Talk:Steele dossier/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

"Main" finding

The article currently has "Some aspects of the dossier have been corroborated,[29] in particular its main finding[30] that Putin and Russia actively favored Trump over Clinton" etc. Adoring nanny on November 8 removed the word "main" from an earlier version with slightly different wording, but Valjean soon put it back with edit summary = "RS accurately assert that this is the main finding of the dossier". I agree with Adoring nanny, the word "main" is just the opinion of a Newsweek writer, and it's easy to find opinion sources that the main point was Trump/Russia collusion e.g. "Danchenko was a key source for the Steele dossier’s core allegations that the Trump campaign was colluding with Russia to win the 2016 election.". "he continued to profess that the central assertion of the dossier — that the Trump campaign had colluded with the Russian government during the 2016 campaign — was not only possible but a fact.", Steele’s main allegation has proven not just true but prophetic ... confirming the Trump campaign’s collusion with Russia.", It's all about Trump/Russia." I'd go further and say Putin's preference wasn't even a "finding" of the dossier and is not worth mentioning, so let's see whether Valjean gets consensus for "main" and whether there's consensus to keep the clause. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at. Are you suggesting that there was some other finding that was more significant? Steele got it right on that point before the public really knew this. Other investigations noted that the dossier was correct on that point. It's not our fault that they give it that much credit. That finding is what caused Steele to become alarmed and go to the FBI, and it caused the FBI to take the dossier seriously as that's a serious allegation. Then their other investigations showed the dossier was right. -- Valjean (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be asserting we should describe facts as opinions. It is a fact that "Putin and Russia actively favored Trump over Clinton". We needed RS for those statements, not just the dossier as a primary source. Plenty of RS have confirmed those facts, and so have all investigations. There are many other RS we could use for that content. -- Valjean (talk) 22:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I assert no such thing. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

So the point in the Steele Dossier was that Trump was favored by Putin, there is no why except a long list of already known gripes against the oboma foreigh policy in the eyes of Russia. Steele did not go to the FBI, Fusion GPS shopped the report to the press and via a spouse at the FBI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loopbackdude (talk • contribs) 00:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

May I suggest you actually read this article before you expose more of your ignorance of its contents? Steele immediately took his findings to the FBI, that's how alarmed he was by what his sources reported. That's just one glaring thing you've gotten wrong. Read the article so your criticisms will make some sense. -- Valjean (talk) 01:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

His sources reported, or fabricated? Mr Ernie (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

We have always known that most of the initial reports back to Steele were uncorroborated at the time, and no one has claimed otherwise. That's why journalists and the intelligence community were cautious, as they should have been, and that's also why the dossier wasn't used in any effective way before TFG's election. As opposition research, it failed miserably to do its job, but the intelligence community did find it somewhat credible because of Steele's track record and, as Comey put it, "much of what he reports in the current document is consistent with and corroborative of other reporting included in the body of the main IC report".

So whether any of the reports were false or not does not change the fact they were "reported" to Steele, and some of them caused Steele to freak out and report them to the FBI. We are about to learn more about what really happened in some cases but not all cases. We have already learned that some sources lied to Steele, but not that their reports were necessarily false. Maybe, maybe not. (The one about Millian might be, so that content has been updated.) Obfuscation to protect a source is normal, and often legitimate, practice, but not when talking to the FBI. That is a crime.

If we learn that certain allegations were fabricated, we will report it. That has always been the case here. This article gets updated and corrected when necessary, but, as those who have opposed it often caution, we remember NOT NEWS, etc., so let's get the facts first. -- Valjean (talk)

Loopbackdude, when you say "So the point in the Steele Dossier was that Trump was favored by Putin ...", do you mean you agree that was the "main finding"? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Peter Gulutzan. Different authors have different opinions about what is the main finding of the dossier. Per WP:WIKIVOICE, we shoulddn't take sides. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Peter and Adoring nanny, would changing it to "a main finding" (instead of THE main finding) be better? We could also attribute it. The basic dossier allegation is certainly true, but it took the intelligence community about six months to come to the same conclusion: "The dossier's main finding, that Russia tried to prop up Trump over Clinton, was confirmed by the U.S. intelligence community. On January 6,... The intelligence community's findings were first asserted by Steele's dossier in its very first summary paragraph: 'Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting Trump for at least five years. Aim, endorsed by Putin, has been to encourage splits and divisions in western alliance'." -- Valjean (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Adoring nanny, you write: "Different authors have different opinions about what is the main finding." I do not doubt that, and I'd be interested in what those other authors say. Maybe we could add that. -- Valjean (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

If there were a debate about it, I would agree to that. But I don't think there is. As far as I know, it's more a matter of some people have opinions. But there aren't sides making points and counterpoints. That being the case, I'd suggest Wikipedia simply remain silent on the issue. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

That "summary paragraph" is not in a summary of the dossier, it is in a summary of one of the reports in the dossier. Something that appears to be a Buzzfeed copy of the dossier shows that there are at least 10 reports with multiple "summary paragraphs" so maybe 50 in all. The title of the report you quote is "COMPANY INTELLIGENCE REPORT 2016/080 US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE DONALD TRUMP'S ACTIVITIES IN RUSSIA AND COMPROMISING RELATIONSHIP WITH THE KREMLIN". So: earlier we established that Newsweek's opinion is far from universal, now we've established that opinion is based on misreading the dossier content. So it should be no surprise that so far two editors are against your re-insertion. But I think we should wait to see if anyone supports it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's written right there: "very first summary paragraph". Each of the 17 reports contains summaries, usually 2-5 of them. The first memo contains four of them. The format of each memo is standard MI6 format. No one is claiming that it's a summary of the whole collection of memos (it's not a real "dossier"). It just happens to be the first one and the one most well-confirmed by the later discoveries of the intelligence community. Can you think of any other allegation that is more notable (not sensational)? I have just added attribution to that content to resolve your concerns here. -- Valjean (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The words you snipped show that Newsweek referred to the Steele dossier, despite the fact that was not in a summary of the dossier, that's established. As for whether I can think of other allegations that are more notable and sensational, well, anybody could (and has): collusion and sex. But prevalence of reliable sources would be necessary. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Peter Gulutzan, yes, Newsweek referred to the Steele dossier and specifically to its "very first summary paragraph", found in report 080. They noted that the intelligence community "confirmed details in the dossier", especially the one in that first summary paragraph and how Steele was the first to assert this finding (in July 2016). It took the intelligence community six months to discover and assert the same finding (in January 2017). This is contrary to the claim that Steele only wrote about things that were in the public domain. Yes, sometimes he did comment on, and give secret background info and context, to public information, but he was way ahead on this one, and some of his other reports give important background context. Although the FBI recognized that some of those reports could never be proven, that doesn't mean they were false.

To make this easier, here is the whole quote from Newsweek, without any ellipses (Bolding added):

Since the dossier was published by BuzzFeed on January 10, many reports have surfaced over the ever-evolving Trump-Russia saga. But only a few have confirmed details in the dossier.

The dossier's main finding, that Russia tried to prop up Trump over Clinton, was confirmed by the U.S. intelligence community. On January 6, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a report stating Russia engaged in an "influence campaign" to affect the election.

The same DNI report stated the influence campaign was ordered by Putin, including cyber attacks on "both major U.S. political parties." The intelligence community's findings were first asserted by Steele's dossier in its very first summary paragraph: "Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting Trump for at least five years. Aim, endorsed by Putin, has been to encourage splits and divisions in western alliance."[1]

I hope that makes it clearer. -- Valjean (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Peter Gulutzan and Adoring nanny, and pointed to a source in a section below which says "many of the dossier’s key claims have failed to materialize or have been shown to be false." I would support changing "main finding" to perhaps "key finding," and adding the text sourced to the Intelligencer. Otherwise the sentence as written is sourced to CNN from 2017, Newsweek from 2017, and ABC News from 2018. Relying on their takes alone when we have so many others who don't take that track, like the NYT, who calls it a "compendium of rumors and unproven assertions" is cherry picking and just simply inaccurate. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ernie: thanks, I now count three persons opposing Valjean's re-insertion and so far none clearly supporting. But this thread is only about removing main; inserting something else would be a different proposal. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, Peter makes a good point about "inserting something else".

Also, are you seriously proposing that we label the "main finding", the one that is undoubtedly proven true, as "false", "rumor", "unproven" and "simply inaccurate"? That makes no sense. This one "materialized" in spades, even though it took the intelligence community six months to reach the same conclusion (that Steele did in July 2016) and the ODNI publish it on January 6, 2017.

Choose your battles more carefully. Find an allegation that is actually proven inaccurate or false (there are a few, some of which are spelling errors), not the one that is the truest of them all. (Yes, Putin put TFG in power!) Then actually study how we treat that allegation in this article. I suspect you will usually be disappointed to discover we do not treat it as undisputedly true. Instead we present what various, and often conflicting, RS say about it, which is what we're supposed to do. -- Valjean (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to go by how RS characterizes it. The Intelligencer source is as good or better as Newsweek. Wouldn't you agree? Mr Ernie (talk) 19:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, that makes no sense. You are not responding to what I wrote. -- Valjean (talk) 04:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

You're nitpicking the words that RS use. You have chosen to give undue support Newsweek's wording from 2017 in the lead, but not Intelligencer from 2021, even after source after source after source has take a more critical look at the dossier. Just this week the NYT ran an opinion piece by a distinguished editor who calls the dossier "largely discredited" and that "many of the dossier’s allegations have turned out to be fictitious or, at best, unprovable." Mr Ernie (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

No nitpicking, but sticking to the facts and specific allegation we're discussing, so don't evade. You seem to imply that nothing in the dossier can be true, and that the hyperbole in headlines and opinions in the articles you have provided is very factual, even when, if taken literally, those hyperbolic words would be false, simply because the dossier does contain allegations which are proven true. Above you write: "I'm going to go by how RS characterizes it." "It" means the dossier, as a whole, but we're talking about a specific allegation, one that is proven true. You're evading dealing with that point. Also, will you even admit that the Russians interfered in the election and that Steele was correct on that point? -- Valjean (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC) Pinging Mr Ernie.

