we can start an actual RfC with three possibilities. For now, though, to not cause confusion and to not encourage disruption, I think we should stick with the two choices.  -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

"so many have already voiced their opinions on the previous proposal" over a 72+ hour period, and the issue remains, at best, deadlocked. 126 page watchers have visited recent edits of this TP. I suggest this issue has been adequately discussed, and because it represents a primary linchpin of the article, we should move to a prompt resolution. soibangla (talk) 02:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

RfCs go up to 30 days. Why is this different? It's not a BLP, so we aren't risking a policy issue in that manner -- what's the rush? There's no deadline in Wikipedia. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

"BLP others" still applies. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

There appears to be a consensus that the current language is inadequate, and the first proposed revision does not appear to reach consensus. Because the dossier is now among the hottest topics of the day, readers come to the article now with one key question: is the dossier true? I believe my proposed edit is better than the current language, it is an accurate and succinct summary of what is now known, and we can improve it later as new developments warrant. IMO, this issue could have and should have been resolved months ago, as there has been no further illumination on the dossier's veracity since the CNN report of over a year ago. soibangla (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Let’s talk a minute about process. I had labeled Soibangla’s proposal as Proposal #2, but someone overruled that because of their impression that we are only allowed to have one proposal at a time. I disagree with that. I personally think our best and most productive discussions result from a process where the text is discussed and modified through discussion, rather than what appears to be the current approach - “this is the proposal, either support or oppose it exactly as written,” then do the same with another proposal, then another, until we finally refine it over a period of weeks or months, to something that either finds approval or is accepted by default through editor exhaustion. IMO that is not good procedure, but that is how this thread has evolved. Meanwhile, Soibangla is incorrect in saying “There appears to be a consensus that the current language is inadequate.” In this thread I see four people (five counting myself although I haven’t specifically said so) who think the current text is OK, and four who want to change it.

Anyhow, at some point it will become clear that Atsme’s proposed rewording does not have consensus. At that point I would like to throw it open to general discussion, rather than another take-it-or-leave-it, support-or-oppose-as-is suggestion. If people are OK with that approach I will propose as a starting point a synthesis of the current text, using some aspects of each proposal’s suggested changes. I would keep the current text, with the following changes, and maybe others that come up as this discussion continues:

• With regard to Atsme’s proposed changes: I do not agree with removing the first sentence, but I would be OK with removing the second sentence Some claims may require access to classified information for verification.[12]. I also agree with removing the fourth sentence Some of those individuals were known to be "heavily involved" in efforts to damage Clinton and help Trump. I disagree with her other rewordings. In particular I oppose specifically saying that “the salacious allegations” have not been confirmed, since we have actually not mentioned those allegations in the lede up to that point. If people really want to mention this, I would use Aquillion’s suggested modification of the first sentence, Some of the dossier's allegations have been corroborated, while others, including its more salacious claims, remain unverified.”
• With regard to soibangla’s proposed changes, I like their first sentence Because of the difficulty in publicly verifying the dossier contents, the media and most independent intelligence analysts have approached it with caution, while Trump and his supporters have denounced it as wholly false. better than what we have now, and I like their later modification “publicly verifying or disproving”. I would leave out the second sentence, as I said with regard to Atsme’s proposal; it’s kind of argumentative and it is implied already in “difficulty in publicly verifying the dossier contents.” Right now I don't think the rest of their proposal improves on the current paragraph. --MelanieN (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

A reader will read "Because of the difficulty in publicly verifying the dossier contents" and wonder "why is there difficulty?" which is answered in the next sentence: "Some of the dossier claims may not be publicly verifiable because they require access to classified information." soibangla (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I think we need to be careful about coming up with an editor-written characterization if it differs markedly from what lots of RS say. The sources generally describe the dossier as unverified, or mostly so and we should track that. Sorry if I missed it, but is there sourcing that says the media and analyst caution is due to the inability to publicly verify the allegations, as opposed to verifying them at all? Factchecker_atyourservice 17:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The dossier was circulating among the media for weeks/months prior to the election, but no one reported it because they couldn't confirm it with public sources and had no access to classified sources. Also see paragraph on John Sipher in this article. soibangla (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The New Yorker source doesn't say anything about the caution being due to the need to get access to records, and there were lots of other reasons to treat it with skepticism so this would seem to be a pretty POINTy unsourced claim unless I'm missing something? Factchecker_atyourservice 18:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Journalists tend to avoid reporting things they can't confirm. Well, good journalists, anyway. soibangla (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Without a source saying that something about accessing non-public documents was the reason for journalistic skepticism, you're just making stuff up, and since there are other reasons for skepticism, making stuff up in this particular instance would be especially misleading. Factchecker_atyourservice 03:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Clapper leaked details of dossier

