Wikipedia

Talk:Steele dossier/Archive 3

< Talk:Steele dossier
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Winged Blades of Godric in topic Request for comment: opinion of Paul Gregory
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 10

"misconduct"

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Right now we have this, where I have added "misconduct":

"... unverified allegations of misconduct and ties between then President-elect Donald Trump and the Russian government."

How about we elaborate:

"...allegations of ethical, financial, and sexual misconduct..."

or something like that which is accurate? -- BullRangifer (talk) 08:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

That implies that the actions were in themselves illegal. I'm not acquainted with Russian prostitution law, so I can't really tell, so unless we get better sources for such matters it is incorrect to label them misconduct. Financial dealings in Russia may be morally questionable, and he may have lied about it to the American public, but so far I haven't seen any allegations of pre-inauguration illegal activity (please enlighten me if you have any examples of RS-sources discussion such actions). 10:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree that "allegations of misconduct" does not belong here and is not the issue. The reason this is such a huge story is not because he might have done some naughty things. The issue is that if - IF - the Russians have embarrassing information about him, they could use it to blackmail him. And the concern is that with such information they might be able to influence American policy toward Russia. Who knows, they might get Trump to nominate a Secretary of State who is close friends with Putin - and to announce plans to lift the sanctions. Nah, that would be too obvious. (We need an icon that says "the previous two sentences were sarcasm; please do not take seriously." Consider that icon to have been added here.) --MelanieN (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
MelanieN, I just read your comment. LMAO! You are of course aware that your sarcasm is now well-documented history. If it's not in the article by now, then there is some serious censorship going on. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Authorship

Latest comment: 7 years ago14 comments9 people in discussion

Was authorship of the text proved, established beyond any doubt, or admitted by the author? 90.154.67.52 (talk) 09:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)alex

Pretty much yes, see the sources. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 09:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I have read sources, and have not found proofs of authorship, neither assuring statements of reliable persons close to Christopher Steele. The sources instead use phrases like "Mr Steele has been widely named as the author", "people familiar with the matter say". So authorship of the dossier is not a fact, it is opinion of anonymous folks, or gossips. If I am wrong, please, point me to the right URL with the proof. 90.154.67.52 (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)alex
Except this one [1]Slatersteven (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
All our sources name him as the author. Corn of Mother Jones interviewed him. Unless you have many and more RS which document otherwise, this doubt is just OR speculation. Stop it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
He's a spy. OF COURSE he does not sign his work, or publicly admit to authorship. What he does is dangerous, and when he was named as the probable author, he went into hiding for his life. It's futile to expect "proof of authorship" or confirmation that he personally wrote it. What we do know is that the document (or rather series of memos) was produced by the company he cofounded and still works for, and where he is the Russia expert. That's all the confirmation we are going to get. --MelanieN (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Mother Jones confirmed it was Steele. Their original story in October did not name him, but after he was outed they have used his name, which indicates they knew it was him all along.
Whatever the case may be, the real identity is irrelevant, because we write what RS have said, and they all say it was Steele. We have no RS which dispute this in any serious manner.
Steele himself confirmed he was the author when he went into hiding before his name was mentioned, and admitted it was because he would be outed. That is very telling. One cannot get much more of a personal confirmation of authorship than that. He never denied authorship or protested that the outing was a case of mistaken identity. He is terrified, and rightly so. His family is also in hiding. If Putin doesn't get him, Trump will. We may never see him again. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
There is not one author. It's a compilation. Chris Steele & Chris Burrows, both Orbis-Ex-MI6 "compiled" the Trump dossier. We still do not know whether any of the allegations in the dossier are worth the paper they are printed on. The format of the reports in the Trump dossier is the same as that used by most Western intelligence agencies. Surnames are fully capitalised, as they are in MI6 house style. Steele has been unable to enter Russia for a decade. The only sources for the Golden-Shower-story turn out to be Americans, not Russians at all: The June 20, 2016, memo, which started the Golden-Shower-story, reports 7 sources, identified as Source A through G. No other report in the dossier has as many sources; some of the original 7 reappear in the series. Source D isn’t Russian at all. He is American; he is described as a “close associate of Trump who organized and managed his trips to Moscow”. D claims to have been “present”. Source E’s identity has been blacked out in the first memo, but he is identified elsewhere in the series as another American – a “Russian émigré figure close to… Trump’s campaign team” – not to Trump himself. Within the space of a paragraph, however, he turns into an “émigré associate of Trump”. Several memos and weeks later, on August 10, this source has become “the ethnic Russian associate of Trump”. The others reported to have been in Golden-Shower-story include Source F, “a female staffer at the hotel when Trump stayed there”. From the dossier it appears she told her story to an American who was an “ethnic Russian operative” of the company run by Source E, the émigré. So Source F isn’t a direct or independent source at all. The only sources for the Golden-Shower-story turn out to be Americans, not Russians at all... There was a long line of Americans arriving in Moscow to advertise themselves as Trump advisors.
MI6 is helping CIA in Anti-Trump Smear Campaign. Think Michael Morell, Michael Hayden, CIA Director John Brennan, also a CIA official under former President George W. Bush. Or as Glenn Greenwald wrote: The Deep State Goes to War With President-Elect, Using Unverified Claims, as Democrats Cheer --87.156.238.32 (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
OR speculations without sources are not helpful. Go write your own blog. We use RS here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
@BullRangifer:No OR speculations here, the Golden-Shower-story-teller is Sergei Millian, a 38-year-old American citizen. The New York real-estate broker has claimed he helped market Trump properties to Russian buyers, (remember... There was a long line of Americans arriving in Moscow to advertise themselves as Trump advisors!). Millian even appeared on the reality TV programme called Million Dollar Listing. MotherJones reported fresh research into links between Trump and Russian buyers — particularly his dealings with the Millian, who in 2011 serviced in some capacity an FBI-investigated Russian Foreign Ministry intelligence-gathering program. Just look it up, I have Trump-fatigue. --87.156.231.84 (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
My comment was about statements like this, for which you provide no sources: "There is not one author. It's a compilation." "The only sources for the Golden-Shower-story turn out to be Americans," etc. If you have RS, then please produce them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
@BullRangifer:
1. compilation = The act of collecting or gathering things from various sources and putting them together. [2] → "CNN says it reviewed a 35-page compilation of the memos, which reportedly originated as opposition research commissioned by both anti-Trump Republicans and Democrats. Although it has yet to be verified, the compilation was published by BuzzFeed." Or: [3] → "About a month after the election, Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona gave FBI Director Comey a copy of a 35-page compilation of Steele’s reports."
2. Golden-Shower-story → Read more at John Helmer’s ″Dances with Bears″, he is the longest serving Anglo-American correspondent in Russia specialising in Russian Business, a Moscow-based journalist, author, and essayist; his site is the only one “to direct his own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties.” He’s a former political science professor who’s served as an advisor to the governments of Greece, the U.S., and in Asia where he regularly lectures on Russian topics. His book titles include: ‘Uncovering Russia,’ ‘Urbanman: The Psychology of Urban Survival,’ ‘Bringing the War Home: The American Soldier in Vietnam and After,’ and ‘Drugs and Minority Oppression’ among others. → When Going to Bed With Dogs Is News, Getting Up With Fleas Is a Scoop – Here's the One About Trump's Bed, Putin's Bed. → Quote: "The only sources for the wet bed story turn out to be Americans, not Russians at all."
3. About Sergei Millian → https://www.ft.com/content/ea52a678-9cfb-11e6-8324-be63473ce146
4. The fresh MotherJones research → http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/donald-trump-russia-sergei-millian
James Carden, a contributing writer at The Nation and the executive editor for the American Committee for East-West Accord. A Washington, DC–based journalist focusing on US foreign policy, his articles and essays have also appeared in The American Conservative and The National Interest : Why Are the Media Taking the CIA’s Hacking Claims at Face Value? Quote: "For its part, the CIA has a long history of overthrowing sovereign governments the world over. According to the historian William Blum, the CIA has “(1) attempted to overthrow more than 50 governments, most of which were democratically-elected, (2) attempted to suppress a populist or nationalist movement in 20 countries, (3) grossly interfered in democratic elections in at least 30 countries, (4) dropped bombs on the people of more than 30 countries, (5) attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders.” Perhaps if it was doing the job of intelligence gathering rather than obsessively plotting regime change, the CIA would have amassed a record worthy of the establishment media’s incessant fawning. But alas. Consulting the CIA’s historical record, one is confronted by a laundry list of failures, which includes missing both the break-up of the Soviet Union (during the 1980’s a CIA deputy director by the name of Bob Gates called the USSR “a despotism that works”) and the 9/11 attacks. In the years following 9/11, the CIA has been caught flat-footed by, among other things, the lack of WMD in Iraq (2003); the Iraqi insurgency (2003); the Arab Spring (2010); the rise of ISIS (2013); and the Ukrainian civil war (2014). More recently, CIA Director John Brennan made false statements before Congress over the CIA’s hacking into the computers of Congressional staffers. And yet, despite its uninspiring record of the past 70 years, the media has driven itself into a self-righteous frenzy over what it perceives to be President-elect Trump’s grave show of disrespect to the CIA."
Two more MRS → Major Reliable Source ;-) : Jeremy Scahill and Seymour Hersh in an interview. Hersh said that he does not believe the U.S. intelligence community proved its case that President Vladimir Putin directed a hacking campaign aimed at securing the election of Donald Trump. He blasted news organizations for lazily broadcasting the assertions of U.S. intelligence officials as established facts. → Seymour Hersh Blasts Media for Uncritically Promoting Russian Hacking Story. --87.159.126.26 (talk) 07:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
You seem to misunderstand the meaning of "compilation". You wrote: "There is not one author. It's a compilation." One person can make a compilation. He wrote individual reports of 2-3 pages (summary and numbered details) and sent them, as he wrote them, to his employer(s) (those paying for the research). Together all those reports became a "compilation" of 35 pages. Do you have a RS which says anyone helped him write those reports? He obviously relied on many unnamed sources, but he was the sole author. We don't have any RS which say otherwise. He (and family) is the one in hiding, no one else. In Russia, Putin is mole hunting, and so far two have been arrested and one other is dead. Putin and the FSB are examining that dossier and tracking down who are the possible sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Are you referring to Major Dmitry Dokuchaev (Forb?), Ruslan Stoyanov, Sergey Mikhaylov and Andrei Gerasimov? The Snowden files revealed NSA and GCHQ operated to subvert antivirus and security software to spy on users and hacked into Kaspersky Lab software→ https://theintercept.com/2015/06/22/nsa-gchq-targeted-kaspersky
→ https://arstechnica.com/security/2017/01/kaspersky-labs-top-investigator-reportedly-arrested-in-treason-probe → Quote: "A much more chilling scenario, offered in this post from Lawfare Blog, is that Stoyanov was a source for US intelligence officers who ultimately concluded Russian-sponsored hacking attempted to interfere with the 2016 US presidential election. That speculation is likely off base because it doesn't fit with Kaspersky's assertion Stoyanov is being investigated for activities that predated his employment or with this claim from a fellow Kaspersky Lab researcher that Stoyanov's research never involved advanced persistent threats, the term for hacking techniques used by government-sponsored spies. People advancing the theory seem to be basing it on the timing of the arrest, which roughly coincided with the classified release of specific details said to support the US intelligence community's claims the hacking was ordered by President Vladimir Putin.
15 years ago, official lies about Iraqi WMD were used to drag the American people into war, setting off the ever-escalating wave of bloodletting in the Middle East. President Bush, Vice President Cheney and their cabal of neoconservative ideologues went to great lengths to fabricate evidence that Iraq was seeking to produce nuclear weapons. The CIA went so far as to force an Al Qaida detainee captured in Afghanistan to make false confessions under torture that the terrorist organization was working with the Iraqi government to set up terrorist training camps, a lie repeated by Powell in his 2003 speech at the UN justifying the looming war against Iraq. The media played a critical role in disseminating the Bush administration’s "evidence", including articles by New York Times reporters such as Judith Miller, who functioned as mouthpieces for the CIA. Millions of people around the world knew these were lies. They knew that what was coming was a war for oil. They demonstrated against the impending war in their millions, carrying out the largest global anti-war demonstrations in human history. 15 years later, the same types of lies are being trotted out by the media mouthpieces of the military-intelligence apparatus. I'm so sorry for the United States, but the ascendancy of Trump to the White House, the MadDog-Bannon-Prince-Devos government is not Putin's fault... --87.159.127.73 (talk) 10:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Source of some of the info

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Possiable source of so of the info being reported: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-russian-businessman-source-key-trump-dossier-claims/story?id=45019603 pretty useful info in article. Casprings (talk) 23:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Russian corroboration that some of the leaked information was true

Latest comment: 7 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

Rachel uses this source in her report:

BullRangifer (talk) 06:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know that Rachel is drawing this conclusion - that the fact that someone was arrested for treason somehow proves that at least some part of the allegations in the dossier are true.. But that seems like a stretch - basically Original Research on her part - and we can't use it until it gets picked up by the media in general. --MelanieN (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I too would like to see more RS pick this up. As far as OR, that applies to us. We actually WANT OR performed by RS, so good for Rachel! She is nearly always ahead of the curve in the news world, and she's rarely wrong. That outside OR is often what makes some content usable. Unless a RS makes the connection, then we can't use it. It would be OR and SYNTH. In this case we can use it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
The rumor treadmill was started by Christo Grozev, "author" at bellingcat: → https://cgrozev.wordpress.com/2017/01/14/tower-of-cards-part-1, January 14, 2017
Telegraph's Chief Reporter Robert Mendick presented the "facts": → http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/27/mystery-death-ex-kgb-chief-linked-mi6-spys-dossier-donald-trump/
Now even Grozev is "disappointed": → https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/825446608921886721 → "I appreciate Telegraph's coverage of my Erovinkin story, but note I presented a hypothesis; while paper's angle is somewhat sensationalist." --87.156.227.13 (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I follow Grozev on Twitter. I don't see him retracting anything he said. On the contrary, he provides documentation. I'm not sure where you're getting the "disappointed" from. That is your word. He just expresses a caution, that some of these things are not absolutely proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. We already know that, with this type of stuff, some never will. Our cautious approach is proper, and we will continue to document what RS say. The lack of proof doesn't mean we don't cover it. We are just careful in how we write it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Zero documentation in Grozev's "Tower of Cards (part 1)". Read: Norman Solomon, Is Rachel Maddow Becoming a Liberal Glenn Beck? → "It was a free-associating performance worthy of Glenn Beck at a whiteboard. Maddow swirled together an array of facts, possible facts, dubious assertions and pure speculation to arrive at conclusions that were based on little more than her zeal to portray Trump as a tool of the Kremlin. Even when sober, Joe McCarthy never did it better." ;-) --87.156.234.24 (talk) 02:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
That sort of illustrates why we don't consider counterpunch a reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, please! Norman Solomon is a MRS → Major Reliable Source, he is an observant media critic in the United States, founder of the Institute for Public Accuracy, a consortium of policy researchers and analysts. He is IPA's executive director and the coordinator of its ExposeFacts project. He is co-founder and coordinator of the online organization RootsAction.org, which has 750,000 active supporters. Solomon is a longtime associate of the media watch group FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting), a organization that has been described as both progressive and leaning left. Solomon’s books include "Target Iraq," "Wizards of Media Oz: Behind the Curtain of Mainstream News," "The Trouble With Dilbert: How Corporate Culture Gets the Last Laugh," "False Hope: The Politics of Illusion in the Clinton Era," "The Power of Babble: The Politician's Dictionary of Buzzwords and Doubletalk for Every Occasion," and "Killing Our Own: The Disaster of America's Experience With Atomic Radiation." His book "Target Iraq: What the News Media Didn’t Tell You” (co-authored with foreign correspondent Reese Erlich) was published in 2003 and has also been published in German, Italian, Hungarian, Brazilian and South Korean editions. A collection of Solomon’s columns won the George Orwell Award for Distinguished Contribution to Honesty and Clarity in Public Language. The award, presented by the National Council of Teachers of English, honored Solomon’s book "The Habits of Highly Deceptive Media." In the introduction to that book, Jonathan Kozol wrote: "The tradition of Upton Sinclair, Lincoln Steffens, and I.F. Stone does not get much attention these days in the mainstream press... but that tradition is alive and well in this collection of courageously irreverent columns on the media by Norman Solomon. ... He fights the good fight without fear of consequence. He courts no favors. He writes responsibly and is meticulous on details, but he does not choke on false civility." --87.156.234.24 (talk) 05:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
These make him *notable*, not necessarily *reliable*.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Mystery death of ex-KGB chief linked to MI6 spy's dossier on Donald Trump

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/27/mystery-death-ex-kgb-chief-linked-mi6-spys-dossier-donald-trump/

Relevant? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I would say wait. Best to let this air out for at least a few days until the media has given it its treatment or until something more concrete or authoritative comes out. 108.34.151.139 (talk) 10:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
It's highly relevant, but I think we should wait until at least one very solid source reports on it before adding it to the article.- MrX 13:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, wait, and, like most of this and related subjects, be very, very careful about attribution & cleaving close to the sources with phrasing. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, see the discussion immediately above. (And the notion that there will ever be reliable sources or we will ever know the truth is, well, merely a notion). Thincat (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Forbes / Paul Gregory

Latest comment: 7 years ago86 comments7 people in discussion

There is a bit of back and forth over whether to include reference to Paul Gregory's piece in Forbes, or whether this is undue weight. I don't have particularly strong feelings either way, since I happen to agree slightly with Gregory's assessment, but I am leaning towards removal. I think we have better secondary sources than this. Is there consensus to remove this? Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

  • I checked this too. This has been already discussed on this talk page above and rejected as something undue. I think this opinion by Paul Roderick Gregory could actually be cited, but this should be done more precisely. Paul Gregory is trying to disprove that Igor Sechin had promised to offer to Carter Page, an associate of D. Trump, "the brokerage of up to a 19 per cent (privatized) stake in Rosneft" in return to lifting the sanctions on Russia in the event the Trump would be elected the President. This is something Andrei Illarionov claimed as well [4]. Now, Paul Roderick Gregory is trying to disprove this claim, but on which grounds? He tells:
To offer Trump either the entirety of, or a brokerage commission on, the market value of 19.5% of Rosneft shares—even a 6 percent commission on $12 billion worth of Rosneft shares would amount to an astonishing $720 million—would deplete the cash that Putin desperately needed for military spending and budget deficits

OK, I would not mind including this controversy if it will be properly explained. However, including it in present state, i.e. without explanation, is definitely unhelpful. My very best wishes (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

So, I included this, trying to be as brief as possible. This is an important and complex controversy, however, which may need a lot more text to explain. My very best wishes (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I too question the veracity of some of Gregory's assessment. His opinions are just as unverifiable as some of Steele's dossier, but at least Steele took credit for his work, thus endangering his life. One does not do such a thing for a work of fiction, or for another's work.
The person involved in leaking the detail about the 19% (not 19.5%) stake in Rosneft is now dead, some say murdered, which they see as proof of the veracity of this detail in the dossier. Steele is the author, and this one source lost his life. Both these details lend veracity to that portion of the dossier, contrary to what Gregory claims. Gregory is not the only expert on Russian affairs, and Steele, as a high ranking MI6 operative, had a very different and more connected, underground, network to draw on as sources. Steele's reputation has been vouched for as excellent by numerous RS.
Gregory also uses a nonsense argument in an attempt to weaken the force of the dossier's claims to be a legitimate document, made in good faith, using unverified sources: "There is no record; no informant is identified by name or by more than a generic title." Duh! It can't be any other way. This fact does not weaken the legitimacy of the document at all. If we could be 100% certain that the document was fully accurate, it would still cite its sources in this matter. This argument is a garbage argument, and the fact he uses it seriously damages Gregory's credibility.
Basically this is just Gregory's opinion on his blog, and no more. If we give it any weight, then we must also give weight to Gregory's own detailed statements about Cohen's criminal role, which he considers quite accurate. Are we going to go there? I suspect we should, but using other sources. Trump's people have been involved in highly questionable, and possibly illegal (in US law) dealings with Russian oil officials. That much is known. Trump's fingers and arms are covered with oil and money up to his armpits.
Now the agreed deal, which ended up being 19.5%, has been finalized, with the funds disappearing into shadowy accounts in the Cayman Islands, with Carter Page present in Moscow on the day after the deal, and then denying he was there at all. What a coincidence, especially the denial. If he's innocent, why the denial? Any police detective would seize on that denial as evidence of bad faith and evidence of complicity and guilt. See this new report with more details.
Everything points to this part of the dossier being accurate: (1) Steele claims authorship (endangering his life); (2) possibly the only Sechin official who could be the source of the information is dead (Putin's mole hunting skills are rightly feared); and (3) a deal has been finalized for the agreed amount (how odd!); (4) with Carter Page in town when the signing must occur; and (5) then the money disappears into shadowy accounts (possibly Trump's?).
This is all strong circumstantial evidence that this is true, and that Gregory is wrong, at least on this point. What's more, Gregory's dissenting opinion deviates significantly from all our other RS. I put more weight on them. Much of what I have just written is based on what we have in the article, plus the sources listed below. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
More sources:
BullRangifer (talk) 04:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to hear others opinions about this. It means that we should probably remove Gregory's opinion completely. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Given that we have multiple sources here, this should be at least rewritten per WP:NPOV, rather than be presented as opinion by one person. My very best wishes (talk) 05:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see what Rosneft has to do with the text that was removed. This is a different issue than Critical observers noted the amateurish character of the dossier. Paul Roderick Gregory, a Hoover Institution economist contends that it was written, not by the alleged author, Steele, but more likely by a Russian intelligence officer (as I addressed in the section below). Once again, will you please restore the text that was stable for almost two weeks per the spirit of BRD? Surely you must recognize that text has been in the article for sometime and the burden is on those wishing to form a new consensus?That man from Nantucket (talk) 05:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

BullRangifer, there are several problems with your conclusion that events described in the dossier are accurate. First off, we can't say they are accurate. Only the sources can say that, and there are none that I'm aware of even hint at this. But bringing up Steele risking his life doesn't bolster his bona fides. The death of the alleged leaker, the coincidental timings etc are all conjecture. We can't cobble this together as "proof". First of all, that's OR. That is the job of the sources. What we are left with is still the same thing, unverified conjecture. Now on to Gregory: He is stating his opinion, and his CV indicates his experience is relevant to assess certain aspects of Russian life and indeed intelligence gathering. Others share similar opinions. These opinions bolster our lead which rightly states that experts are skeptical about the dossier. On a slight tangent, be mindful of BLP. Cohen has vehemently denied being in Prauge and a RS has verified that people said he was at USC with his son during the timeframe in question. I'd have to hunt for that source, but I know it exists.

Other experts have questioned the dossier purely on spycraft methodologies. I'm not sure if it's in this article, as I haven't poured through it in a few weeks, but from memory the "experts" say that some of the alleged "facts" of the dossier, if true, would be closely guarded secrets even within the Russian agencies. Real compromising material is currency and officers routinely hold back material from their bosses to bolster their careers. The article (I'll look later this week) made a case that it would be extremely unlikely for Steele's sources to give up such information because it was too valuable.That man from Nantucket (talk) 06:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The BLP matter you mention is from Gregory himself. I have only written what the source says, and if we include this, we would have to be more careful with the language, probably using exact quotes ("cover up", "illicit payments", "potential criminal activities", etc.) Gregory considers it "One of the few verifiable facts in the Orbis report..." that Cohen was involved, even though he includes Cohen's denial. Gregory: "Cohen to cover up the operation, meet with the Kremlin’s Presidential Administration, and make illicit payments to shut up and move the hackers to Bulgaria....According to the Orbis report, Cohen engaged in potential criminal activities, such as illicit payoffs to hackers and the buying of their silence." Obviously Cohen is an unreliable source for this matter because he will do anything to cover his ass. On a personal level it carries less-than-zero weight. All we can do is state his denial. The source about his maybe being at USC (my father's alma mater) doesn't identify its sources for the claim. I noticed that when I wrote the above, and now I can't find that source! Irritating. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
The actual veracity of the report as a whole is neither here nor there. We can only write what RS say. Most sources, including the active intelligence community (CIA, FBI), take it seriously enough to inform parties at the highest level, including Obama. Nothing in the report is inconsistent with Trump's character or possible actions. On the contrary. Therefore they consider the very real possibility that he is involved and comprised, as detailed in the dossier.
Steele risks his life and goes into hiding, with no attempts to save his own skin. He takes full credit. That makes no sense if anyone else wrote the dossier.
Other commentators, especially the critics, regardless of their prior experience, are speaking "from the outside", so to speak. It's easy to be an armchair critic. Gregory, who doesn't seem to know Steele personally, is at odds with many who know Steele and vouch for him. I give their word much more weight. Gregory's own garbage argument about Steele's failure to name his sources absolutely destroys his credibility.
According to several of the latest RS, the following events (arrests of at least two operatives and the death of another, possibly the only one who could have revealed the details about the Sechin/Rosneft deal), tend to confirm that this detail in the dossier is true. If it wasn't true, Putin would not be mole hunting. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, sure. However, this actually shows a serious problem with the page. It must include an additional section that describes specific claims made in this dossier. Otherwise, it is completely unclear what exactly these other sources are disputing. The specific claims absolutely must be included per WP:NPOV and WP:BLP because they are now described and discussed in multiple secondary RS. My very best wishes (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • My very best wishes, I agree. We should list the specific claims. Multiple RS discuss them, so we are duty bound by NPOV to mention them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • This is starting to cross over into "forum" territory. Not our job to speculate if any part of the dossier is accurate. Not do we look at outside events for confirmation..That man from Nantucket (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
No, we talk about improvement of the page. I suggested to significantly expand "Content" section using multiple secondary RS on the subject (some of them were just provided by BullRangifer above; there are many more). Otherwise, it is completely unclear what exactly the "criticism" section is trying to disprove. My very best wishes (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
That man from Nantucket, I can understand your thinking. I was also thinking about that today and reminded myself of why we are doing this. The thoughts above are not propositions for actual content, at least not with the wordings we're using in the discussion. This is about vetting sources. Notability is not a requirement for content, but accuracy is. Sometimes, like above, editors have to engage in OR to examine all sides to see if the sources are good enough for use at all, or in what way. That's use of editorial judgment. The POV in the sources are not the issue. We must use sources, if they are good, regardless of their POV. If a source is unreliable, then we are duty bound to not use it, or limit its use to the only places where it is relevant. That's what we're doing with the Gregory source. I tend to see him as unreliable because of some glaring errors. That's my opinion.
As mentioned immediately above by My very best wishes, some of the conversation is useful for improving content. That's the ultimate intent with all discussion. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
There is a clear case of communication breakdown in this thread. Consider this bizarre comment by BullRangifer: If we give it any weight, then we must also give weight to Gregory's own detailed statements about Cohen's criminal role, which he considers quite accurate. BullRangifer appears to be under the impression that Gregory called the accusations against Cohen "quite accurate," yet nothing Gregory says bares any resemblance to that conclusion; in fact, Gregory calls the entire dossier "fake news". That man from Nantucket notes that RS has verified that people said he was at USC with his son during the timeframe in question, but this still begs the question of if BullRangifer has some other article by Gregory that purports to verify Cohen's illicit actions. Now the mystery has been solved: BullRangifer writes that The BLP matter you mention is from Gregory himself. [...] Gregory considers it "One of the few verifiable facts in the Orbis report..." that Cohen was involved, even though he includes Cohen's denial. In other words, BullRangifer lacks basic reading comprehension skills, so he thinks "One of the few verifiable facts" means that Gregory has verified the claims and considers them fact. Here are some additional context clues: The U.S. intelligence community purportedly has examined the allegations but have not confirmed any of them. We can wait till hell freezes over. The material is not verifiable. [...] The Orbis report [...] claims to know more than is knowable as it recounts sordid tales of prostitutes, "golden showers," bribes, squabbles in Putin’s inner circle, and who controls the dossiers of kompromat (compromising information). [...] One of the few verifiable facts in the Orbis report is the key role played by Trump’s "personal lawyer" Michael Cohen. [...] Cohen has denied any such meetings with the Kremlin Presidential administration and claims never to have visited Prague. According to the Orbis report, Cohen engaged in potential criminal activities, such as illicit payoffs to hackers and the buying of their silence. I doubt that he will let such accusations pass. [...] The report appears to fail the veracity test in the one instance of a purported meeting in which names, dates, and location are provided. Gregory prefaces all of the material about Cohen by attributing it to "the Orbis report"; his point is that, unlike the rest of the dossier, Cohen's trip to Prague is FALSIFIABLE. Unsurprisingly, the one verifiable part of the dossier was, indeed, almost immediately disproven--which is a pretty good indicator that the rest of it is equally fraudulent. BullRangifer is a random Wikipedia editor, rambling on and on about stuff he knows absolutely nothing about, in an inane attempt to discredit Gregory. Gregory is a fair bit more qualified: I have studied Russia and the Soviet Union professionally since the mid-1960s. I have visited Russia as a scholar, as the head of a multi-year petroleum legislation project, and as a business consultant close to one hundred times. My first visit was in 1965 shortly after Nikita Khrushchev’s removal. I have a wide circle of friends and acquaintances in Russia, and I follow the Russian press regularly. I personally witnessed the creation in the early 90s of Russia’s giant energy concerns in the offices of the oil minister. I met with St. Petersburg officials in the early 90s but do not remember meeting then deputy mayor, Vladimir Putin. I have written and co-authored reports for the State Department, Congress, and the intelligence community; so I sort of know how these things work. 2601:243:880:c190:fc99:98c5:77f:cae0 08:47, February 1, 2017 (UTC)