I just read that piece, and I was particularly struck by his liberal use of weasel words like "doubts," "some," "many," "largely," and "possibility." Despite his stature, I didn't find it a very strong argument. soibangla (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

What has any of this to do with the main (or primary, or central) findings that Putin favored trump? So any RS despite that claim?Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Again, sources have been provided in the first comment in this thread. Newsweek is the only one that called the Putin favor thing the "main" finding. Most RS call something else the "main" finding. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

So let's change it to what they say, what do they say is the main finding?Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Mr Ernie, you are the first to assert that "Most RS call something else the "main" finding." so let's see them as we want to get this right. Of course these are opinions, and they can vary about what is really the "main" finding, but it's still interesting to get other POV. This is the "first" finding mentioned in the dossier, and confirmed in spades six months later by the intelligence community, so it's certainly a remarkable and very correct allegation (that Putin favored Trump and worked to put him in power). Putin later admitted that he wanted Trump to win the election. -- Valjean (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Valjean this was asserted in the opening comment to this thread, so I don't understand why you say I'm the first to assert it. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

My bad. If you have RS which can be used to back up claims of main, key, etc., feel free to provide them. I was too focused on the word "main", as in "the main", but there certainly were other allegations that could be considered "main". "Conspiracy" and "cooperation" are two of them. In the very first sentence we mention "misconduct, conspiracy, and co-operation". Although the dossier NEVER used the word "collusion", only "conspiracy of co-operation", the media immediately started using the misleading term "collusion". That was unfortunate. Mueller realized this and only focused on trying to prove oral or written "conspiracy" (not the same thing as collusion), which is nearly an impossible charge to prove in a context where winks and hints serve the purpose, combined with generous use by campaigners of devious forms of electronic and secretive forms of communication that leave no evidence. When a thief is outside the front door and one looks outside, sees the thief, and then leaves the door open and leaves the house, is that "conspiracy" because nothing was spoken? That's what Trump did. He refused to stop or condemn the Russian interferences. He even told Lavrov and Kislyak that he didn't mind the Russian interference, so he left the door open with an invitation for them to carry on what they were doing. Mueller did provide plenty of evidence of collusion, but just used other words. He couldn't prove "conspiracy", but did prove what amounted to "cooperation" (a synonym for collusion), so the really important part of that allegation was proven true. The Trump campaign did "cooperate" in myriad ways. Who cares if two men conspire to rob your house? What counts is that they did it. -- Valjean (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

OK with changing key finding to main finding.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Needs better sourcing than Inelligencer". SPECIFICO talk 16:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

It's currently sourced to Newsweek. Is that a better one? Mr Ernie (talk) 18:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Not really, no. SPECIFICO talk 20:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I oppose removing main, as these were the main claims, has anyone produced any that are more important?Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree, especially since no RS questions it, and none of the recent "discoveries" touch this particular allegation at all. It is still an undoubtedly (by mainstream RS and the intelligence community) true allegation: Russia did favor Trump over Clinton and did all they could to put TFG in power. Nothing has changed that fact. This is not one of the "rumors" or "unconfirmed" allegations, and definitely not "unproven". This one, the "main finding", is "proven". -- Valjean (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Moreover Putin himself confirmed it. Perhaps we should add that to the article. SPECIFICO talk 21:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Newsweek picked a "meh" sentence which the dossier didn't suggest was more important than any of the others, ignored the title, pretended it's part of a summary of the dossier, cut out possibly uncorroborated clauses, and opined it's "the dossier's main finding", although multiple other sources don't. In fact there were already public reports about blaming Russians for anti-Democrat hacking on June 14 (before Mr Steele showed a document dated June 20 to Mr Gaeta in July) so one only had to read the papers, "Russia tried to prop up Trump over Clinton" was not a discovery by Mr Steele. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Peter Gulutzan, you're right that there were "already public reports about blaming Russians for anti-Democrat hacking", but that's not what we're talking about. Steele did something more than that. He described the same three factors later confirmed by US intelligence: the Russian goals, in this order, were to (1) disrupt American democracy and sow division; (2) weaken Hillary Clinton; and (3) support Trump. That was not clear when the hacking was discovered or the Crossfire Hurricane investigation began. That is not my OR opinion. Here are two RS which make the point:

Adam Schiff, Chair of the House Intelligence Committee and member of the Gang of Eight, with top security clearance, said on October 29, 2017: "Well, the most significant thing to me is that Christopher Steele may have found out even before our intelligence agencies that the Russians were, in fact, aiming to help Donald Trump in the election...So, that central conclusion has been borne out." (Bolding added.)

Newsweek: "The intelligence community's findings were first asserted by Steele's dossier in its very first summary paragraph: "Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting Trump for at least five years. Aim, endorsed by Putin, has been to encourage splits and divisions in western alliance." That assertion by Steele on June 20, 2016, was later "confirmed by the U.S. intelligence community" six months later in the January 6, 2017, ODNI report.[2] (Bolding added.) -- Valjean (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Valjean, We're talking about an item that you inserted and re-inserted in the article, which is that the "main finding" is "that Putin and Russia actively favored Trump over Clinton", cited to Newsweek. Not "something more than that", not to "disrupt American democracy and sow division" and "weaken Hillary Clinton", just that the "main finding" is "that Putin and Russia actively favored Trump over Clinton", cited to Newsweek. Which wasn't main and which any newspaper reader could deduce. But I see that my repetitions are having no effect. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

OK for those of us new to this particular argument, what do RS say was the main finding of the Steel dossier? As we seem to have "core" (which can be seen as synonymous with main)=, "central" (ditto), "main"" (no comment). So yes we can call it main, core, key or whatever. But they all mean more or less the same thing.Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Are you referring to sources that I cited in my first post of this thread? The one I cited for "key" is about collusion, the one I cited for "central" is about collusion, the one I cited for "main" is about collusion. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Err, so they colluded, but did not...actively Favour? Again, it really is saying the same thing. But sure if you want to change it to "colluded with.." rather than" favored" no issue with that.Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Favour is solo, collusion is tango, not the same. I'm only advocating removal, and others support. But if you're definitely opposing that, we might not have a strong enough consensus at this time. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

As I said I am happy to change it to "it's main finding of collusion", which is what the bulk of RS seem to say.Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

That can be said elsewhere -- in fact "collusion" is in the article 7 times (ignoring Hannity and Bump) and "conspiracy" and "co-operation" are in the lead sentence -- but wouldn't work in the sentence where Valjean put the "main finding" clause. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Well then no, we canonot remove main, as it seems to me that all the RS (say in one form or another) that Putins support for Trump was its main finding.Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Peter Gulutzan and Adoring nanny and Mr Ernie say remove the "main finding" clause, Valjean and Slatersteven say keep, Loopbackdude and SPECIFICO have commented but not specifically said remove or keep. Neither side is saying something that sways the other side. Let's wait three days in case somebody new comes along, then discuss dispute-resolution options. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

There seems a lot of back and forth missing the 'main' point. Putin did not say I lean to Trump 60/40, his team interfered, cajoled, bought ads and created division deliberately and maliciously using the IRA and troll farms (including outsourced international troll farms) since 2011 or earlier, which was stepped up several notches in 2014/15 with annual budgets of millions of dollars spent trying to undermine democracy and faith in the same and further entrench sides and further create more and more division, none of this is news, Newsweek typing "main finding" is not the point of this article surely?The Original Filfi (talk) 08:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

No, The Original Filfi, it's not the point of this article, but Peter Gulutzan was certainly justified in raising questions about the validity/accuracy/whatever about that content. Among many other things, we use talk pages to discuss differences of opinion between editors and differences of opinion between RS, and since there are apparently varying views (using different words like main, key, central, etc.) about what is/are the most important finding(s) of the dossier, this discussion is fruitful and constructive because it causes us to rethink the sources we have read, the biases we all have, and how to word things better. It's all good when our aim is to improve the article. The discussion has also been civil and we have all AGF, so that too is a good thing. I'm sure that content will undergo some changes which will improve it. -- Valjean (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Peter Gulutzan, let's brainstorm about a better version. Do you have a suggestion? As this is in the lead, it's important that it summarizes some key points from the body, and I'm not totally comfortable with the current wording, so thanks for that. -- Valjean (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I've only suggested removal and previously resisted suggestions to add something else, fearing that will make this thread longer. On that note: would you mind making your "tangentially-related" post a new topic, e.g. "Adam Schiff"? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Sure thing. -- Valjean (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Three days have gone by. Possible courses of action / inaction: (a) Remove the clause, declaring that we have a 3-2 majority, and it mentions living people so even if no consensus there's a high bar for contentious material, and removing is effectively returning to the status quo ante. (b) Start an RfC with this question: Remove Newsweek's statement that the dossier's "main finding" was that Putin and Russia favored Trump over Clinton? Or a multi-choice if there is an alternate-wording suggestion. (c) Ah, forget it. I think (a) is a bit drastic and won't do it myself. I think (b) is reasonable and will do it myself iff someone else states that it's a good idea. If (c) then I think this thread gets automatically archived after 60 days. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC) Update: the auto-archiving period has been changed to 30 days. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Archive links to "live" articles, Pro vs Con

We'd like to hear the views of other editors.

• Pro: Size issues aside, I think archiving links is an invaluable process in sustaining Wikipedia as a long-term project. I agree with the advice given in Help:Archiving a source: "Editors are encouraged to add an archive link as a part of each citation, or at least submit the referenced URL for archiving, at the same time that each citation is created or updated." The size of this article is too big, but archive parameters are not a major contributor to the size. More important than the size issue is the length of the readable prose, and our current overlength problem is not affected by archive links. It's conceivable that a zealous archiver might begin adding archive links to every source in this article, which I estimate would add 120,000 bytes to the size. I would still consider the benefits to outweight the costs, though I'd be amenable to reducing the number of archive links, knowing that the archives are there if they are later needed. Firefangledfeathers 20:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
• Con: I have really tried hard to keep the size of this article smaller and to make editing easier, and unnecessary archive links (to live articles) work against both goals. If we allow this, there are editors who see it and then run bots that easily more than double the size of an article within seconds. Then the article becomes nearly impossible to edit. I believe that we should allow archive links for articles that really are dead (url-status=dead), but not allow them for live articles (url-status=live). -- Valjean (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
• Con per my argument above. -- Valjean (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
• Pro ^^^ Firefangledfeathers 20:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
• Pro. Even if a URL is live, it should still be archived. Link rot is too big of an issue for the encyclopedia. Archiving also allows you to know what an article looked like on a given date, as many get updated or changed. It also allows you to bypass most paywalls. "Too big" is not an issue caused by archiving references. It's caused by frivolous content. ––FormalDude talk 21:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. Okay, I won't remove such links anymore, but I sure hope no one adds more than necessary as it's a nightmare to edit an article when the refs take up more space than the content. On the advice page it says this: "Editors are encouraged to add an archive link as a part of each citation, or at least submit the referenced URL for archiving, at the same time that each citation is created or updated. New URLs added to Wikipedia articles (but not other pages) are usually automatically archived by a bot." Apparently, they get archived automatically, and that's the most important part, not that an archive link is added to this article. It's the latter that creates the nightmare. -- Valjean (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Context for kompromat

I added more context for the kompromat allegations from the Senate Intelligence Committee which has been analyzed by legal subject matter experts (a secondary RS). The Committee adds information not found in the Mueller Report. Mr. Ernie has now edit warred that new content out, so let's discuss this:

The Senate Intelligence Committee Report provides much detailed information from testimony about potential kompromat on Trump which they divided into three sets of allegations: "(1) allegations by David Geovanis that he had information about Trump's relationships with women in Moscow; (2) allegations that Sergey Khokhlov overheard discussion of sensitive tapes of a Trump visit to Russia; and (3) allegations that an executive at Marriott International overheard two other Marriott executives discussing a tape of Trump with women in an elevator at the Ritz Carlton Moscow." Geovanis claimed to be "aware of Trump engaging in personal relationships with Russian women" during his 1996 and 2013 trips to Russia, and "suggested that the Russian government was also likely aware of this information". He also described showing Trump around Moscow during the 2013 Miss Universe pageant and "intimated that there was partying and that Mr. Trump should be nice to him in light of the information he had."