Partly sourced from House Intel report. Expect to be hearing more about Clapper and some of his allies in the near future.

Phmoreno (talk) 02:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Not an WP:RS.Casprings (talk) 02:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

There are a few more coming now. Business Insider and The Hill. PackMecEng (talk) 03:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• House Intelligence Committee report accuses James Clapper of 'inconsistent' testimony on the Steele dossier, Business Insider
• GOP report: Clapper told CNN host about Trump dossier in 2017, The Hill

Sources

"misuse of primary source. That's OR"

User:BullRangifer reverted material with the edit summary "misuse of primary source. That's OR".

This appears to be a total misinterpretation of policy. The policy says All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source. The removed content is neither analysis nor interpretation nor is it a synthesis of source materials to form a novel claim. If there is some argument about DUE, it has nothing to do with supposed "OR", or with the document being "misused". Factchecker_atyourservice 16:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

This is the third thread on this topic. Please move this up (with my comment below) and include it at #Challenged information cited only to desantis.house.gov.

Maybe OR isn't the exact, and definitely not the only, policy to cite, but we aren't allowed to cite only a primary source, such as that report, or a court transcript. That is often called OR. OTOH, when secondary coverage is found, then we can use it and also provide the primary source as backing. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

The DeSantis letter is an official government document. Citing specifically what is says is not OR.Phmoreno (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: It's good that you're starting to think about what WP policies mean. That is a positive development and I can only say, keep up the good work! Wikipedia can be a constructive environment, if you allow it to be. One thing that is important is to not let yourself get bogged down by misconceptions about policy. Secondary sources are always needed to comment upon primary sources, but they are only sometimes needed to substantiate the importance or mere existence of an official government action or statement. When official acts by congressmen are memorialized in an official document that is discussed by secondary sources, that is a sign of importance and the secondary source is thus a better source than the original government document. But that means you simply replace the primary source with an easily-located secondary source rather than deleting the material altogether with a contrived and incorrect claim of OR. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Criminal referrals connected to dossier

The article is also out of date now that criminal referrals of several people connected to the dossier have been issued. Specifically named are: Hillary Clinton, James Comey, Andrew MCCabe, Sally Yates, Dana Boente and Christopher Steele.Phmoreno (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

If you believe that criminal referrals are relevant to this article, please add them. soibangla (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I think I might see some BLP/NPOV problems with a document suggesting potential criminality of many persons signed by eleven members of one party and zero members of the other party. O3000 (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Regardless, the criminal referrals are a matter of record. Apparently there is enough evidence of violations of specific laws to recommend an investigation.Phmoreno (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why people come to talk pages and insist things should be added instead of adding it themselves and seeing if it withstands challenge. soibangla (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

This sounds like legitimate content, maybe in the section we have about litigation. We cover this kind of thing. Go for it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I see that this was added, but still using primary sources. That's OR. You must find secondary sources. I'm sure they exist. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Wrong. Go read the policies on primary sources and OR. Maybe you meant to say something about DUE, that's at least an argument you could make. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

To address the "primary source" concern I would like to restore this section with addition of the following sources: Fox News, The Washington Post, and Vox:

An April 18, 2018 letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions signed by several House Republicans referred James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Sally Yates, Dana Boente for criminal investigation related to use of the unverified information in the dossier in a FISA warrant on Carter Page. Hillary Clinton was named for failing to properly disclose payments to Fusion GPS in violation of Federal Election Commission law.

James J. Lambden (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Shearer dossier section?