My whole preface must be kept in mind: "If we give it any weight,..." That's a very big "IF". What followed was therefore, to some degree, an exercise in hypotheticals. ("IF" we were to give it weight, how should we understand and treat it?) I don't think we should give it any weight, or even use it at all, because of the reasons I have given above, but which you have not mentioned:

Gregory's odd and nonsensical attempt to discredit the dossier because the sources were not named should be enough to make us suspect Gregory wrote that comment while tired or under the influence of something. It makes no sense. (Some others have made the opposite claim, that he gave too much detail, enough to compromise his sources, and following events indicate that may be true. Arrests and deaths have followed.)

Likewise complaints by Gregory and some others that the format isn't the type of format used within intelligence circles for their reports is also not valid. (I also doubt that the FBI, CIA, MI6, and FSB use the same format.) The dossier was not prepared for that type of client. It is also a compilation of small reports which were written and sent off to paying clients who were not expecting to receive highly technical reports or use them in the manner such reports (for the higher ups in the intelligence community) would expect to be used. For example, you don't send military style reports to civilians. You adapt them and use a more informal format civilians can understand. You send a dumbed down version.

He was to gather compromising information, if there was any, and he did that job. He found some rather serious stuff, serious enough for Putin to get pissed off and go mole hunting, successfully at that. Arrests have been made and deaths have followed. If the dossier was really fake, Putin would do nothing but deny. Rachel Maddow and other RS have made this point. The charges are also serious enough for the FBI and CIA (in fact all 17 USA agencies) to get worried that Trump is vulnerable to blackmail, and is being blackmailed. Everything Trump has done indicates they may be right. He offends everyone BUT Putin. As long as he follows the plan (details of which he has been very public about, and details of which are in the dossier), they remain friends and both profit immensely. Trump owes Putin a huge debt for Putin's help getting him elected.

Those who know Steele, his experience, and his reputation vouch for him. I trust them more than Gregory.

Most of our RS back up Steele's authorship claim. A few complaints and speculations from the sidelines don't negate those sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The charges are also serious enough for the FBI and CIA (in fact all 17 USA agencies) to get worried that Trump is vulnerable to blackmail, and is being blackmailed. Really? The Coast Guard and the DEA are "worried that Trump is vulnerable to blackmail, and is being blackmailed"? You're just making stuff up! The FBI spent months investigating possible Trump connections to Russia, and found absolutely nothing. Likewise complaints by Gregory and some others that the format isn't the type of format used within intelligence circles for their reports is also not valid. (I also doubt that the FBI, CIA, MI6, and FSB use the same format.) The dossier was not prepared for that type of client. That would be a very good point if you were accurately summarizing Gregory's argument, but instead your comment betrays a profound lack of understanding. Gregory says: The poor grammar and shaky spelling plus the author’s use of KGB-style intelligence reporting, however, do not fit the image of a high-end London security company run by highly connected former British intelligence figures. [...] As someone who has worked for more than a decade with the microfilm collection of Soviet documents in the Hoover Institution Archives, I can say that the dossier itself was compiled by a Russian, whose command of English is far from perfect and who follows the KGB (now FSB) practice of writing intelligence reports, in particular the practice of capitalizing all names for easy reference. Gregory's point is not "that the format isn't the type of format used within intelligence circles for their reports", but that it would be unusual for a British spy to write a document using the FSB format. Finally, no reliable sources have connected the arrest of the Lefortovo Four with the dossier, including the USA Today article you linked above--though many believe the arrests are related to Russia's interference in the 2016 election. (Even Maddow only mentions the dossier in passing, while focusing on the DNC and Podesta hacks.) This inference makes a good deal of sense, considering that Mikhail was in charge of FSB cyberintelligence, while Stoyanov is one of Russia's top specialists in the field. See The New York Times: Western cybersecurity analysts have said there are indications that the security services recruited among criminal hackers to carry out politicized computer intrusions ahead of last summer’s hacking of the Democratic National Committee in the United States, giving the hackers impunity to commit financially motivated attacks in exchange for their expertise. The arrest raised the possibility that Mr. Mikhailov and Mr. Stoyanov had interfered in this cooperation. [...] Alternatively, the detention of an official who would have been in a position to engage in the election hacking in America could indicate a good-will gesture to the United States, which has penalized Russia for the electoral meddling. (Gregory has his own theory, namely that Putin is trying to deflect from the accusations against Russia with sensational tales of the CIA penetrating the highest levels of his government.) Your conclusion that any of this somehow "corroborates" the crazy idea that Trump is a Manchurian candidate cultivated by Moscow since 2011 is pure original research, and I'm not impressed by your credentials. 2601:243:880:c190:edae:107:c44c:cf35 11:42, February 2, 2017‎ (UTC)
"The Coast Guard and the DEA"?? Now you're making things up. Those who have followed press coverage of this Russian hacking business would know I'm referring to the 17 intelligence agencies, BUT, you touch on something anyway, so thanks. The hacking and dossier matters overlap, but aren't exactly the same thing. Therefore I should have stopped with "the FBI and CIA", because they are concerned that he's being blackmailed. I'll strike the part about the 17 to avoid confusion. The FBI and CIA take the dossier seriously enough for them to be concerned (although all 17 know about this) and present the matter to Trump and Obama.
Regarding authorship, nothing has changed. Our RS still overwhelmingly consider Steele to be the author. OR WARNING: Because Steele worked with Russian contacts, it's conceivable that some of their formatting was used. In that sense, he had multiple undisclosed partners in the production of the dossier, but he was still the final author. Our RS still support that part.
This is also interesting:
  • "As a former spy who had carried out espionage inside Russia, Mr. Steele was in no position to travel to Moscow to study Mr. Trump’s connections there. Instead, he hired native Russian speakers to call informants inside Russia and made surreptitious contact with his own connections in the country as well."[5]
BullRangifer (talk) 04:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm aware that some RS call Trump a Manchurian candidate, but I haven't gone there. I follow what the Dossier and RS indicate, that Trump is compromised and vulnerable to blackmail. That's not OR. That's what the RS say. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Once again, you're interpretation of what the dossier says is irrelevant. And there are no RS saying Trump has been compromised. There is not a single RS that is saying the claims are verifiable. At best they say he could be compromised. You are skirting BLP policy by stating this in the affirmative. Some security professionals opine that the mere publication of the dossier reduces the effectiveness of possible blackmail; Now that the claims are "public", a potential blackmailer loses the ability to leverage their target.That man from Nantucket (talk) 06:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Okay, vulnerable to blackmail. Nearly all say that, and some believe it's true and say it. The wording we end up using will be dependent on which sources we use. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
OK. So how about providing a lot more specifics in section "Contents"? I am a little hesitant, given that the accusations are serious and were not proven. But our BLP policy tells explicitly that such claims must be included if notable and reliably sourced, no matter if they are proven or not. My very best wishes (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree. As long as we handle the content sensitively, using what RS say, we are safe. We should keep in mind the discussions and !voting archived here.
We could start with an itemized listing of the key claims in the dossier, with page numbers. To facilitate, the source used by Buzzfeed is excellent, because it provides three versions. A caution...The text version should always be compared with the original image version, and the text slightly altered to make it exactly like the image. Unfortunately some changes crept into the text version. We must not perpetuate that carelessness. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely not. The dossier is essentially a primary source. That is why we don't cite courtroom transcripts. We cite analysis by secondary sources. Buzzfeed's "here it is" is not analysis.That man from Nantucket (talk) 07:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, certainly. But there is nothing wrong with itemizing the claims as long as each of them was sourced to multiple secondary RS. In addition, these should not be bare claims, but claims with relevant comments, criticisms and explanations from multiple secondary RS, as WP:NPOV requires (a few such sources on one of the items have been provided by BullRangifer above). The link to discussion is also helpful and should be kept in mind. My very best wishes (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks My very best wishes, for explaining what should have been obvious to That man from Nantucket. We cannot use primary sources unless secondary sources have commented on them. Once that has happened, the primary source can, and should, be cited. I don't recall if every point in the dossier has been the subject of commentary, but several have been, and they should be mentioned. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
BullRangifer It should be obvious to an editor of your very long experience that this is not even remotely a correct statement of WP:PRIMARY. WP Primary allows citations to primary sources only for straightforward matters of fact calling for no analysis, context, or explanation. They are rarely needed to discuss any subject that has had extensive RS coverage, and they should be avoided.
More directly to the point, hundreds of editors have addressed the question of whether to discuss specific allegations in the dossier, and last I checked there was no consensus to include. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 17:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Centrify, it seems we're going in circles here. Immediately below this comment is a previous comment of yours along similar lines. Yes, I'm experienced, but you are treating me as if I didn't understand anything here. Take a look at this:
  • Me: autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker, 51210 edits since: 2005-12-18 (I started here as an IP editor in about 2003. I have helped to formulate some of our most basic policies.)
  • You: 6404 edits since: 2007-08-25
You need to AGF. Instead you are making a whole lot of straw man assumptions, things which I do not accept or believe. Those are not MY understandings, so I suspect we are actually in much more agreement than you may realize. Maybe it's some particular wording of mine that has set you off? If so, I'm sorry about that.
(1) I don't think primary sources should ever be used as the basis for content. Without secondary RS comment, we don't create an article at all. Primary sources never stand alone. Once secondary sources have discussed something in a primary source, we are allowed to ALSO include a reference to the primary source, not to create new content which is not discussed in the secondary RS, but as the ultimate form of documentation backing up the reliability of the secondary RS. Maybe that's clumsily written, but I'm not advocating misuse of primary sources for anything other than backup for the exact mentions from secondary RS. It's a service to readers so they can check that the secondary RS are in fact faithful to the primary source. This is something we always attempt to do. In fact, if we can't provide the primary source, then how can we (and readers) be certain that the secondary sources aren't based on a hoax primary source which doesn't even exist? Providing a link to, and even quotes from, the primary source is allowed, and in this case is necessary. I don't see how that can be controversial. Specific claims in secondary sources can be documented using that exact content from the primary source.
(2) Did I ever say there was a consensus to include? I don't think so. There are many who believe we should, and they have good arguments. The only real question is how to do it. One cannot have an article about accusations, and then create a totally unique rule (applied to ONLY this article in Wikipedia), without basis in policy, forbidding their mention or documentation, especially when multiple highly notable RS actually do mention the specific accusations. That thinking violates a whole lot of policies and history here. It undermines the very purpose of Wikipedia, policies which demand that we MUST mention the accusations.
We are still discussing and seeking to form a consensus. That's one of the purposes of discussion here, so let's continue. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Let's take these, um, comments, one at a time.
Before I respond any further, I want to hear why you think my disputing your incorrect policy statements, including explicitly challenging your misinterpretation of WP:UNDUE, is a violation of WP:AGF. Please explain clearly. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 18:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
While your comment (about AGF) seems to be addressed to me, I haven't brought up UNDUE. Maybe you're thinking of User:Sławomir Biały, who brought it up at the beginning of this section? -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes @BullRangifer: both remarks were directed to you. No other challenge to this material has been raised, no other policy besides WEIGHT has been discussed in this section, and you've gone on at very extreme length with statements containing language such as "If we give it any weight", "I put more weight on [other sources]", "On a personal level it carries less-than-zero weight", 'I give their word much more weight", "IF we were to give it weight, how should we understand and treat it?", "I don't think we should give it any weight, or even use it at all," together with many lengthy and tendentious statements that are utterly irrelevant to the actual WP policy on due weight—and which instead reflect an effort by you to rebut the Gregory source with your own pseudo-analysis.
Now that I've had to give a detailed explanation of the obvious, and now that it's clear that you know my question about AGF was directed to you, could you please answer it? Please state how you think I am violating AGF by disputing your incorrect statements of policy. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 16:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
No, we do not cite primary sources. We do not engage in original research. We do not use sources to synthesize what is and what is not. That should be obvious to an editor of your tenure, but by your many rampant speculations above, that is apparently not the case. That man from Nantucket (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I would not suggest that we violate policy. We are allowed to cite primary sources only after they are cited by secondary and tertiary sources. That gives us the green light to carefully cite them. We do not do OR. We do not do our own synthesis, but we use the synthesis created by RS. We want that type of synthesis in our articles, otherwise they are just a listing of disconnected, dry, facts. I understand these things. I helped write some of these policies. I also don't understand all of them perfectly. Nobody does, especially since they are continually evolving. "Rampant speculations"? We may not have read the same sources. We're still trying to figure out how they fit together, because they don't all agree. Otherwise, this is the talk page, not the article. Talk pages often contain allowed discussions and wordings which are never intended to become part of the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
None that I'm aware of. My understanding oh WP:UNDUE is that articles should reflect "in length" views expressed by RS. There are no RS saying the dossier claims are true. There are several RS saying Steele is an all around good guy and he would never make a fake dossier. The article reflects this, and there is an undercurrent of a "tone" that the reader should actually believe the dossier claims are true. Elements on the talk page indicate that some editors certainly believe this and want the article to be even stronger in this tone. Then we have analysis from domain experts that opine that from the structure of the dossier, it's sources lead them to believe the dossier has no credibility whatsoever. It's this last point which have raised the "undue" flag. AFAIK there are no domain experts who believe the dossier's claims have merit.