I think this content, which has been noted and analyzed by secondary RS experts, is worth inclusion as it provides much more context and facts that have not been mentioned at all. We have focused on the pee tape allegation because it is the allegation most focused on by RS, but the other kompromat allegations have been neglected. This content fixes that lack.

The content is extremely summarized, without the details included in the sources, but there is much more we could include, including Trump's visits to strip clubs, allegations he apparently spent the night with two very young women and then took them on his arm to meetings in the morning, which even Russians saw as very odd behavior. It all points toward how Trump seemed oblivious to the blackmail risk in a country where blackmail is how things work.

The dossier alleges something which all intelligence agencies and their leaders have already openly stated in RS are likely accurate allegations, that in spite of Trump's garbage claim that he was very careful because he knew of the risk, he actually has a long history of risky behavior in Russia, and that the Russians have been keeping track of all of it since they started their development of him as a useful idiot asset in the 1980s. This also includes the Agalarov's role in the Trump Tower meeting and setting him up with the Ritz Carlton matter after they saw his delight at the golden showers show in Las Vegas before the 2013 Miss Universe contest. They discovered what he likes and used that knowledge. Allegations have been made that they were the ones who knew more about such kompromat information, and, of course, they report to Putin, as do all oligarchs.

This subject could be developed much more, but I feel that the condensed summary I added is sufficient for now. If more people like Mr. Ernie complain, we can always add more because there is a lot more from RS. Is that what he really wants? BTW, I have warned Mr. Ernie on his talk page. -- Valjean (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Let's be clear, you started the edit war by ignoring BRD when a boldly inserted piece of new text was reverted by me. Now we are here at the talk page, so thank you for opening the discussion.

The last thing this article needs is more allegations. This article has almost 27,000 words of prose, and you are proposing to add more text that does nothing but say there are more allegations. We know there are allegations. Until there is a single shred of evidence other than an anonymous prostitute's word or something saying an executive overheard other people hinting at something, then let's leave it out. When there is evidence, let's have this discussion again. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The text is about a US Senate finding. Sounds like you have misunderstood. SPECIFICO talk 18:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Mr. Ernie, what does "evidence" for the existence or non-existence of the pee tape have to do with anything? That question has zero relation to our PAG, yet you continually mention it. Our inclusion criteria for widely cited content from RS requires we document such allegations, true or not. This is from the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, and it's content we haven't adequately covered before. The content I added doesn't go into much detail. It just mentions it. Readers can use the sources to read more if they want. -- Valjean (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The blog post says "Khokhlov stated that while having dinner at a restaurant, Khokhlov overheard a stranger at a table next to him discuss tapes ..." "Rtskhiladze said Khokhlov had told him the tapes were fake ..." but Valjean only wants to say -- and re-inserted despite opposition -- a bit about overhearing. I don't see why some minor matters were partially picked and I believe that Mr Ernie acted properly. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Peter, this is from the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee. The part about "tapes were fake" is already in the article: "Rtskhiladze told investigators that these were compromising tapes of Trump, and Cohen told investigators he had spoken to Trump about the issue. Rtskhiladze later told investigators "he was told the tapes were fake, but he did not communicate that to Cohen".[34]" -- Valjean (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I think Mr Ernie made the smart move here. In fact we should really trim a lot more of the useless bloat this article has become filled with. Especially as we learn more of the fabrications and poor sources used in its creation. Basically we should treat it how RS treat it. Which is as a counter factual document and it should be described as such. PackMecEng (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

We describe it as RS do, so all the way throughout this article are plenty of references to "fake" "discredited" etc. at the appropriate places. There is zero evidence that the whole document is fake or discredited. On the contrary, significant allegations have proven true, with main allegations proven true six months before intelligence agencies stated they were true. Some of Steele's sources were good and others not so good, and we state that. -- Valjean (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

References

I have requested help with improvement of the Litigation section

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law#Please improve Steele dossier#Litigation -- Valjean (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

That was a good idea, thanks for doing it. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I am no lawyer and it would be nice if the legalese could be improved by legal experts. We have plenty of lawyers here who might find good ways to improve that section. -- Valjean (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Trump lawsuit

Trump is suing a bunch of people. I glanced at the first few pages and the Steele Dossier and Christopher Steele are named. We ought to see how sources are framing the lawsuit in relation to the dossier and add some content at some point. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Politico story with a direct link to the lawsuit for those who need something to lighten their mood. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I saw there is a lawsuit that includes Steele, and so it's probably something that we should mention, even considering WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. I haven't read the stories yet though. Do you have text you'd like to propose adding? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr Ernie. This is indeed worthy of mention, and there is a section for such lawsuits. Revelations during the discovery process will be interesting, as secrets from all the involved parties may come to light. -- Valjean (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

We know Giuliani won't be representing him. Is this a Sidney Powell item or is there a new name to add? I would wait until filings are available to RS for their comment in order to determine due weight. Trump has sued many people over the years. SPECIFICO talk 21:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Trump opens himself up to a vexatious litigation countersuit because courts have already ruled the dossier is protected free speech in the public interest. But... the damage is already done, as Trump and Giuliani learned a key lesson of Russian disinformation: "the allegation can be just as damaging as the action." That cuts in all directions, so Trump will have to prove malice and deliberate falsification, a pretty high bar. Get out the popcorn 🍿! Let's see how much guilt each side owns, as I doubt anybody will get away clean from this one. Political opposition research vs. collusion with a foreign enemy. I thought the dossier would just fade away, but this will put it on a pedestal. Ugh. Valjean (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it’s just gonna get tossed. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Awww shucks! I was hoping for some excitement and more revelations. -- Valjean (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Me too! Mr Ernie (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The new guy is Peter Ticktin, hailing from Deerfield Beach, Florida. He's getting coverage. An article is probably coming soon, won't be pretty. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Wording in first sentence

Some editors are very intent in hanging onto the enforcing the status quo unless you have evidence nothing happened an allegations in the report with minor press quoting the report support then the allegation must be true rule. The confidence factor of the New York Times is currently at a all time low in March of 2022 as they reverse themselves on election 2020 issues two years after initial reporting.

The subject of this article is a piece of political paper, with a collection of allegations that were known true at the time of writing, and a collection of allegations that were known to the author as hearsay.

From a truly NPV, This is a political document full of known coverage and conspiracy theories mixed together and sold as a opposition research collection. If that is the quality of opposition research in american politics all parties who paid for this materials should be embarrassed. A good amount of the reporters and the institutions have decaled reporting the dossier to be a mistake, they have tended no to bloviate on their mistakes.

It is time to rewrite the first paragraph! Loopbackdude (talk) 23:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

hanging onto the enforcing the unless Are you missing some words there? The confidence factor of the New York Times is currently at a all time low in March of 2022 This sounds like it could have come straight from one of Trump's press releases. Claiming they're at an "all time low" without any evidence that they are at an "all time low" is a waste of everybody's time. all parties who paid for this materials should be embarrassed Your personal opinion is of no value here. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Seems the March 22 edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steele_dossier&oldid=1078537965) matching the Associated Press style guide in the first paragraph has made the mark. Further edits are just modifying implied tone of certainly of other sources.

The Steele dossier, also known as the Trump–Russia dossier, is a "largely discredited" political opposition research report written from June to December 2016, containing allegations of misconduct, conspiracy, and cooperation between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the government of Russia prior to and during the 2016 election campaign.

What remains for open for debate within the original steele dossier contents mostly open source information and digests found in other parties opposition research at the time. Steele Dossier is only significant factual in the CHANGE it provided to the coverage amd reaction to by the media and the administration. Many other topics cover the possible role the steele dossier played in several probes and the investigation it may have inspired and those should provide inspiration for more consensus on this article. Loopbackdude (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Why did we walk on the AP style guide on the lead sentence again?

When you walk on a modern AP source in favor of more tortured language please form CONSENSUS.

largely discredited is the term the AP carefully chose, it is the corrective term. We can discuss what was accurate and/or just a media reporting POV.

"The Steele dossier, also known as the Trump–Russia dossier, is a largely discredited political opposition research report written from June to December 2016."

It is not controversial that the lead of the Trump–Russia dossier reportage was incorrect. Encyclopedic editing requires things be reported with the the current status.

Current understanding is Abraham Lincoln is dead, his impact on society is alive. Abraham Lincoln Statue Looks upon the Washington Monument, but Abraham Lincoln is still dead. Loopbackdude (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Loopbackdude, you haven't responded to Muboshgu's concerns and fixed your wording in the beginning. Now you are repeating this tortured language again. I don't know what you mean by "walk on the AP style guide". Please explain "walk on".

Changes to the lead are even more sensitive and contentious than changes to the body of the article, and there should be nothing in the lead that isn't first mentioned in the body of the article. That's why I placed your addition with similar content further down in the lead, and also restored another comment. (My edit summary indicated that I was allowing a violation of LEAD by even adding that content to the lead, but we really shouldn't do that. It should be in the body first.)

Note that I will not discuss this with you until you respond to our concerns about your choice of language. What do you mean? We must prevent any misunderstandings before moving forward. -- Valjean (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what Abraham Lincoln or the Washington Monument have to do with anything here. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay, I am not constantly contributing to an encyclopedic open source project over a weekend on a now 6 year old document that is tied to so many peoples political inner child POV.

Please read the lincoln line in the context of this article, the subject of the article is certainly currently discredited from many media POVs.

My position document is a dead document, that is discredited. Additional investigations of the the FBI/DOJ response to this discredited remain ongoing. The polical firestorm caused by the document still has burning embers, but the major media outlets have walked away from their "lean in" efforts.