The existence of Cody Shearer's dossier is getting more attention, and often in a manner which can confuse people into thinking it's part of this dossier, or a follow-up. I'm not sure there's enough of a story for its own article....yet. It's also part of right-wing conspiracy theories fueled by Nunes.

To prevent confusion and debunk conspiracy theories, and since it is nearly always mentioned in connection with this dossier (Steele did pass it on to the State Department), it deserves mention here in its own section. If it gets more coverage, we can then split it off into its own article. Right now it's a part of reality which deserves a home at Wikipedia, and this seems like a logical location.

Some sources:

• Second Trump-Russia dossier being assessed by FBI

• There's a second Trump-Russia dossier

• Nunes Now Planning to Shower America With Memos

• GOP puts Sidney Blumenthal in spotlight

• Devin Nunes is investigating me. Here's the truth.

• GOP Focuses on Russia Allegations That Reached Steele

• Congressional Russia investigators interested in 2nd Trump-Russia dossier

• An operative with ties to the Democratic Party has reportedly been crisscrossing Eastern Europe for months looking for dirt on Trump

• Devin Nunes' Next Memo Could Revive Old Scandals to Obscure Russia Probe

Opinions? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Sources

I think there is enough here for a separate section. Reviewing the references: The January 30 Guardian report [7] was the original source and seems to be the basis for other stories; Vox, Mother Jones, and Esquire do not add any new information or independent confirmation, and the Esquire piece is highly opinionated. Additional info from CNN: Republican claims about how the dossier got to Steele. Additional info from WaPo op-ed by Jonathan Winer: confirming that he got the Shearer notes from Blumenthal and passed them to Steele (this is a primary source but valuable IMO). Business Insider confirms Shearer was searching Eastern Europe for dirt on Trump - in other words that his information is independently sourced from Steele’s. The ABC report says the Shearer info is mainly about the sexual allegations and that videos exist in several places. (Israel? How in the world would info like that get from Russia to Israel? That makes me inclined to doubt the whole thing but I guess the FBI is at least looking at it.) Someplace (forget where) said it is raw notes, six pages long, more of a memo than a dossier but that’s what people are calling it. I’d be inclined to skip the ABC, Vox, Mother Jones, and Esquire references and use the others. A section of one to two paragraphs seems to be in order. --MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

That makes sense. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Not directly on this subject, but the author was allegedly included in a hit list by the FSB [8]. My very best wishes (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, this got archived prematurely, so I'm bumping it, as it is still pending creation. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing and POV issues

This article has outstanding problems with weak sourcing and one-sided POV presentations. I attempted to outline these problems in both general and specific on the Talk page. The comments were deleted by another user but anybody interested in exploring whether they agree can look at the comments in the Talk page archives.

1 2

Thanks. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Factchecker_atyourservice, you are correct that the article is one-sided POV.Phmoreno (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Please cite the specific POVs you see. soibangla (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe a good first step would be to go through and remove all marginal sources. Treason is one of if not the most severe crime and BLP demands high-quality sources. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, somebody tried removing, e.g., the numerous fact citations to Paste: The Best Music, Movies, TV, Books, Games, Beer & More, and it was promptly reverted, presumably by one of the same editors who is objecting to any mention of the fact reporting below by The New York Times. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

If Paste is the sole source for any BLP claim it should be removed immediately. I am catching up on other talk page posts at the moment but will review. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I didn't go over the list in detail but I recall that (1) the allegations about Carter Page coming up with the Wikileaks leak "for plausible deniability", and (2) the claim that the DNC hack was carried out "with the full knowledge and support of TRUMP and senior members of his campaign team" were essentially ignored by reputable sources. Meanwhile (3) the claim that the hacking of the DNC servers was performed by Romanian hackers ultimately controlled by Putin and paid by both Trump and Putin appears to have been discussed only by Luke Harding, the guy trying to make money with his book making explosive claims about Trump, and a colleague of his at Guardian (Julian Borger) who makes explosive claims and is cited twenty-seven times in this article—yet serious American-based fact reporting, such as this McClatchy report discuss the claim of FSB recruitment but completely ignore the accusation that Trump arranged and paid for the hack. Factchecker_atyourservice 21:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