Further, sources mention that because the POTUS and POTUS-elect were briefed on the dossier it should be taken seriously which our article reflects. But in reality, sources that touch upon why they were briefed explicitly mention the intelligence community did not want POTUS, POTUS-ELECT to be caught off guard because the intelligence community knew the dossier was already widely disseminated and in possession by many media outlets, politicians, etc. They knew the contents would be made public and the briefings were for that purpose. To what degree this article reflects that sentiment, I'll let others be the judge.That man from Nantucket (talk) 05:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment. The Gregory piece is an opinion piece published at Forbes. Forbes essentially hosts glorified blogs (written by "Forbes contributors") with little or no editorial oversight, not that the editorial oversight of Forbes is all that great to begin with, clickbait garbage that it is. So, I think this source should be essentially treated in the same way that we would treat a self-published source. It is fine as a primary source for the opinion of Gregory, but not an acceptable secondary source for an encyclopedia article. One of the reasons we do not normally use self-published/primary sources is that it is difficult to determine what weight to assign them. Maybe Gregory really is a great expert in evaluating intelligence dossiers, maybe not. But nothing about his article would allow us to make that determination. That requires reliable secondary sourcing. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
This suggestion seems contrary to policy. Actually your statement doesn't even really make sense: "It is fine as a primary source for the opinion of Gregory, but not an acceptable secondary source for an encyclopedia article." This completely misunderstands policy. All WP articles are encyclopedia articles, statements of opinion are quite proper for WP articles, and this article is in fact a secondary source published in an RS. Being an opinion piece or an RS-hosted blog doesn't make it a "primary" source, which I think is pretty clear from WP:PRIMARY and WP:RSOPINION. It just means we attribute the opinion to Gregory and not the Forbes editorial voice.Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 16:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I think it is you that completely misunderstand policy. Encyclopedia articles are to be based on secondary sources, per WP:PSTS, not (self-published) primary sources (from the policy against original research). There is little doubt that the source is reliable as a source for the opinion of the author (WP:RSOPINION, a guideline), but since it is not a secondary source, it is impossible to determine what WP:WEIGHT to assign that opinion (a policy). It is just the opinion of some person, and does not represent a "significant viewpoint" as described in the neutral point of view policy. Specifically, "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." In this case, the view is that of a single person (Gregory), and obvious "tiny minority" of one.
Also, to counter the claim that Forbes.com is a "secondary source published in an RS", whatever that means, no Forbes.com not automatically a WP:RS; it is listed at WP:PUS. But this is missing the point. No one has argued that the Forbes.com is not reliable for the opinion of Gregory. I believe in this case, we can be fairly sure that the Forbes.com blog was actually written by Paul Gregory, and that the views and opinions presented there no doubt are those of Paul Gregory. But simply being written up in a blog (even a "published in an RS" blog) does not mean that the opinion of the blogger should be represented in an encyclopedia article. We don't reference Paul Krugman's OpEd column every time he writes up his opinion. That requires secondary sources to determine what weight to give those viewpoints. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
It is a secondary source. Full stop. Go read the definition of secondary sources: "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." This is precisely what we are talking about.
Your views regarding how to gauge a "tiny minority" are absurd and they would allow the removal of all opinion pieces by a single named author simply because the single author is only one person. I note with great emphasis that the example given for "tiny minority" views on the WP:DUE policy page is that of the Flat earth hypothesis. Attempting to invoke the concept here, for published expert commentary in a very very mainstream source, is silly. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 19:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
You are simply wrong in your interpretation of the source as a secondary source as defined by policy. Your interpretation of policy is such that any opinion written anywhere is automatically given a voice, regardless of publication venue, credentials, etc. Self-published opinion columns are not, and have never been, WP:RS reliable secondary sources for statements of fact. Sure, they're reliable sources for the opinions of those who wrote them, but they are not considered to be reliable as factual sources. So, what must be established instead is the standard of, "Why is the opinion of this individual significant, and worthy of coverage in an encyclopedia article about the subject?" That is (and always has been) determined by secondary coverage, not primary coverage. Blogs published by Forbes.com, no matter how hard we wish they were, do not rise to this standard. Sorry. Take it to a noticeboard if you disagree. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
No, I don't even come close to thinking that, and this source is NOT self published. When someone who is an expert in the relevant field has an analysis published in a mainstream source, that is quite fit for inclusion even if the opinion is stated by the source to be that of the author. In any event, it's clear that other pieces that you'd describe as "self published primary sources" are being used in the article to substantiate the opinions of their authors, including other Forbes contributors. And there's nothing wrong with that, because opinion and analysis are a big part of WP articles, and it's all proper per RSOPINION.
And, in point of actual fact, while you haven't said boo to justify your claim that Gregory's view is somehow that of a "tiny minority", the same guidelines you're citing actually provide a test for gauging the prevalence of an opinion.
We establish that a view is a majority view by citation to reference texts, and we establish that a view is a significant minority view by citation to prominent adherents of the view. So we look at Gregory's credentials and experience, and we see that, yes, he's actually rather prominent, test met, inclusion proper, QED. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 20:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't see anyone suggest we use Gregory as an unattributed source. It is clearly opinion, and no one is saying we should use his opinion in Wikipedia's voice. As for his opinion bring undue, that risible. His background clearly indicates he has domain expertise, and his opinion is worthy of inclusion as no one has demonstrated that his opinions are in the minority -- precisely because there are no opinions, much less RS, that have been presented which counter his findings. Is anyone suggesting his opinion is WP:FRINGE? Prove it.That man from Nantucket (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Once more, Forbes.com is a well-known content farm, that has very effectively monotized blogs. From our perspective, we might generously think of the Gregory piece an opinion article. The onus is not on editors to "show that his opinions are in the minority", which is a ridiculous standard. Viewpoints worth including in an encyclopedia article are expected to be covered by secondary sources. So, not just in the original blog, but by other sources as well. From these sources, we are able (in good cases) to establish the neutral point of view. In other words, I can say it is undue weight. The onus is on you to prove that his opinion is not (by providing secondary sources), not the other way around. Sorry boss, them's the rules. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Your belief that it is UNDUE has been rebutted, is wrong, and is in the minority. Your comments regarding Forbes are belied by what WP:PUS actually says about Forbes, and your claims on the propriety of using opinion articles are also contrary to the WP:RSOPINION and WP:IRS guidelines themselves. Gregory's credentials are established and his attributed opinion is proper for inclusion with citation to the Forbes piece because all sourcing and other requirements are satisfied.
You are offering a stream-of-consciousness rant that is substantially contrary to the policy and guideline text I'm citing. You're not even attempting to argue based on actual policy and guidelines, such as by arguing that Gregory doesn't meet the test for significant minority viewpoints. Here, there isn't even a clearly demonstrable majority view and yet you insist on excluding Gregory as a "tiny minority" view based on the flimsiest and most laughable pretense of an argument, and one that would justify removing virtually all references to opinion articles from Wikipedia.
"Sorry boss", as you say, but you are simply experiencing a clear case of just not liking it. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 22:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
You might want to take a look at the RSN archives. Forbes/Sites are self-published blogs. While Forbes does some vetting on its contributor's, it has no editorial policy regarding anything published by a non-staff contributor once they are up and running. So they are treated as self-published blogs. This means for a BLP they need to satisfy the BLPSPS criteria. You flat out cant use anything Gregory publishes regarding Trump himself. Even attributed. On the dossier itsself on a BLP? Its an economics expert talking about the validity of an intelligence dossier to shed doubt on its veracity (and by extension, Trumps actions). Is the author an expert on intelligence/spying? His qualifications all appear to be in economics (in relation to Russia) and that is what he has been published on. The only part about that linked article that I would be happy supporting is the information regarding Rosneft. Anything else is out of his expertise. Feel free to take the Forbes/Sites question to RSN if you think otherwise, but it comes down to 'Is the author qualified to opine on this?'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Its an economics expert talking about the validity of an intelligence dossier to shed doubt on its veracity (and by extension, Trumps actions) Well, yes he is an economic expert on Russia. Forbes also seems to think he has intelligence bona fides and from his CV and that seems justified. But your "by extension, Trump's actions" arugment makes no sense. Gregory is opining on the dossier's validity, not it's content. This isn't even close to a BLP concern. However, you are correct in that what we should be concerned with is his qualifications to speak on intelligence matters. Everything else is a red-herring.That man from Nantucket (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

As I've already said, we need secondary sources to determine whether Gregory's opinion is due weight. We shouldn't have to look up his CV to make that determination ourselves. Furthermorw, even if we made the determination that Gregory has expertise in the relevant areas of intelligence analysis, arguable we would still need secondary sources in order to present this viewpoint neutrally. If no sources place Gregory's views into the larger context of assessing the authenticity of these documents, then neither should we. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

As I've already said, we need secondary sources to determine whether Gregory's opinion is due weight No. We as editors use discretion about what opinions to use in articles. As for Gregory, no one has been able to show that his opinion is in the minority. If we had dozens of opinions, and they were contrary to Gregory, we would be able to determine that. But we don't have that. The burden is on you to show that his opinion is not in the mainstream.That man from Nantucket (talk) 19:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely wrong. Wikipedia relies on reliable, third-party secondary sources, representing mainstream scholarship in an area. A self-published blog, even by an intelligence expert (which I'm not really convinced Gregory passes) subject to minimal editorial oversight from a third-rate rag of a publication, and without any peer review, is obvious undue weight unless it is discussed by secondary sources. I don't have to prove his is a minority opinion as defin ed in NPOV. All opinions are minority opinions, unless they are discussed by third parties in relation to a topic. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
That man from Nantucket, I beg to differ. You wrote: "As for Gregory, no one has been able to show that his opinion is in the minority. If we had dozens of opinions, and they were contrary to Gregory, we would be able to determine that. But we don't have that."
Actually we do "have that". We have the CIA and FBI. That's not TWO people, that's two whole AGENCIES, in fact 17 agencies, with hundreds and thousands of people. We also have multiple journalists and foreign intelligence agencies, all who see Steele as a very reliable source. The latest news is that more and more is being confirmed. Gregory is one of a few independent individuals who have expressed strong doubts about the entire dossier. Their minority opinion is already mentioned. I've already expressed my opinion why, because of some serious logical flaws, his voice can't be trusted, and therefore he's not a RS. We lose nothing by not including him, since the other dissenters are mentioned.
This is a similar situation to the climate denial situation. We have 97% of all published climate scientists in agreement that anthropogenic global warming/climate change is very real. Then we have a very small number of dissenters, mostly non-scientists and non-climate scientists, whose voices get far too much weight by mentioning each one of them individually in the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Let's not make that mistake here. Just because we can count the skeptics on the fingers of one or two hands (clearly the minority opinion), does not give them more weight than the collected forces of all the intelligence communities (clearly the majority opinion). Both views are covered in the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
This is nonsense subject matter analysis coupled with nonsense WP policy analysis and exaggeration. As an initial matter, your supposedly "logical" analysis is bad; you've said earlier in the page that Steele's going into hiding demonstates both the authenticity and truth of the dossier, which leaps to so many conclusions I can't keep track. And you can't "rebut" a source to call it "unreliable", both because the WP:RS policy doesn't have anything to do with editor opinions of whether attributed opinions are correct, and also becase Gregory's an expert on Russian state security and you're not. You have also misstated intelligence community and journalistic reception of the dossier. Steele didn't think FBI was taking dossier seriously enough and went public. CIA holding at arms' length. Agencies investigating but that's it. Newspapers skeptical so they've hardly even spoken about it directly. NY Times generously describes it as "sensational, unverified". This supposed "97% consensus" that it's legitimate and true is an invention on your part. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 08:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
1. Most of what you say I simply don't accept. You're great on spin, and that's about it. There is no point in carrying on a fruitless discussion with you. You have expressed your opinions, and I have expressed mine. Let's just leave it at that.
2. The 97% is certainly not my "invention". I get my opinions from reading RS. Read our great article Scientific opinion on climate change. You'll find the 97% figure there several times, with RS. If you're a climate change denier you'll likely doubt it, but the RS tell a different story. I don't have the luxury of doubting RS. I must change my opinions and bring them into line with those sources. That's my modus operandi. Some things are a matter of opinion (like much of our discussion above), so there's room for variance, but with concrete statistics, and concrete facts, I must accept them until better facts replace them. I follow the scientific method. One could discuss whether that 97% statistic is true, but that's not our purpose here. I believe it is, but the important point right here is that it is not my "invention". I got it from RS. I hope you can see my point. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Endeavor to make reading comprehension your friend. If you're lucky, logic may soon follow. I'm not talking about climate change, simply throwing water on your fanciful and vague suggestion that there is some kind of "97% consensus" about anything regarding this little affair. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 17:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
That makes no sense at all. You're denying you did what you had just done. Are you DJT himself? He's the only one I know who consistently does exactly that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
No, you just have difficulties with reading comprehension. You tried to compare this debate to the climate science debate, implying that there is some kind of clear or well-supported consensus about any factual claim whatsoever about this dossier. No such consensus exists; the only firm conclusions about this material are that not much is known about it, thus the analogy was dumb and wrong. It also seems pretty likely that you intended it as an insult to myself and other editors here. Cheers. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 16:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Gregory is an Hoover Institution fellow who has written numerous books based on research in the Soviet secret archives revealed in the 1990s, including on topics directly related to the Soviet state security apparatus and politics. Examples include an original analysis of the workings of Soviet state security organs under Lenin and Stalin, an exposition of the the Soviet administrative command system; he has written more generally about Politburo wrangling resulting in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and Stalinist political intrigue; and served on the editorial board of a seven volume documentary series on the Gulag.