"Current understanding is Abraham Lincoln is dead, his (poltical) impact on society is alive".

"Abraham Lincoln Statue Looks upon the Washington Monument, but Abraham Lincoln is still dead."

Exactness in use of "Abraham Lincoln ....dead" as opposed to "Stone Version of Old Abe reflects on the Washington Monument"

Now I ask the reader of what is status of Lincoln?

The correct lead answer is Deceased with the question lacking any context of Lincoln, Rippon WI, Grave Robbery by James "Big Jim" Kennally, the civil war, the Washington Mall, or Kelly Ann Conway's Husband poltical group.

The steele dossier is clearly a dead and buried collection of misinformation with trival threads of truth, with the only factors matching reality were POV that were verifications from a now untrusted set of closed sources as opposed to the open source of the time. The dossier had been shopped and rejected around DC. but once reported, the coverage was full force because it had the coverage of the coverage hook for the media outlets. The failures of reportage are of the same league as Killian documents controversy, and there are 40+ still working Mary Mapes in the media still purporting the document has their selected abosoulty true novel findings as published. As the media has blind spot in coverage of their own failures there is not a lot of material that isnt from one set or the other set of sycophants.

Support - "largely discredited political opposition research report" be returned with the AP story being in the first section.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steele_dossier&oldid=1078537965 Loopbackdude (talk) 13:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I suspect you will be pleased with my lastest reworking of the criticism in the lead. It was spread out in mainly two different areas and even duplicated one comment. Now it's collected in the first paragraph.

Whether the dossier is dead or not, Steele's sources were right about some very important things, and they were way ahead of U.S intelligence. Six months ahead of the official declaration by U.S. intelligence, they reported that Putin's goals with his election interference were to disrupt American society, weaken Clinton, and help Trump win. That was the main theme of the dossier and it is still true. Some other allegations were proven true and most others are unverified (IOW not necessarily false), with very few being discarded as inaccurate or discredited. That has no effect on the accuracy of its central claims. Steele's warnings to America were true and necessary. -- Valjean (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Still very weak reference using

FBI vets: What many are missing about the infamous 'dossier' amid Russia probe - ABC News.

The only thing I find that isn't reprocessed from mass media status of that day in the entire citation.

"There may be 90 percent of that dossier that is a complete bunch of [baloney]," said Bob Anderson, who oversaw counterintelligence cases for the FBI before heading its cyber and criminal branch. "But a piece matches with other potentially credible sources that [FBI agents] have ... so now they’re going to dig a little more."

Anderson was not even in the counter intelligence division in 2016, so the quote for public consumption was using a creditable source for a statement that is an investigation technique generalization. I did not find another quote by someone natural in the validity of the steele dossier as of the date of publication.

Potential suspects with a ton of fiction surrounding them require better than standard FBI investigation techniques. This is why RICO cases take 7+ years to prepare.

This is my evaluation of the quality of a citation used in a lead paragraph and not anything else. In historical context, Neutral Point of View reviews of the Steele Dossier are still years away in media. Loopbackdude (talk) 01:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

FEC fines Hillary Clinton campaign and DNC over Trump-Russia dossier research

We should probably be able to pull some content from sources reporting some fines related to potential funding of the Dossier. Per CNN or WaPo for starters. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah that can be a sentence in some article, I'm not sure if it's best here or Hillary's 2016 campaign article, or both. Something like: The FEC fined the DNC $105,000 and the Clinton campaign $8,000 in March 2022 for declaring the money spent on research that comprised the Steele dossier as "legal services" and "legal and compliance consulting" rather than opposition research. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm thinking it doesn't belong on this page, because it has nothing to do with the dossier itself but rather with how Hillary 2016 disclosed the payment(s). – Muboshgu (talk) 00:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Fines by the FEC for misrepresenting the financing of the dossier have nothing to do with the dossier? PackMecEng (talk) 00:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Only indirectly related as far as I can tell. It has nothing directly to do with Steele's work or even his payment for it. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

The article is about more than just Steele, it is about the dossier as a whole. The initial funding for it is important, as noted by its inclusion in the article already. PackMecEng (talk) 01:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the section titled “Research funded by Democrats produces dossier” would be an appropriate place to put that the funders misrepresented the funding and were fined. No need to make it complicated. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

That section is already a bloated mess. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I’ve tried to trim this article down for years. You’re going to have to talk to someone else about that. I agree 100%. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that "The Federal Election Commission has fined Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) for lying about funding the Steele Dossier" should be included as the last sentence of the opening ChaseF (talk) 00:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Saying that they "lied" and using a deprecated source to do so will not fly. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

It is true that the WP bends over backwards to avoid using the term "lied". To be specific, the WP says:

The FEC said the manner in which payments to Fusion GPS, an opposition research firm, were funneled — through a law firm — violated strict rules on how to describe election expenditures.

As for myself, is it a violation of how I describe myself if I say I am the Pope? Maybe we should deprecate the WP? XavierItzm (talk) 03:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I think this should be mentioned in both articles and have made a this bold edit:

• In March 2022, the FEC fined the DNC $105,000 and the Clinton campaign $8,000 for misreporting those fees and expenses as "legal services" and "legal and compliance consulting" rather than "opposition research".

Feel free to suggest improvements. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe put it the other way round. The Clinton campaign misrepresented their funding of the report as legal services and were later fined. TFD (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Please try to state that in a way that reflects the text of the cited source. SPECIFICO talk 20:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

ec... TFD, maybe so. Technically it was Marc Elias of Perkins Coie who did this, and the leadership of the Clinton campaign and DNC did not know about the dossier until later. They paid the lawyers, who paid Fusion GPS, who paid Orbis/Steele. The legal plausible deniability/undue influence firewall established by Elias created this situation by the indirect funding of the dossier. Ultimately, the buck stops with the employer, IOW Clinton Campaign and DNC, so they got fined. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, that's what I did. "Misreporting" is the word from one of the two sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

TFD's proposed revision is unnecessarily biased/opinionated in that it repeats the "misreported" allegation in wikivoice, even strengthening it by using "misrepresented" instead, even though that does not appear to be the language favored by the FEC or reliable sources (correct me if I'm wrong, of course). WaPo seems to make clear that the DNC/Clinton campaign settled without admitting wrongdoing: "According to a conciliation agreement individuals affiliated with both organizations signed last month, the Clinton campaign and DNC argue that they were justified in stating that their payment was for 'legal advice and services' since Perkins Coie [i.e., their law firm] hired Fusion GPS [i.e., the firm that gathered the opposition research]. ... The conciliation agreement states that the DNC and the Clinton campaign will neither contest the [FEC's] finding nor concede to them, 'solely for the purpose of settling this matter expeditiously and to avoid further legal costs.'" The FEC dismissed several other claims against the DNC et al. at the same time.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Misrepresented and misreported don't necessarily imply any intent or wrongdoing. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

That's right. And we can always add the DNC's defense that they were unaware. TheTimesAreAChanging, we should of course state facts in Wikivoice, because otherwise they appear as opinions rather than facts. Is anyone still claiming that the Steele dossier was a legal expense? Specifico, can you state the policy or guidline that facts should be reported in the same order as sources? That would lead to a convoluted timeline when past events are reported. Take for example the article about horses. The second sentence says they have "evolved over the past 45 to 55 million years." Should we move that because we didn't know that until the last century or so? TFD (talk) 14:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The guideline is "don't mislead our readers." We write for the general public, not for WP editors who will dance on the head of a pin to assert plausible interpretations that might not be misleading if the stars are aligned with Pluto. That means when text might mislead even 1/4 of the total readers, a better wording must be found. SPECIFICO talk 15:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

"Misreported" is directly from the CNN source. It's the conclusion from the FEC. If you're unable to read the source, I'll quote it here. The FEC concluded that the Clinton campaign and DNC misreported the money that funded the dossier, masking it as "legal services" and "legal and compliance consulting" instead of opposition research. There's no issue with taking that text to say "The Clinton campaign and DNC were fined for misreporting the funding..." It's a factual statement from RS. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Cherrypicking is the most powerful form of misrepresentation. SPECIFICO talk 17:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO, in what way does my cherrypicking misrepresent anything? BTW, you're getting too abrasive and needlessly offensive. There is no need for that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I was addressing Ernie concerning his comment above. Cherrypicking prevention is why we have NPOV and ONUS rules. SPECIFICO talk 01:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

SPECIFICO often follows me around making off topic or irrelevant comments like that. They seem to find that a productive use of their time, so I (and most everyone else) usually just ignore it. There has clearly been no cherrypicking or misrepresenting anything. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• The fines are for violations of reporting rules for payments made in July and August 2016, i.e., they would have been reported to the FEC after the 2016 election. (BTW, there's a pretty good chance that those were accounting errors. The law firm probably submitted many bills to the DNC and the campaign, and somebody entered them as "legal services" in the books, as in "sh*t happens".) Since the FEC found no wrongdoing on the part of the law firm, the lawyer, and Fusion GPS, this doesn't belong in this article or in the article on Clinton's 2016 campaign, for that matter. Reminder—Steele_dossier#What_the_DNC,_Clinton_campaign,_and_Steele_knew says that A spokesperson for Perkins Coie said the campaign and the DNC were unaware Fusion GPS "had been hired to conduct the research".[91] The Washington Post reported that it is not clear how much of the research Elias received from Fusion GPS he shared with the campaign and the DNC. It is also not clear who in those organizations knew about the roles of Fusion GPS and Steele, but one person "close to the matter" said the organizations were "not informed by the law firm of Fusion GPS's role". This is what WaPo says (I added the bolding): The conciliation agreement states that the DNC and the Clinton campaign will neither contest the commission’s finding nor concede to them, "solely for the purpose of settling this matter expeditiously and to avoid further legal costs." Newsmax is a deprecated source, BTW, and cites 2 and 3 are the same WaPo article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  The WaPo source is pretty clear, even using the word "masking" to describe the FEC's conclusion about the misreporting of the money. The first half of your comment is OR, so it's better to just stick to what the sources say. We don't call it a wrongdoing in the article or blame anyone for anything improper. This absolutely belongs in the Steele Dossier article, as the funding, in particular who was funding it, is a critical topic to it's notability (and notoriety). Mr Ernie (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Correct, the WaPo clearly indicates the parties fined by the government "masked" their activities.XavierItzm (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

You're both citing CNN, not WaPo. The NY Times says that So-called conciliation agreements attached to the letter sent to Mr. Backer showed that the campaign and the party disagreed that they had inaccurately described the purpose of their spending. They also say that The commission has not yet made public the findings of its investigation. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes good catch, CNN. I linked the full quote just above. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I think we cover this already. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Odd deletion

This BOLD deletion of long-standing content was made by Mr Ernie without any discussion and with a very odd edit summary: "UNDUE and out of date now". Per BRD, I have now REVERTED it and started this DISCUSSION.