A bold addition of RS fact and opinion coverage regarding the collusion claims

Hello all. Pursuant to my earlier talk page comments I have made a BOLD addition.Factchecker_atyourservice 01:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

....really, already, it's been 10 minutes, are you kidding me User:SPECIFICO ? Factchecker_atyourservice 02:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• That was one hell of a batch of commentary. I don't know what Specifico thought the problem was, but what I see is basically a ton of reliably sourced speculation which crosses the NOTNEWS boundary. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• The huge addition was generally a mess, IMO, but the problems with it are too tangled and diverse to discuss without dissecting it first. The little appendix I reverted, that there's no evidence to suggest "collusion" is unsourced and is contradicted by many parts of the huge addition. SPECIFICO talk 02:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Uh, what you reverted didn't say "there's no evidence to suggest collusion", it said there was no publicly known evidence that collusion actually occurred, i.e. in the real physical world where people are stuck to a giant rock because of mass n stuff. Which is what the sources said, right? The lead sentence was a summary of the sourced material below. Factchecker_atyourservice 02:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

"Speculation" is the way you would characterize that material?

What SPECIFICO reverted was a lead sentence saying "To date there has been no public evidence of collusion with Russia to influence the election or a direct Trump link to the Kremlin" which was a summary of the below RS fact coverage. Factchecker_atyourservice 02:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you revert everything you've added and break it down into smaller homogeneous units that can be discussed in an orderly way. If you force an up or down vote on the whole thing, none of it's going to survive. That's just a fact about how our process works. Nobody is going to start manually copying and pasting and cutting and tracking refs in order to fine tune what is on the whole a gross misrepresentation of the mainstream reporting. SPECIFICO talk 02:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

"Gross misrepresentation of the mainstream reporting" seems like a fantasy on your part but I am open to being shown wrong! Factchecker_atyourservice 02:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: please strike your false claim about "gross misrepresentation of the mainstream reporting" now that you have had some time to discover that you were wrong. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

You need to get it off the article page and break it down into workable clumps here on talk. Otherwise somebody else will just revert the whole thing and not be inclined to discuss it in the entirety and you'll get frustrated and any good stuff will get lost in the gruel. SPECIFICO talk 02:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anybody's going to revert it. Factchecker_atyourservice 02:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Issues not directly related to the dossier are beyond the article's scope.Phmoreno (talk) 02:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

All the same I will wait for another editor to take the initiative to remove it from the article, and it won't hurt my feelings if it's you. Factchecker_atyourservice 02:32, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Do not support this edit Edit is POV based to push a pro-trump push. If you want to make such a change, please get consensus.Casprings (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Sooooooo since the whole point of the dossier is to accuse Trump of collusion does anybody think it is acceptable to mention the fairly unanimous fact reporting that there is no public evidence of collusion? Factchecker_atyourservice 03:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

And what, ignore the source after source that shows that there is evidence?

• • Foreign Policy: There are reams of evidence pointing to Trump's collusion with Russia
  • New Yorker: The ‘Did Trump’s Campaign Collude’ Debate Is Over. The Only Question Now Is How Much.
  • US News and World Report: Ample Evidence ... of Collusion': Adam Schiff says both public and nonpublic evidence points to collusion
  • Newsweek: VIDENCE OF TRUMP-RUSSIA COLLUSION ALREADY EXISTS, WATERGATE PROSECUTORS SAY
  • Reuters: Russia-Trump campaign collusion an 'open' issue: U.S. Senate panel chiefs