The repatedly mentioned but not-actually-discussed non-policy remarks in the PUS essay say to actually look at the credentials of the author being cited. This guy's a clear expert and a sentence attributing his opinion is harmless. These incredibly punctilious sourcing demands are extraordinary and silly. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 08:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Gregory is an economist, and were his forbes site being cited for economic material I would have no problem under the SPS exemption as an expert. His opinion is being touted as sigificant for an intelligence dossier, despite not being an intelligence specialist, nor being widely cited for it, known for it, nor being employed in it. At best he is a more well-informed observer, so you need to make a case that his opinion matters as a self-published source. On the validity of an intelligence dossier? So far I have yet to see anything that would persuade me his opinion is a reflection of the majority position, and it is highly unlikely a self-published economist would be cited for a minority position on intellence without compelling reason to. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Under the WP:V policy: "For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources." No, those publications do not show that Gregory is an expert in evaluating intelligence dossiers, as would be evidence by peer reviewed works manifesting his expertise in the specific area of intelligence analysis, sufficient to make an exception to this general rule. The footnote at WP:V is also relevant: "Please do note that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources." So Gregory should not be cited under the guidance of the WP:V policy, at least not as a source for the factual claim about whether the dossier is authentic. He can be cited as a reliable source for the opinion of Paul Gregory, but I see no evidence in secondary that his opinion is a significant one worthy of inclusion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Publication, not peer review, is the sign of expertise according to the SPS policy. Gregory has written substantially on the Russian state security apparatus using declassified Soviet source documents. The Hoover Institution Press is not a vanity publisher.
As I already argued, the fact of Gregory's prominence shows that the view is significant enough for inclusion per the explicit terms of the due weight policy.
And in any event, you folks are not being entirely above-board in dismissing Forbes as "unreliable". What the non-policy, non-guideline user essay on potentially unreliable sources actually has to say about Forbes is that it's not really a content farm, and that its contributors are professionally vetted and will usually qualify under the self-published source guidelines. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
You've not sufficiently made the case that an exception be made to our usual sourcing policies. I think we're done here. Go to a noticeboard if you disagree. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
(EC) Well I am glad you have accepted its considered self-published. Firstly, 'Usually' means 'not automatic'. You need to make a credible argument they qualify under the self-published source guideline. Currently you have failed to do so to mine or others satisfaction. If you look at past discussions at RSN - situations where Forbes/sites contributors are accepted tend to require far more 'expertise' in the area that has been demonstrated here. Gregory would be a walk-in for most economic arguments, problematic for anything else except general Russia-related material. Secondly arguing Gregory's 'prominence' shows the view is significant is a non-starter. If it was a significant view you would have non-self-published sources that could be used instead. Self-publishing is *not* used to demonstrate notability because the act of self-publishing means whatever the author feels is significant is what they cover. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Please pay attention to what we are talking about. The "self published" Forbes material—which is well outside the usual meaning of the term—is not being used to demonstrate "notability". Rather it is his books on Russian state security, administration, and insider politics. Books published by Hoover Institute Press, such as Gregory's original analysis of the workings of Soviet state security organs under Lenin and Stalin are simply not self-published. The fact of Gregory's third-party publication on Russian state security subjects shows that he is considered an expert on them. That's exactly what WP:SPS demands.
"Usually" means "in most circumstances". Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 19:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what "usually" we're referring to here. Gregory is an economist, with expertise in the Soviet Union, and I would have no problem citing his column for uncontroversial facts about the Soviet economy. That's generally the (very limited) capacity in which we are permitted to use sources like this. But this is not that: Gregory's opinion does not appear to be corroborated in secondary sources, it is outside his clear area of expertise, and it is a (controversual) opinion. But, by all means go to WP:NPOVN for another opinion on the matter. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
The claim is not outside Gregory's established expertise as his publication history on Russian state security make clear. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 17:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Forbes/sites *is* a self-published blog with little/no editorial oversight. You keep saying it is not does not make it so. It vets contributors as a gateway then leaves them to publish their own stuff. "Usually" in "most circumstances" editors are wise enough to cite forbes/sites commentators within their realm of expertise. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
It is well outside the usual meaning of "self-published" material as used by WP editors, which is what I just said. Pretending otherwise accomplishes nothing other than puffing up the byte count of this conversation. You're treating a borderline case as if it were a textbook case, and as the user essay makes clear, author credentials are what's important, and Gregory's credentials establish him as an expert on Russian state security as well as other aspects of Russian society. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 17:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Arbitrary break

@Sławomir Biały: opinions do not need to be corroborated secondary sources. Full stop. They need to be attributed, and not used in Wikipedia's voice. No one has been able to establish Gregory's opinion is WP:FRINGE, therefore we have no undue/weight issues. The only thing barring using his attributed opinion is whether or not he has the qualifications that his opinion on this matter is suitable for this article. FCAYS makes a good case that Gregory is indeed qualified. That man from Nantucket (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Opinions in reliable secondary sources do not need to be corroborated. Self-published opinions need justification. Forbes/sites is *not* a secondary source, has consistantly been found not to be at RSN, so any opinions cited to it need to be either from a recognised expert in the area or justified (as they reflect the significant viewpoints as sourced to reliable sources for example). We dont cite opinions of just anyone just because we can attribute them, or there would be hundreds of articles full of attributed opinions of complete loons. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
We either need reliable secondary sources that discuss Gregory's opinions in relation to other established opinions, in order to satisfy WP:NPOV, or sources establishing that Gregory is an expert on the Russia dossier (e.g., peer-reviewed publications on that subject by the Hoover Institute) in order to meet the narrow exceptions afforded by WP:SPS. Neither of these conditions are met. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Once again I will state this in clear English: this statement of policy is simply false. WP:SPS refers to publication by third parties and it does not refer to peer review of those published works. Rather, peer review is a basis for evaluating RS's that deal with academic topics for which peer-reviewed analysis actually exists. Don't confuse the two.
The fact that Hoover Institution press has repeatedly published Gregory on Russian state security matters shows he is an expert on them and should be considered reliable. The idea that allowing sources of this pedigree would burst the seams of typical WP articles is frankly ludicrous, and I'll say once again that the demands being made here to establish this material, both in terms of editors insisting on questionable application of policies intended for other circumstances, editors relying on obvious and repeated misstatements of user essays, or simply inventing policy requirements that don't exist, are extraordinary. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 17:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but where is it established that he is an expert in assessing contemporary intelligence? Please indicate with a secondary source, thanks. Also, please give a secondary source that places Gregory's self-published opinion in a wider context, so that we can more clearly determine whether this is undue weight. You are welcome to drop by the neutral point of view noticeboard if you require help. I think we have reached the end of productive discussion here. Thanks, Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I won't respond any further to demands that aren't supported by policy; that's bad and wrong and destructive of the project. You may be right that the potential for fruitful discussion here is limited. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 17:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
No one is arguing that the self-published source is not a reliable source for the opinion of Paul Gregory. You are looking at the wrong policy. Swing by WP:NPOVN. We'll set you straight, in case you still have questions about Wikipedia policies. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Jesus, the straw men come thick and fast. Of course you're not arguing Gregory can't be trusted to state his own opinion. What childish commentary; please listen to yourself.
Since Gregory is acceptable as a source on the subject matter itself per the terms of SPS and his view is entitled to weight per the terms of WP:WEIGHT—neither of which comes within a country mile of justifying the demands you've just made—it looks like the only policy you could teach me about is WP:IAR, which has always been a very stupid and misguided policy IMHO. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 20:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Since I think perhaps we're not communicating clearly, let me see if I can break down where you are coming from. You say the Gregory piece is RS, and from this conclude that we can cite Gregory for his opinion. I hope you can easily see how that comes across as "The Gregory piece is reliable for Gregory's opinion." That is quite true. But merely being verifiably the opinion of someone does not create a guarantee of inclusion. Indeed, we certainly do not ordinarily permit posting of one-off opinions that are not substantially reported by secondary sources. Having written about state security under Lenin certainly does not convey that the subject is an expert in contemporary Russian security apparatus. And, at any rate, a reasonable standard for inclusion of content in the social sciences is at least some kind of peer review, just like the natural sciences. In the natural sciences, we really do demand secondary sources. If the standard is different in the social sciences, please point to the relevant guideline. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
My repeated statements that the opinion should be included per the terms and guidelines that appear under WP:DUE, and my explicitly referencing those guidelines, should put the lie to any pretense that you have been confused by what I was saying. Perhaps you just weren't paying attention? Anyway I'm not sure what social science you're referring to in your comment. Is reading contemporary (but not Soviet-era) Russian intelligence dossiers an academic discipline supported by peer-reviewed scholarship? Perhaps nobody's a Russian security expert unless they've been published by Army War College (preferably in the last decade)? No matter—I'm dedicated to the WP project, but I simply don't care about this article subject and have no further desire to climb sandbags or endure sarcasm and abuse. Nor do I doubt that this spurious view would receive many enthusiastic !votes at a noticeboard discussion, together with reams of demonstrable policy misstatements. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 17:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
"Perhaps nobody's a Russian security expert unless they've been published by Army War College (preferably in the last decade)". Who knows? This is why we need secondary sources to establish weight, or else we open the floodgates for anyone with an opinion who has ever published a paper on anything to do with Russia ever. Good grief I've actually published a peer reviewed paper about Russia. Does that make me an expert qualified to opine here? Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
As I already correctly stated, this idea is ludicrous and premised entirely on fiction. Allowing the opinion of someone who has published multiple books on Russian state security certainly does not require we "open the floodgates for anyone with an opinion who has ever published a paper on anything to do with Russia ever", as anybody with a shred of honesty and the barest rudiments of an intellect could easily tell you. People who have had multiple books on Russian state security published by a very reputable publisher simply don't grow on trees, so the classic canard of the spurious floodgates/slippery slope argument is the same classic canard it usually is. And of course your term paper or thesis or whatever doesn't get you into the world of people whose opinions on the subject are taken seriously on Russian state security, because it doesn't come close to establishing you as an expert on Russian state security (unlike Gregory's publication history). Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 19:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Since you believe that Gregory's opinion on this dossier is to be taken seriously, I assume that you have the secondary sources (referring to Gregory's opinion) to back that up. Also, I am going to assume that in the statement "anybody with a shred of honesty and the barest rudiments of an intellect could easily tell you", you intend a deliberate personal attack? If so, I would like to remind you that there is a behavioral guideline against this. Since I see no further benefit in putting up with your abuse and bullying, I will start a formal RfC. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
No, it's intended as a statement of objective fact. Nobody could believe that the two are even remotely equivalent, so it's clear you don't believe it. Anyway this discussion, such as it has been, was littered with coy little PA's by you, so I'm dismissing your current kvetching as croc tears. At bottom you are insisting on taking language from a policy intended to keep articles on scientific and other academic topics free from mention of objectively disproven, extremely well-known falsehoods such as the flat-Earth concept and applying to a scenario it was plainly never intended to apply to. But even operating on that fundamentally misguided basis, the policies you're citing don't provided a basis to refuse inclusion. Gregory is an expert on the subject per SPS and thus his "self-published" opinions from Forbes should be considered reliable, again per SPS. Because he can be considered an RS on the subject per SPS, it doesn't matter for purposes of WP:DUE that the source is not secondary; and because his experience and credentials show that he is "prominent" per WP:DUE, we have evidence that his view is that of at least a significant minority. Significant minority opinions don't get excluded from the WP articles to which they are relevant. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 19:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
We either need reliable secondary sources that discuss Gregory's opinions in relation to other established opinions, in order to satisfy WP:NPOV. That is patently false. There is no policy, nor guideline stating anything remotely like what you suggest is required. As editors, we use our discretion to decide when opinions are warranted for inclusion in an article. We certainly don't need secondary RS to analyze an opinion for us to cite an opinion. So either stop making this claim, or provide direct quotes to back your claims. Your opinion on this has been challenged multiple times, and repeating yourself without evidence is now crossing the line of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHATThat man from Nantucket (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Apparently you missed the many times I referred to the neutral point of view policy, and specifically the part about assigning undue weight to minority opinions. Without any secondary sources whatsoever, there is no way to establish a neutral point of view here. I'm beginning to think IDIDNTHEARTHAT is relevant. I've repeatedly invited you and Factchecker to go and seek outside opinions. But I suspect you know that this will not end well if you take me up on that. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Just when I've think I've seen the worst of Wikipedia, someone surprises me. Your attempt to manufacture policy is laughable. WP:UNDUE exists so as not to create a false equivalence amongst reliable sources. Your interpretation would invalidate the use of virtually any attributed opinion on Wikiepdia. Rest assured when I get the time I will solicit opinions of other editors. That man from Nantucket (talk) 03:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE is used all the time to exclude attributed opinions, which you would come up against a lot more if you edited in the fringe areas. You might want to read WP:FRINGE to see how minority opinions are treated in relation to the NPOV policy. Essentially an opinion that cant be demonstrated to reflect a significant minority opinion (or majority) would be unlikely to be used, more so if self-published unless used in a primary source context. In relation to this case: You can either demonstrate the self-published blog opinion is by a recognised expert and so exempt from the usual self-published rules (which so far I cannot see has been done), or you can demonstrate its not undue because it reflects a significant majority/minority opinion - which would require reliable secondary sources to indicate it is so, or at least coverage in secondary sources of said opinion. Again I cant see this has been done. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
The majority/minority aspects of FRINGE are usually centered around things like peer reviewed studies and not editorials. Those fights (I don't have the patience to muck with those) boil down to stating facts in Wikipedia's voice. Without looking I'm certain the climate change suite of articles bumps up against FRINGE all the time. Minority views should be given due weight, which is none at all or included to indicate their is a minority opinion. With regards to Gregory, you are correct in that we need to determine if his expertise is sufficient in the area of Russian intelligence gathering to warrant including his opinion. Otherwise the article could be full of baseless opinions. Looking at the opinions we have now, several of them are suspect already. Voir dire the expert? By all means yes. We look at their body of work to make such determinations.That man from Nantucket (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