The deleted analyses by subject matter experts are proper content and very much DUE as they speak precisely about the legal aspects of these two contrasted events which Trump lied about. No one has ever questioned this content and for good reasons. It's solid in every way.

I'd also like to know how these historical facts can be "out of date". What happened happened, nothing has changed, and I haven't heard of any new analyses in reliable sources that question these deleted analyses. If new analyses exist, then it might be worth including them. This deletion just smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

This well-sourced content has repeatedly had its relevance renewed by Fox and other far-right conspiracy theorist media who broadcast false narratives and false equivalencies. That's why this content should remain in the article. SPECIFICO talk 22:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I looked at the Steven L. Hall quote about Donald Trump Jr. which was inserted by Valjean with edit summary = "Reaction: Hall's insightful comparison", which doesn't seem to me to be far better than Mr Ernie's edit summary, and as far as I know the insertion was without discussion or consensus. It looks to me like just an insult by a person who had no special expertise about Donald Trump Jr. I support Mr Ernie's deletion of it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you provide some examples of the persons who do have "special expertise about Donald Trump Jr."? SPECIFICO talk 18:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't need to since I'm not pushing tweets about him. Burden's on pro-inserters. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Quite correct. By that standard, Mr. Trump Jr. would be scrubbed from Wikipedia, since nobody has "special expertise about Donald Trump, Jr." Hence, some more realistic argument against the source would be needed if we are to disqualify it from this page. SPECIFICO talk 14:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

It's a random tweet turned into a run of the mill news article. You routinely oppose content like that so it is odd to see you support it here. A trivial news story with no encyclopedic value. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I recently got a very similar comment deleting stuff in another article "Relevance and notability is outdated, claims listed unsubstatianted", which I thought rather missed the point of Wikipedia. As far as I can see the sources are reliable and relevant and not undue. I do see a bit of a problem though in that, while they do contrast the situations, they don't explicitly say anything about the legal status in relation to US election laws - which is what the section was supposed to be about. NadVolum (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

It's still tangentially related as it's also about the conflation issue (dossier vs Trump Tower meeting, Steele's actions vs. Don Jr's actions), and the moral implications are related to the reasons for the legal status. It's not worth creating a separate section as it logically belongs there. NadVolum, would a better section heading help? Do you have any suggestions? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

How about 'Trump Tower meeting compared to Steele's work'? After all that's what Trump did. NadVolum (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

NadVolum, that's a good suggestion. I have tweaked that and used "Dossier legal status and comparison to Trump Tower meeting". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Let's look at that content:

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."

Peter wrote: "a person who had no special expertise". No, he's a "former CIA chief of Russia operations", hence a subject matter expert who understands these things. He also addresses an issue that is frequently conflated (whataboutism and tu quoque fallacies) by those who defend the actions of both Trumps. They make the mistake of comparing apples and oranges. What Steele did and what Trump Jr. did are VERY different matters, not only in relation to loyalty to American interests and national security but to the law. Steele was concerned about American security and acting within the law, whereas Trump Jr. was endangering national security and acting illegally by even considering accepting the offer of help from the Russian government. Their motives are also very different, revealed by Steele immediately taking what he found to the FBI and Trump Jr. keeping it secret. That's why the content is valuable.

Interestingly, when it became evident that the Trump Tower meeting was exposed and about to be publicized by the media, Don Jr. and Kushner hammered out a press release that was fairly honest. Donald Trump blocked that release, rewrote it into a misleading press release, and deceptively put his son's name on it. (Read the timeline.) The exposure of that lie was a huge event that provided clear evidence of Trump's consciousness of guilt and direct proof that Donald Trump was knowingly cooperating with the Russian election interference. (The meeting was not about adoptions, but about lifting the sanctions, a quid pro quo condition for getting more help from Russia.) The Trumps' motives were basically disloyal and treasonous. Even Steve Bannon said the meeting was "treasonous" and "unpatriotic".[3] “Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad, and I happen to think it’s all of that, you should have called the FBI immediately,” Bannon told Wolff, adding an expletive.[4] Bannon was a super insider and Trump's chief strategist, yet even he recognized that Trump was not acting in America's best interests. Others thought the same.

Like most new content, it was originally included as a bold edit and has been there since 2017. It thus has tacit consensus, and such long-standing content should not be removed without discussion, especially with no basis in policy. The edit summary wasn't valid. Now we're having the discussion. I'd like to know why it's undue or out of date. What has changed since Hall made that statement? Has he been shown to be wrong? If so, where are the RS? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Valjean omitted my sentence ending "... about Donald Trump Jr." so Mr Hall's expertise about something else is irrelevant. Valjean claimed tacit consensus but Wikipedia has no such thing, instead it has WP:ONUS and in this case WP:BLPUNDEL since Mr Hall's tweet is about a living person. I welcome Valjean's admission that the original insertion was a bold edit, and leave the dueness question to Mr Ernie. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Hall has expertise about the nature of the events at Trump Tower and the dossier (national security, morality, and legal status), regardless of who is involved, including Donald Trump Jr, so that's a red herring. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

The section is titled "Legal status as related to U.S. election laws," but spends most of its time comparing the dossier to some meeting in Trump tower. I removed 2 undue opinions by random commentators that have nothing to do with US election laws or legal status. I'm surprised to see SPECIFICO support this content, given their work to get sanctioned routinely removing well-sourced content at the Assange article.

The Steel Dossier article is almost 28,000 words, a completely over bloated mess filled with one sided opinions that don't stand up to the status of the dossier now, which RS call deeply flawed, discredited, etc. I challenge anyone to try to sit down and actually read this mess. These 2 opinions are UNDUE and need to go. Mueller investigated the Trump Tower meeting and found nothing, so I don't see any need to emphasize it in this article. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. The dossier was partly corroborated. Mueller did not "find nothing," he found many Links between Trump associates and Russian officials Andre🚐 17:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

We're talking specifically about the comparison of the dossier to the Trump Tower meeting - the text of the disputed content. I removed 2 opinions comparing the dossier to the Trump Tower meeting out of a section regarding US election laws, as they are irrelevant to that and it is UNDUE to pick out these 2. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Retitled section to be more accurate: "Dossier legal status and comparison to Trump Tower meeting". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Remove the section. Irrelevant here and non encyclopedic. Article needs significant trimming to such sections for readability. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:32, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

oppose Andre🚐 00:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, "readability" applies to language, word choice, grammar, and flow in sentences, paragraphs, and order of sections, not to whether an article should be made suitable for only 4th graders or university historians. We provide all the information we can get from RS. We don't write summaries here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:07, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Your 28,000 word article is completely unreadable. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not mine, and it's not an easy reading novella for youth. This is for serious grown-ups. It documents what RS say about all the hullabaloo over the rough draft of a controversial piece of political opposition research, and boy did they have a lot to say! If Trump had just ignored it, we'd have a tiny article, but he had to make more of it than it warranted.

It's mostly of interest to connoisseurs of political intrigues, nitty-gritty facts and details, and matters of national security, so of course it's not easy reading.

Since that's apparently not your thing, why are you here and complaining? No one is forcing you to like it, and no one cares about your IDONTLIKEIT complaints. They are just disruptive and waste our time. Find something else to do that you like, because, at this article, you're obviously NOTHERE to constructively improve coverage of the topic. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

There are several editors who have agreed with my suggestions. I'll continue to improve this article as I see fit. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:32, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Size is a reason to make subarticles and it may be an incentive to check if there are good reasons to cut things down. I didn't find it hard to read but people go around older articles improving the prose and I'm sure that will happen here when arguments dies down. Size and readability are not of themselves reasons to remove anyting. If it was of enough interest for Trump and the newspapers to go on about it I think Wikipedia can devote some space to it! NadVolum (talk) 08:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

References

SYNTH in the lede

I have reverted the following WP:BOLD addition to the lede summary by Valjean (the primary author of this article, contributing approximately 75% of all article text) as inaccurate WP:SYNTH (see diff): "Trump's later actions have corroborated several allegations by his achievement of Putin's alleged goals with getting him elected: Trump remains a divisive and disruptive force in U.S. politics and society, even when not elected;[12][13] he caused rifts among European allies by attacking NATO[14] and the European Union; he was partially successful[15] in his intention to lift all economic sanctions on Russia;[12][16] and he downplayed Russia's aggression in Ukraine.[17]" There are several red flags with this content:

• Valjean uses six different sources to make a statement that none of them directly support.
• All but one of Valjean's sources are from 2017 and three of the six are from January 2017, ignoring more recent mainstream reporting (e.g., WaPo, NYT, CNN) that demonstrates the dossier's extreme unreliability.
• Valjean suggests that there was significant "corroboration" for the dossier even as early as January 2017 and that this can be evidenced merely from Trump's public statements criticizing members of the NATO alliance, contradicting the December 2019 United States Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General report by Michael E. Horowitz, which concluded (p. 172): "(M)uch of the material in the Steele election reports, including allegations about Donald Trump and members of the Trump campaign relied upon in the Carter Page FISA applications, could not be corroborated; that certain allegations were inaccurate or inconsistent with information gathered by the Crossfire Hurricane team; and that the limited information that was corroborated related to time, location, and title information, much of which was publicly available."
• Three of Valjean's six sources are either unreliable in this context or their reliability remains unclear; specifically, Valjean used post-2013 Newsweek and HuffPost without attribution, despite WP:RSP listings that state "post-2013 Newsweek articles are not generally reliable" and "(i)n the 2020 RfC, there was no consensus on HuffPost staff writers' reliability for political topics." Additionally, another of Valjean's sources, Paste, has no listing at WP:RSP.
• The 2019 Reuters source used to substantiate Valjean's statement that "[Trump] was partially successful[15] in his intention to lift all economic sanctions on Russia" failed verification. The source, which does not refer to the Steele dossier at any point, instead states that the United States Department of the Treasury lifted sanctions on Rusal and two other companies linked to Oleg Deripaska: "(I)n its statement on Sunday, the U.S. Treasury Department said the three companies had reduced Deripaska's direct and indirect shareholding stake and severed his control. That action, it said, ensured that most directors on the En+ and Rusal boards would be independent directors, including Americans and Europeans, who had no business, professional or family ties to Deripaska or any other person designated for sanctions by the Treasury Department. ... Deripaska himself remains subject to U.S. sanctions. Trump administration officials, and many Republicans who opposed the effort to keep the sanctions in place, said they worried about the impact on the global aluminum industry. ... Rusal is the world's largest aluminum producer outside China."
  • (As an example of why this kind of cherry-picking can be misleading, we could just as easily note, e.g., that in 2020 the Trump administration's Treasury Department announced new "sanctions targeting seven officials and a railway company connecting Russia with Crimea," according to WaPo.)
    • Neither of the other two sources used to "supplement" the Reuters citation contain sweeping language about Trump's alleged "intention to lift all economic sanctions on Russia," although there was considerable mainstream reporting and speculation during Trump's first year in office about the possibility of Russian sanctions relief in exchange for a peace deal in eastern Ukraine (e.g., here and here), which contributed to the passage of the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act. (Trump himself stated in January 2017 "that it is 'very early' to discuss lifting sanctions on Russia".) In fact, one of the supplemental sources provided by Valjean, a January 2017 article in The Independent, attributes this "very serious and unverified" suggestion to the Steele dossier itself.
      • More broadly, Valjean is conflating a hypothetical sanctions relief package with the Steele dossier's discredited allegation of a quid pro quo involving Carter Page and Rosneft. To break it down even further, Reuters discussed the lifting of Rusal sanctions (but not the Steele dossier) in 2019, and The Independent discussed the Steele's dossier's allegation of Page being offered a payout from the planned privatization of a 19% stake in Rosneft in 2016. Valjean argues that the former reporting "partially" vindicates the latter allegation; however, these are really just two totally unrelated (or, at least, not closely related) sources/topics being joined together through the prism of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH.
• The January 2017 HuffPost source used to substantiate Valjean's statement that "[Trump] downplayed Russia's aggression in Ukraine" failed verification. The only mention of Ukraine in the source is "(a)ccording to the dossier, Putin's wish list includes lifting sanctions on Russia, turning a blind eye towards its aggressive efforts in the Ukraine, and creating a divisive rift amongst western allies."