So no, we shouldn't ignore multiple WP:RS and public evidence and scream "no collusion." If you want this edit, please seek a consensus by the wider community with an RFC.Casprings (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Casprings: This response simply shows you're not paying attention. None of the above is a fact reporting source contradicting anything I wrote. The material I wrote not only included numerous opinions that collusion had occurred, but I actually included an EXPAND tag in that section inviting editors to add even more commentary arguing that collusion occurred. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I do. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support I see no reason why not. PackMecEng (talk) 03:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Support - the material is cited with quality RS, it is compliant with NPOV, it is informative and factually accurate. I see no reason for it to have been reverted. It is highly relevant to the dossier and contains important information for our readers. It could be tightened a bit, but I'd rather remove the conspiracy theorizing, innuendo, speculation and attempts to make the dossier credible (veracity) that inundate this article now. And now there's this. ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's the whole impossible-to-prove-a-negative thing. No matter how many single articles we round up that have particular stances, there have so far been multiple indictments and guilty pleas related to the slow-moving Mueller investigation, and just today there is an announcement in multiple major news outlets that there is significant evidence of collusion: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], also [14]. Since the Mueller investigation is still ongoing, there is no reason to pre-emptively suggest that the "no collusion" news reports were the final word. At the very best, we would have to put "As of [date] [X news reports] (or "a number of news venues") have reported that _______." GreyGoose (talk) 09:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support. I did not notice any obvious lapses in neutrality. I imagine others will want to edit it for content and tone, but that seems very unlikely to happen if it is removed entirely. Also, the issue of "no collusion" is extremely important to the article, in light of the recent, highly exculpatory (if also quite partisan) House report. I think a separate discussion is warranted on whether the last two sections of the added content are DUE, being sourced primarily to opinion pieces. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support There has never been any evidence of collusion. Clapper is on record saying that a year ago. Several others on both political sides have said they had seen no evidence of collusion. When the still classified document that started the FBI special counsel was finally released to the committee it was learned that no official intelligence was used. We now know some of the suspicious activity is suspected of being planted, fabricated or set up as sting operations. Except for the Trump server, I am not proposing adding fabricated evidence and sting operations here; that belongs in the Russian interference article. Phmoreno (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support Dude who endured weeks of shouted abuse about Infowars and spent dozens of hours picking apart the problems with this article and researching real source material covering its central issues, obviously supports some form of inclusion. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose – This quite large edit appears to be a concluding summary of an investigation that hasn’t concluded. We haven’t the faintest idea of what evidence exists, nor should we at this point, even if all of the evidence was unencumbered by secrecy classifications. WP:NOTNEWS O3000 (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose to "bold addition" by Factchecker_atyourservice. At least some parts are an obvious misinterpretation of the situation as described by RS in general. Try making small changes, one at a time. Maybe some of them can be accepted. My very best wishes (talk) 04:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• @GreyGoose: I suppose you have a lot of RS commentary claiming that the reason top sources are reporting no evidence is because it's impossible to prove a negative? Nope? Well then what's your point? Note, those sources you just cited are talking about the democrats claiming there is significant evidence of collusion—a viewpoint I covered and attributed quite adequately. Also, guilty pleas mostly about lying about non-criminal conduct and violations of obscure statutes that are typically never enforced doesn't even really hint at collusion, much less serve as a smoking gun, and even if it was a smoking gun we don't crystal ball, we track source material. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
• @My very best wishes: "an obvious misinterpretation of the situation as described by RS in general"–respectfully I don't think you can provide even a single example supporting this claim. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Overlinking was fixed

This addition of a tag was promptly and properly reverted as "tendentions tagging--disruption" by Drmies.

We need to avoid this situation. What Factchecker... probably doesn't realize, is that each allegation used to have a long list of sources, but because of legitimate complaints about overlinking (sometimes there were 5-7, IIRC), most of them were removed, leaving only 2-3 for each one. Does anyone really want them all added back? It can be done... In fact, more can be found, if necessary. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you actually trying to pretend the removed sources were better than the ones that remain? For some reason you or somebody else decided the sources needed to be trimmer, and you decided to keep the bad ones while deleting good ones?