First page of dossier; various policies

Latest comment: 7 years ago18 comments10 people in discussion

The first page of the dossier is displayed in the article. It contains salacious BLP claims which do not appear in the article, and these claims, so far as I can tell, can only be sourced to low-quality sources. And most importantly, an extremely wide community noticeboard discussion has not yielded any consensus that the claims in the dossier are sufficiently verifiable and encyclopedic to include.

Simply put, this is an abuse of WP's image policy, bypassing reliable sourcing, consensus, and other policy requirements and recommendations. I am boldly removing the image. I have no doubt that it will be restored in mere seconds, but IMO that should not be done without comment here. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 18:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

No it really isn't, and you can't even read the page as it is. The image helps clarify that it is written dossier. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 02:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
If there are objections to this page, then another page can always be used. FallingGravity 17:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Opposed to using image I can make out some of the claims which so far are not in RSs so its a BLP violation. We could blur the words, that would work. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
{{Non-free reduce}} will get this done and is required for non-free images anyway. However, I'm not sure it is necessary in this case so I'm not doing it myself. Thincat (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. The subject of this article is the Russia dossier, and obviously the contents of that dossier are relevant and encyclopedic information. However, as an image this document is of too low a resolution to convey any encyclopedically relevant information to a reader, who would be much better served by a link to the document in full. If such a link can be provided that meets a reasonable standard of sourcing (e.g., that avoids possible COPYVIO problems), I think a link should be included in the article. (While we cannot and should not report on those contents as true, unless corroborated by reliable secondary sources, it is absurd to suggest that we cannot include links to the document itself because of possible BLP violations contained therein.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Image Its the subject of the article and provides the reader with some understanding that the dossier is a multiple page written document. I do support finding a higher quality image. Also, if there was a way to deal with copyright problems, it would be better to link the actual .PDF of the dossier.Casprings (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree that it helps the reader identify it as a written dossier, but why does it have to be of legible quality to do that? I suggest lowering the quality is a far better idea than raising it.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Same issue as linking to the dossier itself. It cannot be posted. PackMecEng (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support image per Casprings. We're being far too sensitive here. RS repeatedly link to this. The image shouldn't be a problem. Maybe a different page would be less problematic? How about page 30, since it's not salacious, but is the one with the most corroboration: Promises made and fulfilled, source murdered, meeting documented but denied (why lie if innocent?), cover up attempted but exposed, exact amount of money transferred to Trump's friend's account in Cayman Islands, etc.   -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Reliable sources may link to it, but that doesn't mean that we should show it here, it is clearly a BLP violation, no excuse is sufficient to resolve that issue.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment Nothing that can't be brought in via attributed RS commentary can be brought in via displaying the underlying allegations in an image. That's backdoor OR, i.e. highlighting "facts" that an editor wants to steer the reader towards, in order to point to a claim or conclusion that can't otherwise be put in the article because of poor sourcing or other problems. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 17:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Blurring to be unlegible would be acceptable. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose using image, claims that you can't read it are false, I just read the page and it contains unverified BLP claims about both Trump and Hillary Clinton. Reducing the resolution or blurring to be unlegible is a solution that would satisfy the support concerns above that it helps show that it is a written dossier.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Blurring to be unlegible would be acceptable. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)`
  • Support different image Most of the dossier's pages contain boring claims. Any one of these would do to illustrate the dossier. FallingGravity 07:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Then why does it need to be changed? You can hardly read what the page says, and this is simply the first page so it seems logical to show it. It doesn't even say anything special. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
It's simply a fact that the image is readable so it is pointless to insist otherwise. The readable image contains salacious claims not in the article. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 16:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

US investigators corroborate some aspects of the Russia dossier

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Important: http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/politics/russia-dossier-update/

Second RS confirms report: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russian-dossier-on-trump-gaining-credibility-with-law-enforcement/?ftag=CNM-00-10aad7b&ftag=CNM-00-10aab7e&linkId=34382555 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs) 01:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Business Insider has examined the dossier's timeline of claims. FallingGravity 17:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Correct me if I am wrong... but unnamed 'US officials' or 'investigators' have corroborated 'some' of the details of the dossier, though they don't say which specific conversations between foreign officials are corroborated and that none of the actual 'salacious' material has been corroborated. What a non-story that is being spun as a confirmation of the whole dossier, when it is literally anything but.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't see where it says that this "confirms the whole dossier," though I don't think the salacious claims aren't really that important to make a story. FallingGravity 08:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the salacious claims are of secondary importance here, although their use as a blackmail tool are still a serious matter. The timeline of Trump's ties with Russia lines up with allegations of conspiracy and misconduct covers other partially corroborated matters which are much more serious, things which could be considered treason and a remarkably successful attempt to undermine the democratic voting process, enough to win the presidency. The charges are serious enough that no informed person (that excludes many of DJT's supporters who only read Breitbart, Infowars, and Fox) would be surprised to wake up to news that Trump had been placed under house arrest and Flynn was holed up at the Russian embassy seeking asylum, with federal marshals right outside the door and his house being ransacked.
For our purposes, the factuality ("truth") is of less importance than the verifiable fact that numerous RS are making these charges. That makes it our duty to document what they are saying. Failure to do so would be censorship and violate many policies. Naturally we must use "allegations"-type language, but we must do it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
"remarkably successful attempt to undermine the democratic voting process, enough to win the presidency." Ha. Ha. Ha. Your comments, in various respects, are laughable. Factchecker_atyourservice 14:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment: opinion of Paul Gregory

Latest comment: 7 years ago39 comments24 people in discussion
There is strong consensus to omit the text or more precisely it's material on concerns of violations of WP:UNDUE and WP:RS.Winged Blades Godric 06:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Economist Paul Roderick Gregory wrote a contributed column to Forbes.com, a site that is listed at Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources, claiming that the dossier is fake. The following text was added to the article [Note from Centrify, another involved editor: please note this text is not currently proposed and the discussions about this material did not focus on this text.]

Critical observers noted the amateurish character of the dossier. Paul Roderick Gregory, a Hoover Institution economist contends that it was written, not by the alleged author, Steele, but more likely by a Russian intelligence officer.[1]

It was removed as undue weight. Does the proposed text place WP:UNDUE weight on the opinion of Paul Gregory? Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Gregory, Paul Roderick. "The Trump Dossier Is Fake -- And Here Are The Reasons Why".

Survey

  • Undue weight. Firstly, columns by Forbes contributors are ordinarily treated as self-published sources, since they are not subject to editorial control. Gregory has written books about the political economy of the Soviet Union, but there is no evidence that he has any particular expertise in assessing the legitimacy of contemporary intelligence documents such as the one under discussion. Moreover, I also feel that it is slightly outside our purview as editors to determine whether Gregory's credentials make his opinion acceptable under the exception provided by WP:SPS. Exceptions to this are ordinarily obvious, not several degrees of separation from the subject matter at hand. If Gregory had built a career out of publishing peer reviewed studies of intelligence documents and forgeries, then I think his opinion about this being a forgery would more clearly fall under the narrow expert exception of SPS. But having written books, however well-regarded, about the Soviet economy, seems too far removed from the subject of this article to make an exception to the usual guideline.
Secondly, the essence of WP:UNDUE is not to give minority opinions undue prominence. Gregory's opinions, as far as I have been able to determine, is that of one and only one commentator, a "minority" in a very literal sense. Without secondary sources that place his opinion into a larger context, by comparing and contrasting with other opinions, I do not think Wikipedia editors are able to say what prominence his opinions actually have. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • A brief sentence is due weight. With careful attribution, of course. Noting initially that the Forbes listing under the user essay WP:PUS mostly consists of caveats that set it apart from other publications on the list, it's also troubling but unsurprising that this RFC appears to lead with a straw man argument.
Nobody is arguing that Gregory's books about the Soviet economy make him qualified to analyze Russian intelligence documents. Rather, it is his published works about Russian state security, based on 10 years worth of analysis of declassified documents from the Soviet archives in the 1990s.
To begin I'm just going to repost an earlier comment which summarizes some of Gregory's publication history on Russian state security.

Gregory is an Hoover Institution fellow who has written numerous books based on research in the Soviet secret archives revealed in the 1990s, including on topics directly related to the Soviet state security apparatus and politics. Examples include an original analysis of the workings of Soviet state security organs under Lenin and Stalin, an exposition of the the Soviet administrative command system; he has written more generally about Politburo wrangling resulting in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and Stalinist political intrigue; and served on the editorial board of a seven volume documentary series on the Gulag.