Although no one questions Valjean's good faith, this is not the first time that he has made sweeping generalizations that go well beyond what can be supported by reliable sources. For example, in November 2019 Valjean wrote in article space that John Durham was conducting "an inquiry based on this conspiracy theory, an inquiry described as a cover-up to protect Trump," which failed verification as neither of Valjean's sources mentioned Durham by name; Valjean later acknowledged his mistake.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Good revert. This is textbook SYNTH. There's quite a bit more of it in the article too. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

First placement of "unverified"

I see you’ve naturally reverted my edit of sourced content. Do you have sources for your preferred version? If not, let’s go with what RS says. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Read the edit summary. This single, carelessly written, news article does not supplant or replace what many other RS say.

You don't seem to have read the rest of the first paragraph of the lead. The next two sentences resolve your concerns. As usual, you are also revealing you still haven't read this article or its sources. Please perform some due diligence before commenting. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Regarding this revert, I think that a semantic issue may be involved; namely, there are aspects of the dossier that are factual or consistent with other known information about Russian influence operations ("much of which was publicly available" at the time, as famously noted by IG Michael E. Horowitz), but there are no verified "allegations of misconduct, conspiracy, and cooperation between Trump's presidential campaign and the government of Russia." Valjean's edit summary states that "Many [allegations] are verified and many unverified," but this is orthogonal to Mr Ernie's accurate (and sourced) observation that the allegations involving Trump are completely unverified. Additionally, Mr Ernie's edit does not suggest that the Trump-related allegations are false (after all, Valjean himself regularly reminds us that "unverified" is not equivalent to "disproven"), but it does provide an appropriate caveat for WP:BLP-sensitive material (especially the salacious and unverified "pee tape"). Therefore, I think that Mr Ernie's edit was appropriate, although given the considerably more egregious content in the article body, this relatively minor aspect of the lede is not of primary importance.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

(Edit conflict): Valjean, I wouldn't cite my own writing on Wikipedia as a reliable source to persuade others in a content dispute. I agree that Auten's testimony is likely to be contradicted, but I would also refrain from making statements like "The agent has a history that could lead him to try to spread blame to draw heat away from his own problems" about a living person, particularly statements that may imply criminal liability. The Marshall Cohen CNN article is only one of several recent sources that you have disparaged as "carelessly written"; you previously referred to the "surprisingly thin" reporting of The New York Times's Shane, Goldman, and Rosenberg, and this—coupled with a lack of similar scruples when it comes to earlier reporting by Luke Harding and Paul Wood—begs the question of whether subjective opinions (or original research) may be unintentionally influencing your editorial judgement.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging, I agree with you about the semantics angle. The lead has always been a subject of hot contention, and it's carefully balanced, so I don't see any reason to change it. The current wording (without "unverified" at the exact spot proposed by Mr Ernie) is accurate. After that, the lead continues to reflect the body by going into more detail about verified, unverified, etc.

We all agree that the dossier contains allegations. Regardless of what type, it contains them. Then one can get into the semantics of exactly what type of allegations, and that's what you're touching on above. We do get into that later on in the lead and the body, so I see no reason to change this wording: "...containing allegations of misconduct, conspiracy, and cooperation between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the government of Russia prior to and during the 2016 election campaign." That is true. It's a matter of evidence, interpretation, and opinion whether "misconduct" and "cooperation" are proven. Many think they are. The Mueller Report documented many examples of misconduct, cooperation, aiding and abetting, lying, cover-ups, obstruction, secret contacts between Trump's people and Russian agents, etc. That sure sounds like "misconduct" and "cooperation", so we can't add "unverified" before that phrase. That would be the introduction of editorial opinion. It's best to leave the wording alone and let the rest of the article deal with the nitty gritty semantic details. Later we deal with the #Veracity and corroboration status of specific allegations. There one can read the facts and opinions which detract from an allegation's veracity or which lend support to it. Mr Ernie doesn't seem to have read that section.

You mention allegations that are "factual or consistent with other known information about Russian influence operations." Yes, that is true of some allegations, but there are a number that were not known at the time or discussed in the press before Steele wrote about them and reported them to the FBI. Steele's sources were right about some very important things, and they were way ahead of U.S intelligence. Six months ahead of the official declaration by U.S. intelligence, they reported that Putin's goals with his election interference were to disrupt American society, weaken Clinton, and help Trump win. That was the main theme of the dossier and it is still true. Some other allegations were proven true and most others are unverified (IOW not necessarily false), with very few being discarded as inaccurate or discredited. That has no effect on the accuracy of its central claims. Steele's warnings to America were necessary. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I think we need to move the unverified to before the dossier, like the CNN article and the many recent RS do. It is important that RS now characterize it as "unverfied," not that just the claims were. It was Steele's original reporting from his sources, which he didn't seem to attempt to verify before sharing it, and which Buzzfeed certainly verify. Now the FBI is even testifying they would have paid Steele up to a million big ones to verify it but he was unable. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

In addition to the CNN source, there is also material from The Guardian (or AP?) and WaPo. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, are you seriously suggesting we place false information, in wikivoice, in this article? It is a fact that many allegations have been verified. We also document that many sources have used the word unverified in a general sense, and that is certainly true about certain specific allegations, but it is false to claim that the whole dossier and all of its allegations are "unverified". Our current wording is fine. It starts by stating the dossier makes allegations, period, without saying anything about their verification status. Then later it gets into which ones are verified and which ones are unverified.

Do you really deny that any allegations have been verified, especially the most central ones, as confirmed by the FBI? If so, then you're pushing a fringe agenda. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:47, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I am suggesting we follow how RS describe the dossier.

NYMag "many of the dossier’s key claims have failed to materialize or have been shown to be false"

CJR "severely undermined," "collapse of the dossier’s credibility"

CNN "the credibility of the dossier has significantly diminished" "A series of investigations and lawsuits have discredited many of its central allegations and exposed the unreliability of Steele’s sources."

NYT "a compendium of rumors and unproven assertions." "deeply flawed"

Axios "one of the most egregious journalistic errors in modern history"

NYT "deeply flawed"

You seem to have now pivoted in the section below to attacking RS for not reporting facts the way you want to hear them. Sex parties with prostitutes in Russia over the years? What movies are you watching? Mr Ernie (talk) 18:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I am not attacking RS. I have added such wording to the article a long time ago. We already document such criticisms and descriptions: "Five years later, it was described as "largely discredited",[4][5] "deeply flawed",[6] and "largely unverified".[7]" That's the second sentence of the lead (!!!) and many other places throughout the article contain more of the same. They are all opinions, so we attribute them. PLEASE! Read the article!

The rest is what the dossier alleges. You should know that. (See Steele dossier#Kompromat and blackmail: Trump) Other intelligence sources confirm that Trump's partying over the years was not only in Moscow: "...salacious information in Steele's dossier was also reported by "multiple intelligence sources" and "at least one East European intelligence service". They reported that "compromising material on Mr. Trump" included "more than one tape, not just video, but audio as well, on more than one date, in more than one place, in both Moscow and St. Petersburg"." The dossier is not the only source for such information.

Trump has never denied being a playboy and liking Eastern European women. He married two of them. Please stop showing your ignorance of what the dossier and RS say. Read the article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Status of dossier

What is the status of the Steele dossier? I was going to describe it as widely discredited in a short summary, but I see reading here that a lot of the allegations have been confirmed and the biggest things against it I see are that much of it is unverified and some of the claims are rather sensational. NadVolum (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

All of those descriptions/status are already mentioned. A few allegations are likely dubious and unconfirmed. A couple seem to have been disproven (typos and minor errors). Many are confirmed, especially the main points/thrust of the dossier, which was confirmed by US intelligence six months later. Steele's sources were right that far ahead of intelligence agencies. Unconfirmed does not mean false. It's a widely recognized fact that a number of the allegations cannot be proven true or false (unless the participants come forward and testify), but they do explain publically proven events, which indicates they are likely true.

The description "discredited" is a matter of sloppy opinion by sources who are ignorant of the nitty gritty of the dossier and its allegations. It is misleadingly used as propaganda by unreliable sources and then carelessly parroted by some reliable sources. It is often mistakenly applied by treating unproven allegations as if they were false. That's a serious error. So its status in that regard depends on the source. Unreliable sources deny everything, even what's proven true, while RS recognize there is a spread of factors affecting the reliability or unreliability of the allegations.