Then restore the good citations and remove the trash ones. Definitely go find more sources if you think they exist because I found multiple of these claims that were only sourced to garbage sources.Factchecker_atyourservice 16:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

BR, I don't see tagging as disruption. If that were the case, NPP and the many WP gnomes would be in a world of hurt. In fact, NeilN recommended doing just that for this article. Drmies, please help me understand why you believe the tag was disruptive. I've been going through the sources, and considering the volume and unverifiability of that particular section of exceptional allegations, thinking all along that our policies require exceptional sources for exceptional claims. I barely got half-way through it, and tagged one that wasn't even sourced, and found the repeated use of questionable sources (and opinion pieces by not so exceptional authors) including but not limited to the following:

Paste (magazine), a monthly music and entertainment digital magazine is cited repeatedly. Others that are cited repeatedly include The_Week, Business Insider, an opinion piece in the National Observer (Canada) by Sandy Garossino, a media commentator (who privately owned 3 Vancouver taxi companies, and is a global investor primarily in Asia), and so on. That entire section needs some serious citation cleanup.

It also appears that the following paragraph is noncompliant with SYNTH as it pieces together these allegations using different sources: That Cohen, together with three colleagues, secretly met with Kremlin officials in the Prague offices of Rossotrudnichestvo in August 2016,[100][75][43][101] where he arranged "deniable cash payments" to the hackers and sought "to cover up all traces of the hacking operation",[42][24] as well as "cover up ties between Trump and Russia, including Manafort's involvement in Ukraine".[3] (Dossier, pp. 18, 34-35) Keep in mind, what we actually consider RS wouldn't touch the dossier, and may help explain why that tag was necessary. Thank you for your attention to this matter. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Atsme: "tagged one that wasn't even sourced". Good catch! I fixed it and the edit summary explains what happened. Specific tagging is useful, whereas general tagging is not. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: General tags are useful, POV-pushy removal of them is not. General tagging alerts editors of the need to inspect the section and place specific tags. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't "use" the sources for that purpose, only that various sources make special mention about different aspects of the whole allegation. I found that better than just writing the whole allegation and adding all the sources at the end. Many sources do mention the whole allegation, and we could just write the allegation as written in the dossier, which says essentially the same as included. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

That is "using" the sources, Bull. Unless a claim is talked about in multiple real sources, not crappy partisan blog posts and weak off topic sources. The fact that something has been mentioned in a crap source does not mean it should be copy pasted into a WP article. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't forget Natasha Bertrand, an inexperienced 25-year-old business school grad writing for a second-rate online-only business-related publication founded in 2009; publication and author are both weak and off-topic, yet she's cited twenty-three times in this article simply because she's a member of the #Resistance. We shouldn't be cherry picking crap quality sourcing just because they support a POV that is popular among WP editors. Policy explicitly says we require multiple high-quality sources for important claims. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Because of her consistently excellent coverage of this matter, Natasha Bertrand recently joined The Atlantic, a quite prestigious publication. She's a fast-rising star in journalism who has been all over this story. IIRC, Woodward and Bernstein were mere cub reporters on the city desk when they got a big break. Just sayin' is all. soibangla (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

The Washington, D.C. city desk of The Washington Post, you mean? Yes, a teensy bit more serious, credible and competent at political reporting than Business Insider. I would have no problem reflecting Natasha Bertrand columns from The Atlantic just not her many copypastes from BI.

More to the point, and with all due respect to her credentials and career, anything truly important will have been talked about by sources which are nonetheless better than her, and if there's anything where she is the most credible source out there, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. These are issues of global significance and if top sources ignored certain claims then that is a sign that we should do likewise. Those are not a high-quality reliable source. Factchecker_atyourservice 01:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Removing the tag without actually fixing anything, totally ignoring the previous discussion, which was archived prematurely, is disruptive. Are Paste magazine, an opinion piece in National Observer, and a report in The Independent (which some rejected as source for citing a claim that the dossier contains errors/falsehoods, see #Parts of dossier "proven" false?) really the best sources for exceptional claims about living persons? I'm not much interested how many inline citations there are in the article, but rather than how many sources support the quotations overall. Could someone make a list or take out the garbage? Politrukki (talk) 12:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

"Removing the tag without actually fixing anything,"?? Above you'll find this: "Atsme: "tagged one that wasn't even sourced". Good catch! I fixed it and the edit summary explains what happened. Specific tagging is useful, whereas general tagging is not." -- BullRangifer -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe Politrukki is talking about the fact that Drmies removed the general tag, but did not fix any problems, described on the talk page, that the general tag referred to. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)