It is admitted that Gregory is primarily an economist, but people can be experts in multiple disciplines or areas of inquiry, especially where, as here, there is significant overlap. WP:SPS allows sources to be considered reliable on a subject when they have been published on that subject by third parties; since Gregory's opinion in the Forbes piece can be considered reliable per SPS, it doesn't matter for purposes of WP:DUE that the piece itself isn't in a secondary source. Actually, it's not even clear that WP:DUE supports total exclusion of any editorial view by an expert; the "tiny minority" language in WP:DUE provides a basis for total exclusion of obvious scientific falsehoods (the flat-Earth theory is given as an example), but there doesn't seem to be any basis for removing an expert editorial opinion on non-objective subjects simply because the identical opinion hasn't been published by others. Meanwhile, the baseline rule is that minority opinions are supposed to be reflected in relevant WP articles.
And as a small aside, though User:Sławomir Biały objects that Gregory's expertise on intelligence matters is outdated, I don't see any basis for the claim that, as either a matter of fact or of WP policy, having cut one's teeth in the Soviet era somehow makes one unqualified to comment on the Russia of 20-30 years later. Actually Gregory insists just the opposite in his Forbes piece ("Despite the greater openness of contemporary Russia, we are back to Kremlinology to learn how Putin’s kleptocracy works.") Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 20:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • due weight, with attribution. Gregory did not simply dismiss the claim, his rather lengthy article provided the reasons why he thinks so, with arguments reasonably being within his expertise. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Undue weight. Gregory's credibility is seriously damaged when he uses a nonsense argument in an attempt to weaken the force of the dossier's claims to be a legitimate document, made in good faith, using unverified sources: "There is no record; no informant is identified by name or by more than a generic title." Duh! It can't be any other way. This fact does not weaken the legitimacy of the document at all. If we could be 100% certain that the document was fully accurate, it would still cite its sources in this anonymous manner. This argument is a garbage argument, and the fact he uses it seriously damages his credibility, making him an unreliable source of opinion. Why did he use that argument? Was he drunk? Is he getting Alzheimer's? It makes no sense at all. -- BullRangifer (talk) 08:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. If Gregory's opinion is mentioned in the article, it can't be introduced with a sentence like "Critical observers noted the amateurish character of the dossier." That sentence appears to accept the claim of amateurishness in Wikipedia's voice, which is an obvious violation of NPOV. The wording has to report the opinion without supporting it. A second error is writing "observers", plural, when only one observer is cited. Zerotalk 12:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I added a note to the original post above indicating that this text is not what has been discussed, and that nobody is proposing this particular text at this time. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 17:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • undue - Gregory is a contributor to Forbes, not a staffer. His expertise is apparently economics per our bio of him: Paul Roderick Gregory. His opinion on this matter is not important. Jytdog (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Brief mention is ok. Gregory has written previously about Russia and the Soviet Union, and this is an important criticism of the document. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Maybe, prefer alternative -- well maybe include this one with care to do attribution as WP:OPINION and possible WP:BIASED for any inclusion, but I'd actually prefer the alternative of including these views from better sources. The balance of WP:DUE to 'fairly represent all significant views in due proportion' *does* seem a bit lacking in disbelievers views at this Veracity section. I'll suggest that some of the "Response" items are doubting "Veracity" so could be moved up. (In particular that Trumps attorney was not in Prague matches a point in the Gregory text.) Gregory would seem too small/odd to source from except I see the article uses cites from other oddball small sources (NewsComAu, Mother Jones, Haareta, Independant, and Vanity fair,) and I think the dossier kind of tabloid piece lives down in lesser pubs and reddits and blogs also makes it seem semi-plausible to add Gregory. But I'd suggest instead generally trying to find more prominent sources for the same points on both sides would be a better way to do the WP:BALANCE and WP:DUE. So seek the Gregory article points from somewhere else. (Gregory article points as I see them are: 'fake', 'unverifiable', 'set in 2011 when makes no sense to have been assuming Trump would become president', 'implausible to give 10.5 Billion euro bribe before election just for a promise about sanctions', 'Cohen paying hackers in Prague is unlikely for him to let pass', and 'oddly vague about names'.) Probably anything 'questioning' or saying 'fake' will be in the vicinity. (post redone per request to revise so its understandable) Cheers, Markbassett (talk) 06:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Omit. I was originally kind of on the fence about it, but a few things changed my mind. (1) If this were a longer or in-depth piece by him, or if this were a more obscure topic where there weren't that many commentators who weighed in, I might include it. But this is an "immediate reaction" style piece in Forbes, and there is much more in-depth commentatory elsewhere. (2) Gregory is an economist and—notwithstanding his work on political economy in the USSR—is not primarily known as an expert in national security, international relations, or intelligence; and (3) events are fast-moving, and I think that while early commentary may not exactly have gone stale, it is likely to be superseded by later commentary. Neutralitytalk 09:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The arguments for inclusion (the author's expertise and reputation for integrity) are stronger than the arguments for exclusion (editor's personal analysis and the author's degree). That being said, it's undue because this is just one of hundreds of pieces by authors with WP articles on them about this. It introduces nothing novel to the discussion about the dossier. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Undue weight. A claim like this requires a solid reliable source, not something essentially self-published. Homunq (࿓) 19:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Omit. For the many reasons already given, self-published, non-expert, extraordinary claim. Pincrete (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Omit per others, and no reason to single out this opinion. May be more due if combined with others who have stated the same or similar things. As it is now, not really notable. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Include: a sentence or two. Lesser source offset by the author's qualifications: in addition to those detailed in the article he's on the advisory Board of the Kiev School of Economics and held visiting teaching appointments at Moscow State University. Argument could be made for expert under WP:IRS James J. Lambden (talk) 01:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Omit - If the contributed article were cited by a few other sources, it would meet WP:DUEWEIGHT. As it stands, it's little more than the opinion of someone who unconvincingly touts his own expertise in dossier debunking.- MrX 02:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Omit - Not a reliable secondary source, as a self-published blog (as forbes/sites contributors are) there is no evidence this opinion either reflects a significant minority or majority, or that the holder of the opinion is qualified to opine on intelligence matters. Only in death does duty end (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Include - Someone whose bio from Forbes reads as follows should be considered a qualified source for this dossier article: "I am a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, at Stanford, and energy fellow and Cullen Professor of Economics at the University of Houston. I am also a research professor at the German Institute for Economic Research Berlin. My specialties are Russia and Comparative Economics...I have written more than 20 books on economics, Russia and comparative economics. I blog at paulgregorysblog.blogspot.com". His blog is on Blogger, not Forbes. Forbes contributors are not reputable in the way that Forbes staff are, but his column shouldn't be considered a self-published blog. Forbes doesn't let just anyone write for them. If the Gregory contribution is retained, I recommend following the recommendation made by User Zero0000 (use neutral language to preface it).--FeralOink (talk) 08:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - The article currently has a Forbes contributor article as a reference, see citation 33. If it is acceptable and uncontested to have that article by a Forbes contributor ("Could this be the British MI6 agent behind the Trump FBI memos?") then the Gregory article is suitable for inclusion as well.--FeralOink (talk) 08:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Include A sentence or two with the right attribution. PackMecEng (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Do not include. This is a typical example when an opinion piece by someone barely notable to be included in WP was (mis)used to discredit widely published materials by a notable expert on the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Undue Summoned by bot On a topic as controversial as this one, we need strict adherence to the guideline about reliable sources. This piece was not subject to editorial review, and that, in my opinion, is that. In addition, it adds little to nothing to the article. Vanamonde (talk) 04:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Omit, per WP:DUE and WP:RS. Summoned by bot. Gregory is not nearly as notable as the other sources, hence the problem with weight. More importantly, this type of Forbes blog piece is not seriously edited or fact checked, hence doesn't meet WP:RS. (This shows in the piece: the most significant detail supporting the claim that the dossier resembles the Russian documents Gregory has seen on microfilm is that the names are in all caps -- as is frequently the style in FBI documents as well, see for example: [6] Even someone without serious knowledge of Western intelligence documents (e.g., me) might know that.). Finally, the Forbes piece appears to overstate Gregory's association with the Hoover Institution, which lists him as a "visiting fellow" [7] not a "research fellow," it's not even reliable on the subject of its own source. Having read the cited source, it weakens the statement that the citation is attempting to support. Chris vLS (talk) 06:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Just to restate the last point more clearly, if the statement in the article is true, then there are better sources and we should use those. Chris vLS (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

  • WP:UNDUE is not to give minority opinions - how come the opinion it is a fake is a minority? Staszek Lem (talk) 00:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The post by User:BullRangifer above highlights that much of the arguments that have been raised against inclusion center around incompetent editor analysis of the subject matter that is based on dubious pseudo-"logical" reasoning, and that purports to refute the claims by Gregory.
These arguments boil down to two categories of assertions by User:BullRangifer: (1) "My personal research and analysis show that this source cannot be trusted" and (2) "My personal research and analysis show that this source is wrong". Such meritless and inappropriate "analysis", even in instances where it is not nonsensical, is pointlessly unhelpful and irrelevant to sourcing, as policy makes clear, yet this talk page has been littered with thousands and thousands of words of it, including such gems as:
"I tend to see [Gregory] as unreliable because of some glaring errors."; :"I've already expressed my opinion why, because of some serious logical flaws, [Gregory's] voice can't be trusted, and therefore he's not a RS."; "Obviously Cohen [one of Gregory's sources] is an unreliable source for this matter because he will do anything to cover his ass. On a personal level it carries less-than-zero weight."; "This argument is a garbage argument, and the fact he uses it seriously damages Gregory's credibility."; "Everything points to this part of the dossier being accurate . . . This is all strong circumstantial evidence that this is true, and that Gregory is wrong, at least on this point."; "Gregory's own garbage argument about Steele's failure to name his sources absolutely destroys his credibility."; "This argument is a garbage argument, and the fact he uses it seriously damages his credibility, making him an unreliable source of opinion. Why did he use that argument? Was he drunk? Is he getting Alzheimer's? It makes no sense at all."
I assume the angry and childish character attacks on the source himself were just intended to foster a cordial editing environment here . . .
For what it's worth, and to borrow Bull's terminology, a great deal of the "analysis" Bull has offered here on the Talk page was, itself, illogical garbage, easily demolished. But that's not the point. The point is that we don't entrust these decisions to editors precisely because we don't want to base articles off of dubious, unpublished armchair analysis, which is what we're doing if we allow dubious unpublished armchair analysis to be used as a basis for excluding an opinion based on a claim that a source is "unreliable" just because an editor disagrees with it or thinks he has found flaws in an argument the source is making. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 17:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • There are some really bizarre responses above which demonstrates that even seasoned editors don't have a clue about policy. I'm not holding my breath that a closing admin will throw out the "bad" !votes. Sadly we have too many admins who count votes instead of counting arguments. And even when counting arguments, they often count fallacious arguments. But wiith respect to this RFC, as an example, an opinion holder does not need to be "notable" to use an attributed opinion. And claims of undue/weight are moot without actually establishing the majority opinion. Even in cases where weight has been established, using a minority opinion is not always verboten. There are some decent arguments; Namely the ones that focus on Gregory's expertise. Does he have the bona fides that his analysis of Russian intelligence documents is useful for this article? He certainly appears to have relevant expertise in many things Russian. He claims to have experience with Russian intelligence documents, which is certainly relevant here. Is that enough? I don't know. Neutrality, MrX, FCAYS, FeralOink,MyVeryBestWishes, Jytdog (my apologies if I missed others) are the only ones who seem to understand this is the $64,000 question and I urge the closer to give their arguments the greatest weight. That man from Nantucket (talk) 07:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Secondary sources are used to establish significant views on a topic under the neutral point of view policy; see WP:BALANCE. The Gregory piece is a primary source for Gregory's opinion, so cannot be used to establish that this is a significant minority viewpoint. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
@Sławomir Biały: That sounds a lot like your argument that "Specifically, 'the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all.' In this case, the view is that of a single person (Gregory), and obvious 'tiny minority' of one."
So is it your view that as a general matter, opinion pieces can't be used because they only reflect one person's views, and self-published views can't be used because there is no way to establish weight for them? A puzzling stance, IMO. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Why is it puzzling? It seems like a typical application of policy. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
No, not really. If the policies meant what you say, they would be written very differently. Factchecker_atyourservice 15:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, clearly there is some disagreement on that point, as exhibited by quite a few of the !votes in the RfC. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, not sure I'm seeing anyone else espousing that exact policy position. It's hard to tell though. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
We use opinion pieces all the time in articles. Paul Krugman is probably cited in hundreds if not thousands of articles. We don't require other secondary sources to validate his opinion. We state and attribute his views.That man from Nantucket (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lede does not accurately reflect what the article says

Latest comment: 7 years ago27 comments6 people in discussion

This paragraph is in the lede:

The media and the intelligence community have stressed that accusations in the dossier have not been verified. Most experts treated the dossier with skepticism and caution. Trump himself has denounced the report, calling it "fake news" and "phony." A Russian government spokesman dismissed the dossier, saying its allegations were false. Steele's former colleagues have later come out in defense of his character and saying "He’s not the sort of person who will simply pass on gossip."

However, the sourced information in the "Veracity" section does not support this "mostly skeptical" view. In fact the section states that the information in Steele's report is also reported by "multiple intelligence sources" and "at least one East European intelligence service" and that the dossier has had at least one of its main factual assertions verified and that former intelligence officials had a relatively high degree of confidence that at least some of the claims therein were credible, or at least worth investigating further and that some of the claims made within the dossier, specifically related "to conversations between foreign nationals," had been corroborated by "multiple current and former US law enforcement and intelligence officials." I will develop a proposed rewording of the lede paragraph and bring it here for discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

That paragraph only mentions the minority POV, not the view of the intelligence community who understand matters best. That view only has enough weight for about one sentence. As time has gone on, more confirmation has been mentioned and confidence has increased in the claims in the dossier.
In fact, this article is a RS which discusses the claims made on page 30 of the dossier, but we still don't cover that in the article. Carter Page isn't mentioned at all, even though he is named in the dossier, and has gone on record as having meetings with the Russians at that time. RS discuss this. It's wrong that we haven't included this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
It actually summarizes the RS coverage fairly well. It may be necessary to rewrite portions of the body to match sourcing better. Despite scattered reports of apparent corroboration (mostly weak sourcing), I don't think anybody has reported that any confidence has emerged, and with ringing endorsements like "I don't think it's totally implausible" I think we'd better exercise caution second guessing what RS's have said, which was that it was being treated with skepticism and caution.
Also beware when reading heavily hedged language containing a lot of instances of the word "or": "a relatively high degree of confidence that at least some of the claims therein were.... at least worth investigating further" doesn't amount to much more than "there is probably something accurate in there somewhere". Also note, the "veracity" section is somewhat misnamed, as that question is addressed throughout the article, for example some discussion of press skepticism is in the "public release" section. Factchecker_atyourservice 07:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite

OK, I propose a rewrite of the above paragraph in the lede, as more accurately reflecting what is actually in the article - and supported by sources in the text:

The media and the intelligence community have repeatedly stressed that the accusations in the dossier have not been verified. Most experts have treated the dossier with skepticism and caution, and some have rejected it as "amateurish". But in the months since its release, some of the assertions in the dossier have been independently confirmed. In particular, the primary conclusion of the dossier - that the Russian government at Putin's direction was intervening in the election to favor Trump - was echoed several months later by a report from the Director of National Intelligence. Various meetings and conversations described by the dossier have also been confirmed. Trump himself has denounced the report, calling it "fake news" and "phony." Russian government sources, including Putin, have rejected the report as "false", "fake", and "rubbish". Steele's former colleagues came out in defense of his character and competence.

Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The sentence about the "primary conclusion" is wrong—the primary conclusion was that Trump colluded with the Russians, and Clapper expressly said there was no evidence of that (but favored investigating. Factchecker_atyourservice 02:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
the primary conclusion was that Trump colluded with the Russians What is your source for that? Our article text does not say that. This is how our text actually describes the contents of the dossier: "The dossier further alleges that Trump has been cultivated and supported as a presidential candidate by Russia for over five years, with the overall aim of creating divisions between Western alliances; that Trump has extensive ties to Russia; and that there had been multiple contacts between Russian officials and people working for Trump during the campaign.[1][3]" I don't see anything in there about collusion - just "multiple contacts", an allegation that has been confirmed. If the primary conclusion of the dossier was that Trump colluded, we ought to say so - with sources of course. But I don't think it was. --MelanieN (talk) 02:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
For example, when Nicholas Kristof refers to it in the NYT piece below, he says the dossier alleged compromising videos and collusion by Trump team members. That's the crux of how this all relates to Trump rather than just being a window into Putin's well-known hatred of Hillary Clinton.
Note that the claim that the election-interference allegations were "one of the main factual assertions" has weak sourcing—an opinion column by a former Moscow correspondent published in the tiny newspaper in the small town where he retired. If these claims were taken seriously they'd be reprinted in, or at least mentioned by, some major newspaper. But no. Not a peep. Another reminder that exceptional claims require exceptional sources is appropriate here.
Note also that Gillette, too, makes a number of hedging statements about whether the material is accurate, e.g. he says the media "have continued to treat it as unconfirmed in its entirety.". Factchecker_atyourservice 02:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
OK, so Kristof, in an op-ed, uses the word "collusion". I just spent half an hour searching and found just three actual news reports, in Reliable Sources, that also said the dossier alleges "collusion": NPR[8], NBC News[9], and Vox [10]. That is a distinct minority among media reports, which have focused instead on the dossier's reports of "meetings" and "contacts" (as well as the sensational claims, which we have not mentioned and which remain unverified). I just re-read the entire dossier and it does not use the word "collusion", although it twice uses the word "conspiracy" to describe the contacts between the Trump team and Russia. (Melanie, a conspiracy between Trump and the Russians would be collusion. So would a plot, a plan, a scheme, a quid pro quo, or even just "coordination". Please keep synonyms in mind when close reading! –Factchecker) Based on secondary sources, which is what we are supposed to use, it would be incorrect to claim that that dossier alleges "collusion". Collusion has not been confirmed, but many of the meetings and contacts have been. My proposed wording says that "some" of the assertions have been confirmed, and that is true. It also says that most experts have treated the dossier with skepticism and some have rejected it. If you feel it is too broad to say the dossier was primarily about interfering in the election (although it was), I will change my proposed wording to leave out "interference in the election" and focus the meetings and communication, which received heavy news coverage as being an important part of the dossier. That makes my proposed wording:
The media and the intelligence community have repeatedly stressed that the accusations in the dossier have not been verified. Most experts have treated the dossier with skepticism and caution, and some have rejected it as "amateurish". But in the months since its release, some of the assertions in the dossier have been independently confirmed. In particular, various meetings and conversations described by the dossier have been confirmed. Trump himself denounced the report, calling it "fake news" and "phony." Russian government sources, including Putin, have rejected the report as "false", "fake", and "rubbish". Steele's former colleagues came out in defense of his character and competence.
Comments? --MelanieN (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Looks good generally but I think we need to track the sourcing better on the corroborations. How about this:

The media and the intelligence community have repeatedly stressed that the accusations in the dossier have not been verified. Most experts have treated the dossier with skepticism and caution. In February 2017, CNN reported that U.S. law-enforcement and intelligence officials had corroborated some details from the dossier, particularly regarding conversations between foreign nationals, but these sources "cautioned they still have not reached any judgment on whether the Russian government has any compromising information about the President." Trump himself denounced the dossier, calling it "fake news" and "phony." Russian government sources, including Putin, have rejected the dossier as "false", "fake", and "rubbish". Steele's former colleagues came out in defense of his character and competence.

(The CNN language is quoted to hopefully avoid us having to debate about how to paraphrase it...)
Factchecker_atyourservice 15:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Multiple outlets have reported parts of the document have checked out, not just CNN.Casprings (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Not really. An awful lot of outlets repeated the CNN reporting, but that's about it. I don't recall anything else substantial nor am I seeing it in news searches right now. What other outlets are you talking about? Factchecker_atyourservice 15:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  1. "independently confirmed" is journalist jargon. I have not seen it in any source regarding the dossier. News reports may say that something has not been independently confirmed, they may weasel behind "reportedly", or something similar, but normally reliable sources are expected to independently confirm all facts.
  2. "In particular" is misleading if the CNN report is the only concrete example of some kind of corraboration. If there are other reports that have some kind of concrete information, I would like to know because they seem to be missing from our article.
  3. If "various meetings and conversations described by the dossier have been confirmed" is specifically referring to the CNN report, "various" is not supported by the source that says "some of the communications", which could mean one communication or twelve.
When I was reading Donald Trump–Russia dossier#Veracity of the dossier yesterday, I noticed that the last paragraph is written very selectively. There are major caveats to the CNN report. I mean these:

Sources would not confirm which specific conversations were intercepted or the content of those discussions due to the classified nature of US intelligence collection programs.

CNN has not confirmed whether any content relates to then-candidate Trump.

Officials who spoke to CNN cautioned they still have not reached any judgment on whether the Russian government has any compromising information about the President.

I propose we rewrite the last paragraph (which should not be that hard, but I tried it yesterday and got stuck after writing just few words). After we've done that, and if the CNN report is considered weighty enough for the lead, we summarize the report in the third paragraph of the lead. Politrukki (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Do we actually have a source for the "most experts" part or is that original research? Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

That was stated almost verbatim by one of the better sources, but I can't find it now. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Here was one source that summarized the reactions: Former intelligence officers and other national-security experts are urging skepticism and caution in the wake of the publication Tuesday night of a secret dossier by a former British spy documenting a series of explosive, but largely unverified, claims suggesting that Russia has compromising personal and financial dirt on Donald Trump. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Politrukki, this discussion is about the lede sentence. I can well believe we need to make some changes in the text as well, but let's do that in another thread. Factchecker, you say we should track the sourcing better, but remember, we are talking about the LEDE. The lede summarizes what is in the text, usually without reference citations. In fact the whole reason I am trying to rewrite this paragraph is I felt it was not accurately summarizing what is in the text. The CNN and other reporting could be added to the text if it isn't already there.

Factchecker, about your proposed wording, I would oppose singling out that one CNN article in the lede as if it was the only such confirmation. Because that article CNN, Feb. 10 is NOT the only source of corroboration. That article says the existence of some conversations described in the dossier has been confirmed, according to "multiple current and former US law enforcement and intelligence officials." Here are some other allegations in the dossier that have been confirmed: The fact that Russian diplomat Mikhail Kalugin was being investigated by US authorities at the time he was recalled to Moscow. The Independent, March 8. The fact that Trump campaign people intervened at the RNC to soften the platform's language about Ukraine. The Atlantic, March 3 And of course the overall thrust of the document - that the Russian government, and Putin himself, tried to intervene in the election to favor Trump - has been confirmed at the highest official levels in the US government.Politifact, Feb. 22 I'm spelling these out not because I think they should be added to the lede, but just to support the wording "But in the months since its release, some of the assertions in the dossier have been independently confirmed. In particular, some of the meetings and conversations described by the dossier have been confirmed." It that's too wordy or redundant, it could be shortened into a single sentence.

We can document that everyone urges skepticism,Politifact, Feb. 22 but also that people who were initially skeptical about the dossier are beginning to take it more seriously.CBS News, Feb. 10 For that matter, the FBI's attempt to hire Steele to continue his investigation is itself an indication they found the dossier credible enough to follow up. Washington Post, Feb. 28 --MelanieN (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: you can't seriously be referring to the unnamed sources in the CNN report as a separate report of corroboration. We can't "re-analyze" CNN's raw data and go beyond their conclusions as a result. Here at WP we have no access to or knowledge of CNN's sources, nor the expertise or resources to analyze them effectively. That is why we rely on RS commentary, and when we do take a quote of somebody being questioned or interviewed, it is to illustrate what the RS says, not contradict or expand upon its analysis.
You are correct that CBS published its own report the same day as CNN, so I don't see any problem with naming both CNN and CBS as the source of that report. Given the timing, it would appear they and CNN are reporting on the same comments from the same officials. But the rest of what you describe are weakly sourced claims (or just plain tangential discussion) which might belong in the article body, but shouldn't be used to shape the lead.
The Independent piece is suspect: a weak claim with weak sourcing. Include it, but not credible enough to influence the lead. It says: "Some of the claims in a controversial dossier linking Donald Trump to the Russian government appear to have been verified by US media outlets." This is a typical blog piece: the author reads the news for a couple hours and then writes something about it. Notice that no major U.S. newspapers or other reputable outlets have linked Kalugin to Trump. The only whiff is a mention by McClatchy that Kalugin is being investigated for allegedly trying to influence the election in Trump's favor, after his name appeared in the Trump dossier. Nothing about any evidence, conclusions, or additional confidence in the credibility of dossier claims. I don't mind if we mention this, I'm an inclusionist and I frown upon the use of WP:WEIGHT arguments to attempt exclude mere mention of something that is in fact published in an RS or by an expert—but it is obviously not lead material.
The Atlantic tells us only Friedersdorf's opinion-column thoughts on Ukraine; there is no report of increased confidence among intelligence, law-enforcement, think-tank or other analysts. This is a bit navel-gazey, too—Obama never supported arming the Ukrainians, even under intense pressure to do so; he whispered sweet nothings into Putin's ear and looked the other way through years of Russian invasions, etc. Yes, all these things happened, but conclusions to be drawn from them, and summarized in the lead, need strong sourcing from multiple high-quality outlets as required under WP:V.
And regarding Politfact's mention of the election influence—once again, everybody knows Putin wanted Trump to win. That is not the overall thrust of the document because it does not do anything to show a connection to Trump. For that reason it also doesn't provide much reason to have increased confidence in the dossier, which is why even Mr. Gillette the retired journalist writing in the small town newspaper only said that it provided a limited measure of credibility that Steele was not lying or being misled by his sources. The Politfact article, which explicitly says "because the claims remain uncorroborated, they should be viewed with skepticism", tells us nothing that establishes a connection to Trump. Again, while it might be justified to remove Gillette's piece entirely on the grounds of WEIGHT, I don't like such use of that policy—but again it's clear this can't be used as a basis for the lead language you propose, because doing so would deviate from the characterization that high-quality sources have given to these events. It's the high-quality source characterization that goes into the lead, per policy. We don't use summaries of marginally sourced material to paint a different picture.
Melanie, the reason that these conclusions have not been explicitly stated by obvious experts in reporting by top outlets, even though they concern a matter of the highest importance, is because the reasoning behind them is questionable. All the serious word-talkers are waiting for all the serious stuff-analyzers to figure out what happened—and until then, serious word-talkers are staying mum. Piecing that narrative together from weak sourcing is an upstream swim through the river of Wikipedia's policies demanding careful reliance on high-quality reporting. Please take heed.
In a nutshell I am on board with the first sentence that you just posted, but not the second, because the details reported on Feb. 10 are really the only substantial corroboration that have come out, and that is what the best sourcing reflects. Factchecker_atyourservice 20:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
OK, I think I have figured out what you are talking about in the wall of text above. You are saying you agree with "But in the months since its release, some of the assertions in the dossier have been independently confirmed." but not with "In particular, some of the meetings and conversations described by the dossier have been confirmed." Is that correct? --MelanieN (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes. In fairness, I did sum it all up in the last sentence. However, I'd also say we should say they're "not directly related to Trump", since the sourcing also made a point of mentioning that caveat. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
How would you word that? --MelanieN (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
What about this:

"But in February 2017, it was reported that some details related to conversations between foreign nationals had been independently corroborated, giving U.S. intelligence and law enforcement greater confidence in some aspects of the dossier as investigations continued."

That tracks CNN closely, and clarifies that government sources had greater confidence as a result. Factchecker_atyourservice 18:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I could accept that, although I don't really like the implication that there was no confirmation prior to February 2017. Actually, independent corroboration of one kind or another has been trickling in for months; our article, under "veracity", mentions several such. But this wording echoes the wording of the CNN source so that's good. I see the CNN report is already in the text but not the CBS report; we should probably cite both. A completely different issue is whether we should reorganize the "Veracity" section - maybe putting the "possible confirmation" in one subsection and the "skepticism" in another? Doing it chronologically as we now have it makes it kind of disjointed. Just a thought. --MelanieN (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
"I don't really like the implication that there was no confirmation prior to February 2017." Then your complaint is with RS coverage and WP is not the place to pursue it.
Melanie, all of that commentary has been available, yet nobody has seen fit to report it as confirming the dossier or reflecting confidence in its credibility. These details may sound convincing to some Wikipedia readers, but the analysis of RS's is what matters. All anybody said was, we should investigate this. Factchecker_atyourservice 15:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Actually, some of those earlier Reliable Source reports cited in our article did explicitly state that additional information was confirming the dossier. January 11, 2017: BBC claims a second source backs up Trump dossier, which is based on this report, also linked in our article. January 27, 2017: My Turn: Inside the Trump dossier says "Moreover, one of his (Steele's) main factual assertions has in fact been verified. On Jan. 6, the U.S. intelligence community publicly concluded “with high confidence” that Russia’s combined cyber and propaganda operation was directed personally by Putin, with the aim of harming Hillary Clinton’s candidacy and helping Trump. Steele’s dossier, paraphrasing multiple sources, reported precisely the same conclusion, in greater detail, six months earlier, in a memo dated June 20." --MelanieN (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
We already went over Gillette. His weakly sourced claims were ignored. So were Wood's, to a lesser extent but he got more criticism than anything else. A claim about increased confidence in the dossier requires multiple high quality sources, not WP editors piecing together iffy material to synthesize a claim. Factchecker_atyourservice 22:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
As I said, I don't like the "February" phrase but I can accept it. "February" is not a hill I choose to die on. Anybody else got any opinions here? If not we'll go with your version. --MelanieN (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Not like I'm happy with the article either, but on balance, reducing badness is usually good. Factchecker_atyourservice 20:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steele_dossier/Archive_3&oldid=1087980960"