If any unproven allegations are either proven true or proven false, then that information will be updated/included. If you find anything, please let us know. Not much in the way of real status changes have happened for several years, but commentary and interpretation still occur, and sometimes they are used to update the article as it provides a more "mature" view of the legacy and effects surrounding the dossier in society and politics. It is still breathlessly rehashed and flogged daily in unreliable sources, which falsely inflate its impact (almost zero) on the Russian interference investigations and falsely assert it was the actual trigger (that was Papadopoulos), which is impossible. It only had an effect on the FISA warrants. It is also still referred to in RS, but without much new coming out. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:41, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that. So yes I should definitely avoid saying discredited in a summary. I had a look at your talk page too. Very ineresting and I agree mainly but I'd have to take exception to "The mainstream media are not fake news; they are working hard to report the news accurately and don't allow spin to get in the way of the facts. When they make a mistake, they correct their errors." i do agree that they try to avoid any falsehoods, but they most definitely do exhibit strong biases in their reporting and sometimes completely ignore items that should obviously be in the news. That most definitely is spin. NadVolum (talk) 10:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

There is definitely some spin at times on certain mainstream sources. The more important question is whether it rises to the level of misinformation or disinformation. There is spin that is merely bias related to largely true facts, and there is spin that is malicious and agenda-driven to produce deceptive beliefs in the minds of viewers. There are sins of commission and sins of omission. Few sources are totally free from such things. We downgrade those sources where "errors" are "bugs" in their system because of habitual sloppiness (poor fact-checking) and deprecate those where their "errors" are not bugs, but "features" of their agenda. Those types of bugs are deliberate. They are not only because of a lack of fact-checking, they are against proven facts.

A relevant one is the repeated false claim that the dossier was the trigger for the start of the Russia investigation, or that it had any impact on the analyses and conclusions of the intelligence community's reports. It did not. It did affect the FISA warrant on Carter Page by a factor of probably 1%, the critical 1% to push the FBI "over the line" (their words) from 50% to the 51% they needed for "probable cause" when they were already at 50% before they saw the dossier. They already had that much evidence from other sources, and because the dossier confirmed those sources were right, they decided to go ahead and seek the warrants. So the dossier was a critical factor, but not a 51% factor. Some say they might have done it anyway, even without the dossier. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

The Dossier "played a central and essential role in the FBI's and Department's decision to seek the FISA order." Central and essential are strong qualifiers. It had a much greater impact than 1%. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

No, even 1% is "central and essential" when it makes the deciding difference. There is no evidence it was anymore than that. It's rather strange, but to be expected, that Trump and his supporters attack the dossier and forget that other evidence made up the existing 50%. Why don't they attack those sources of evidence? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

+1 this Andre🚐 18:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

There's a difference between spin, and falsehood. Some sources routinely amplify and parrot statements by Trump et al that the Mueller report was a bust and showed nothing. Actually, the Mueller report showed a lot of horrible stuff, and Papadapoulous, Manafort and Stone were convicted, before being pardoned/granted clemency, and then Rosenstein/Barr intervened to stop the investigation, and told Mueller he couldn't charge the president with obstruction despite a clear case, and a huge conspiracy case that has tons of evidence that Trump was not truthful with Mueller. Plus 2 impeachments of course! Andre🚐 18:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. I have never seen such open obstruction of justice carried out nearly every single day of his presidency. The guy is teflon and prosecutors and judges have been cowards. If Mueller hadn't buckled and allowed all the dropped threads created by obstruction to just lie there and fester, things would look very different today. He should have been charged with destruction of evidence, obstruction of justice, witness intimidation/bribery, etc. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

That's one way to look at it. I happen to look at it a different way. I can easily and quickly tell you why Trump was not charged with any of those things you say he ought to have been, but you probably wouldn't believe me. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I would love to hear it. Please do so on my talk page. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Loopbackdude (talk) 06:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Sloppy reporting continues

A common sign that a journalist hasn't really examined the dossier and its allegations is when they claim the dossier says Trump engaged in salacious sexual activity with prostitutes at the Ritz Carlton hotel in 2013. That is a false claim. The claim is that he watched a golden showers ceremony. He did not engage with the prostitutes. (Other allegations made by the dossier and multiple intelligence agencies about his sexual activities at sex parties and with prostitutes over the years in Russia are another matter.)

Even the AP does it, published by PBS here:

"That dossier ... included allegations ... that the Russians may have held compromising information over Trump in the form of videos showing him engaged in salacious sexual activity in a Moscow hotel."

So when a reporter makes that false claim, you know to not take them too seriously. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Errr (Reports 80, 95, 97, 113)? Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm only talking about the Ritz Carlton allegation. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

So just the fact it occurred at the Ritz Carlton? Well they did not say "Ritz Carlton", they said "Moscow hotel". Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

It’s not our job to check RS when they make a “false” claim, and even in this situation there is no false claim. If something appears in RS, we can use it. If you disagree you are free to find consensus at the reliable source noticeboard that we shouldn’t use RS content. Verifiabukity, not truth. I’ve seen you say dozens of times that we document what RS reports Mr Ernie (talk) 23:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I am not suggesting we don't use a RS, but if it is probably wrong we should use it with caution alongside the other RS that show it's wrong. We do that all the time. Nothing new here. It's just good to learn which reporters are trustworthy and which should be approached with caution, IOW use common sense. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

What the text says

3 However, there were other aspects to TRUMP’s engagement with the Russian authorities. One which had borne fruit for them was to exploit TRUMP'S personal obsessions and sexual perversion in order to obta suitable ‘kompromaf (compromising material) on him. According to Source D, where s/he had been present, TRUMP’s (perverted) conduct in Moscow included hiring the presidential suite of the Ritz Carlton Hotel, where he knew President and Mrs OBAMA (whom he hated) had stayed on one of their official trips to Russia, and defiling the bed where they had slept by employing a number of prostitutes to perform a ’golden showers (urination) show in front of him. The hotel was known to be under FSB control with microphones and concealed cameras in all the main rooms to record anything they wanted to.

So yes it says both "Ritz Carlton Hotel" and "golden showers", in fact our article quotes it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes? I'm not sure of your point. My point is that many RS over the years have mistakenly claimed that Trump engaged in salacious sexual activities with prostitutes at the Ritz Carlton hotel in November 2013. The dossier makes no such claim. That's all. Otherwise, yes, he has credibly been accused of sexual activities in Moscow and St Petersberg. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Err you said that this source said something that was not true, what is said was the dossier included these allegations, it did. Thus the source did not in fact say anything untrue. Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

THis is not about improving the article, it seems to be soapboxing and should be closed. Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

"A common sign that a journalist hasn't really examined the dossier and its allegations is when they claim the dossier says Trump engaged in salacious sexual activity with prostitutes at the Ritz Carlton hotel in 2013. That is a false claim. The claim is that he watched a golden showers ceremony." Valjean, this is an example where your original research is clearly mistaken (also, your view of sex is perhaps a bit old-fashioned if you think that the only "sexual activity" is sexual intercourse). According to our article on the topic, "Urolagnia (also urophilia, and, more colloquially, a golden shower or watersports) associates sexual excitement with the sight or thought of urine or urination, and may also refer to such behaviours or acts. ... Golden shower is slang for the practice of urinating on another person for sexual pleasure." Moreover, the Steele dossier explicitly attributes Trump's putative interest in this activity to his "sexual perversion". If, as you are positing, Trump watched prostitutes pee for purely asexual reasons, then he was almost certainly doing it wrong, but this is a rather novel (and implausible) interpretation. Regardless, the reason that almost all news agencies use the euphemism "salacious sexual activity" as opposed to the specific slang term "golden shower" is because the former is consistent with their editorial codes and manuals of style—not because a careless journalist who isn't as well-informed as yourself incorrectly thought that the dossier accused Trump of engaging in sexual intercourse with the prostitutes. (Notably, the "golden shower" or "pee tape" allegation has been so widely publicized, sensationalized, and satirized that virtually everyone who has heard of the Steele dossier knows exactly what the "salacious sexual activity" in question was, even if they know almost nothing else about the dossier.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging, you make many good points, and I largely agree. I was under the impression that some journalists and the public were referring to the allegation in a way that could easily imply that Trump was naked and actively participating, on the bed, in the golden showers activity. Intercourse is obviously not necessary. You are absolutely correct about "Urolagnia (also urophilia, and, more colloquially, a golden shower or watersports) associates sexual excitement with the sight or thought of urine or urination".

On June 15, 2013, five months before the 2013 Miss Universe contest in Moscow, Trump was accompanied on a visit to the Las Vegas nightclub "The Act" by Crocus Group owner Aras Agalarov, his son Emin, Ike Kaveladze, Rob Goldstone, Michael Cohen, Keith Schiller, and others, where Trump was photographed and the group stayed "for several hours". The club featured "risque performances" and, according to Cohen, Trump watched a golden showers performance "with delight".

It appears that Michael Cohen's description of Trump's reaction describes urolagnia, and the Agalarovs, who function as Trump/Russia liason cutouts for Putin's intelligence agencies, were with Trump and noticed. They figure in many of the activities and knowledge about Trump's questionable activities in Russia. After that event at The Act, at the Miss Universe contest in Moscow, they then offered prostitutes to Trump at the Ritz Carlton, and he allegedly ended up with a couple of them and instructed them to perform the show on the bed to defile it. He hates Obama that much. Schiller, as his bodyguard, could not provide him with an alibi to rule out the possibility. The existing tape,[5][6] supposedly a fake, shows a passive Trump sitting with his cellphone and instructing the activities. He (or the actor) is fully clothed, and it's far from pornographic. Whether it happened or not, that's the allegation. The fact is that he has a proven history of excitement at the sight of urination, as witnessed by those with him in Las Vegas, Russian intelligence knew about his reaction, and likely tried to set up such a situation for the purpose of getting even more kompromat than they already possess.

My point is that some journalists, for whatever reason, write in a sloppy manner that could give the wrong impression. That's all. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The tape was proven to be a fake and you know that, as it's been discussed here before. The pee tape allegation came from Danchenko, who is currently being prosecuted by the FBI for lying to them. Your third paragraph is original research and peddling of misinformation. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Valjean, this is a talk page for discussing improvements to this article. You are entitled to believe that reliable sources are all wrong or whatever else, but you shouldn't use this talk page as a soapbox to discuss your own research on the matter. Endwise (talk) 08:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

This is about the dossier, its allegations, and the way reporters discuss the subject. This can certainly end up in forum terrain, so let's try to not go there. I do not "believe that reliable sources are all wrong or whatever else," and have no idea where you could get such an idea. That's a nasty slur and personal attack, so back off. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Valjean's comment Endwise, I have not seen Valjean questioning any reliable sources or offering any original research. Simply discussing what is or isn't covered. Andre🚐 18:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Did you not read this section before making this comment? It opens with the questioning of reliable sources and is full of original research. It appears that Michael Cohen's description of Trump's reaction describes urolagnia, and the Agalarovs, who function as Trump/Russia liason cutouts for Putin's intelligence agencies, were with Trump and noticed. They figure in many of the activities and knowledge about Trump's questionable activities in Russia. After that event at The Act, at the Miss Universe contest in Moscow, they then offered prostitutes to Trump at the Ritz Carlton, and he allegedly ended up with a couple of them and instructed them to perform the show on the bed to defile it. He hates Obama that much. is entirely original research. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

That sounds to me consistent with media reports, and not original research. There are 4 linked below. The Independent says, Donald Trump allegedly watched “with delight” at a Las Vegas strip club during a "golden showers" performance, the president’s former lawyer claims in his new memoir. The Agalarovs were also reportedly with Mr Trump on the night of the alleged “golden showers” incident following the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow. The Washington Post says, The Agalarovs were also reportedly with Mr Trump on the night of the alleged “golden showers” incident following the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow. The New Yorker reads, Steele’s sources—whose identities he has fiercely guarded. According to Isikoff and Corn, Steele’s sources include two figures whose expertise may be questionable. One source for the “golden showers” allegation, according to Isikoff and Corn, was Sergei Millian, a mysterious Belarusian-American businessman whose claims to have been an intimate of Trump and his circle have been disputed by those close to Trum Andre🚐 20:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Is any source we are using being challenged, is anything we say in the article being challenged? or are any changes to our article being suggested? Slatersteven (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

References

FBI offered to pay Steele $1 million

There’s probably a lot we can add from this story from CNN, among many others reporting it. The FBI offered to pay Steele $1m for proof of the allegations in the dossier, but Steele “could not.” The FBI used the dossier just a few weeks later in FISA applications. The FBI supervisory analyst testified that “Steele didn’t give the FBI anything during that meeting that corroborated the claims in his explosive dossier.” The article further denigrates the dossier, which I don’t think is accurately reflected in our article, by saying “The dossier contained unverified allegations about Trump’s connections to Russia, including his alleged business dealings, rumors of lurid trysts in Moscow and claims that his campaign collaborated with the Kremlin in 2016.” The vast bulk of RS post 2019 view the dossier with disdain, but for some reason that isn’t reflected now, with the majority of sources coming from the 2016 timeframe, now outdated and reported differently by current coverage. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The only thing new and not dealt with yet is the million $, which is strange and at odds with other info from the FBI, IG report, and Mueller Report. I suspect it will be contradicted shortly. The agent has a history that could lead him to try to spread blame to draw heat away from his own problems.

Otherwise, we're up to date with newer sources that offer real data and facts. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The CNN article is as factual as anything else out of 2016 timeline. Valjean leaning on 2016 is so 2016. Loopbackdude (talk) 06:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@Loopbackdude Valjean is as Far-Left of an editor as it gets. dude will continue to believe Trump was the Russian Manchurian Candidate until he/she dies. Jaygo113 (talk) 00:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Comment on content, not the contributor. WP:NPA WP:CIVIL please. Andre🚐 01:08, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean its at odds with other reporting because that other reporting is wrong. otherwise, the person who testified that it happened would be charged with perjury Jaygo113 (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

From the ongoing trial - FBI thought Danchenko’s sources were Russian intelligence / GRU. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Danchenko’s sources were the bottom of a beer glass. Loopbackdude (talk) 04:06, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Please be serious. Danchenko had many witting and unwitting sources, some with insider info from Russian intelligence, from inside the Kremlin, and even from inside Putin's office. Danchenko was okay with working with Steele as long as his name was not revealed (which was facilitated by Barr, a great disservice to American intelligence and national security). Danchenko and his sources then tried to "minimize" or backpedal when their roles were revealed, as noted by the FBI and the Inspector General's report. They did not know their loose lips were going to end up as content in a dossier, with the revelation of their names placing targets on their backs for Putin's hitmen. (Again, Putin can thank Trump, Barr, and Durham for doing him that service.)

Danchenko was "an uncommonly valuable" confidential human source for several years. His role goes far beyond the Steele dossier. This article Durham says Steele dossier source lied. But the FBI long valued him. has this to say:

1. the FBI long valued him
2. As a confidential informant for the FBI, Igor Danchenko provided a stream of reliable information on Russian influence activities in the United States, before special counsel John Durham put him on trial for lying to the bureau, an FBI agent testified Thursday.
3. the only two witnesses from the agency to testify so far have characterized Danchenko’s contributions to U.S. national security as valuable.
4. the FBI officials, Helson and a supervisory intelligence analyst named Brian Auten, agreed with defense attorneys that Danchenko had been an uncommonly valuable source.
5. Helson testified that Danchenko’s reports as a confidential informant were used by the FBI in 25 investigations and 40 intelligence reports during a nearly four-year period from March 2017 to October 2020. Helson worked primarily in Russian counterintelligence, and was not part of the Crossfire Hurricane team, he said.
6. Danchenko, the FBI agent said, was considered “a model” informant and “reshaped the way the U.S. even perceives threats.” Helson said that none of his previous informants had ever had as many sub-sources as Danchenko and that others at the FBI have continued to ask in recent months for Danchenko’s assistance amid Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
7. Helson said he and another special agent would mine Danchenko for information — and pay him for his reports — in face-to-face meetings in Northern Virginia, the first three of which he recorded. Helson also sought a six-figure payout for Danchenko when his informant relationship was closed in fall 2020, he said.
8. “It was a big deal for the FBI to have access to someone like Mr. Danchenko, wasn’t it?” Sears asked. “Yes, it was,” Helson said.
9. "While he did not provide information substantiating the dossier, the trial has shown that the bureau found his network of contacts valuable for identifying unrelated Russian influence operations in the United States."[7]

That's quite the recommendation from the FBI. Frankly, any double agent who did as much damage to national security and exposure of good sources as has been done by Trump, Barr, and Durham would likely have been disappeared a long time ago by U.S. intelligence. (That sentence, on a talk page, is my own opinion and, unlike the rest of what I say in this comment, not based on any RS.)

Danchenko reported what his subsources told him, as well as what he heard himself, as do all FBI informants, and conversations over beers are VERY fair game. Agents know the truth of the old adage that "only drunks and children tell the truth." People get loose lips when drinking. This happened to Papadopoulos, whose revelations were the trigger for the opening of the Trump/Russia investigation. The pee tape allegation was backed by at least seven sources, some of them not connected to Danchenko. Only some were from conversations over beers. Witnesses have added details that tend to confirm that something might well have happened at the Ritz Carlton. In the end, Trump's own reactions to the Ritz Carlton allegation raised suspicions that it did happen, with him unnecessarily lying about it several times. Those lies pushed Comey,[8][9] an expert at lie detection, to change from a skeptic to a peeliever, open to it likely being true. We may never know, so we just report what RS say.

So far, Durham has charged Danchenko with lying about the identity of sources, not about fabricating dossier allegations. Durham's extremely one-sided interpretation of Danchenko's supposed lies is often shaky, just as the accusaton against Clinesmith, whose action, while technically wrong (as he admitted), was well-meaning and based on a misunderstanding of the differing definitions for the same terms about sources used by the FBI and the CIA. That's why he got a lenient sentence, as he had no intent to deceive. Now we're waiting to see what will happen to Danchenko. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean this comment you posted right here is an actual conspiracy theory. You have nothing to base this off of. everything said in the Danchenko trial contradicts your assertions. Jaygo113 (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean Danchenko's success for other investigations is immaterial to this instance. Jaygo113 (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean Danchenko never talked to Millian. his sources were Democrat Charles Dolan and Galkina. Jaygo113 (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean you say Durham is extremely one sided, thata all we nee to know about you. You think you know better than him. Clinesmith wasnt well meaning. HE COMMITTED A FELONY TO KEEP THE INVESTIGATION GOING. HE WAS CONVICTED. Jaygo113 (talk) 01:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean FBI long valued him, so they knew he would lie for them. Except he got caught. Jaygo113 (talk) 01:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@Jaygo113, take it easy, this is way too many comments and pings for one thing. Andre🚐 01:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Carter Page CIA Omission

why is it mentioned nowhere that Carter Page was working for the CIA when he made all the contacts in Russia? he was reporting on them? Jaygo113 (talk) 00:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I believe the Carter Page - Clinesmith stuff could be sourced to this AP article [10] Andre🚐 01:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Carter Page could never be trusted and was under FISA warrants long before working for Trump. He was warned of his connections to proven Russian spies and how they tried to enlist him as a source for them. He failed to heed the CIA warnings and continued to express his pro-Russia views and associate with Russians, some of them suspected or known intelligence agents. He also lied about his contacts with Russians, and under sworn testimony only grudgingly admitted contacts he had previously denied. The CIA never activated him as a trusted source, but did classify him as someone they could ask about things. He never "worked for" the CIA. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Clinesmith, from Inspector General report on the Crossfire Hurricane investigation#FISA applications:

In a FISA application, Kevin Clinesmith, a lawyer for the FBI, altered an email from the CIA to say that Page was "not a source" for the CIA, despite the CIA representative stating that Page was a direct source of information to the agency. As a result, the Department of Justice did not approach the CIA to determine Page's connection to them. On August 14, 2020, Clinesmith pleaded guilty to a felony violation of altering an email used to maintain Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants. He changed an email to omit the fact that Carter Page had a prior operational relationship with the CIA from 2008 to 2013.

The judge at his plea hearing asked Clinesmith if, when he added "and not a source" to the email, that he knew it was "in fact not true". There followed a prolonged, awkward silence. Finally, Clinesmith told the court: "At the time I thought the information I was providing was accurate, but I am agreeing the information I inserted was not originally there, and I inserted the information." Judge James Boasberg said that Clinesmith "'likely believed' that the information he inserted into the email was true, and that he was just 'taking an inappropriate shortcut' to save himself some work....[and that] Clinesmith obtained no personal benefit from his actions, and that the Justice Department's inspector general had found no evidence that Clinesmith acted out of political bias."

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

References

anonymous sources? edit needed in Intro.

we know the sources include Galkina and Charles Dolan. They admitted none of it was real in court during the Dancenko Trial. Jaygo113 (talk) 00:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Please provide the sources you are quoting from. Andre🚐 01:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Now updated. We have since learned the names of some sources and collectors of info from subsouce networks, all described in the article body. As far as such "admissions", please provide the sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:08, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Looks like Danchenko is not guilty on all counts, score 0 for Durham. Andre🚐 21:33, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Wow! 'Steele dossier' 'collector' found not guilty on all counts. Yet another disappointment for Trump. The investigation was not a witch hunt, and the dossier was not the trigger for the investigation. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)