Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:03, 8 November 2017

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 January 2017. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Template:WikiProject Donald TrumpPlease add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Elections and Referendums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Espionage Mid‑importance Steele dossier is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. International relations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Journalism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics: American Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Russia: Politics and law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Presidential elections / Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Mid-importance).

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information Enforcement procedures: Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance. Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established. The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

See also section

• Trump: The Kremlin Candidate? (film directly analyzes question of authenticity of the document as part of its main thesis)

Therefore, it is directly relevant for the See also section. Sagecandor (talk) 23:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: I've reverted my own edit, per good faith attempt at discussion about it. Sagecandor (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Sagecandor is referring to this edit by me, deleting a number of links from the See also section which I felt were unrelated to the topic here. If in fact this film goes into detail about the dossier, it should probably be written about and linked in the body of the article. In which case it would not be in the "see also" section as well. --MelanieN (talk) 00:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

So, until such time, can it be in the See also section? Sagecandor (talk) 00:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Done. Added. Written about and linked in the body of the article. . Sagecandor (talk) 01:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

error-ridden, based on Google and cut and pasted from Misplaced Pages

Please add: "error-ridden" and explain: "But his main source may have been Google. Most of the information branded as “intelligence” was merely rehashed from news headlines or cut and pasted — replete with errors — from Misplaced Pages." → http://nypost.com/2017/06/24/inside-the-shadowy-intelligence-firm-behind-the-trump-dossier - Cheerio --87.159.113.67 (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

That does not seem to be a reliable source. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be a general mis-understanding of the definition of the word "dossier". It is from the French for "folder" and refers to a collection of information. The word "dossier" doesn't imply that anything other than a list of Misplaced Pages pages is included in the dossier. As far as the specific source, Sławomir Biały is correct; it's not reliable and should not be included. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Request: Claims verified and confirmed on July 10, 2017 after the publication of Junior's e-mails

Inserted word "mostly" in front of "unverified" as the un-modified adjective is no longer true: some allegations have been verified in sworn testimony by principals involved. Unfortunately, what we've been needing for a quite a while now is a table of claims verified and unverified... but such a table would require repeating the claims. Possibly a shorter bullet list: "Allegations claimed verified & corroborating party", but even that might be unacceptable. Anyone have any brilliant ideas?

Hmm, why is the "veracity" section devoid of citations to the claimed corroborations?

Emails of Donald II confirm basically all clajms made in the dossier. https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/us/politics/russia-trump.html

I think we should update all the parts of the article that refer to the dossier as verified and replace them with the phrase "largely confirmed." Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intoxicated Editor (talk • contribs) 04:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Not sure it does.Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

NBC continues to describe the dossier as unproven, see here, as of July 27, 2017: "Simpson helped write the Trump-Russia dossier, the one compiled by a former British intelligence officer that includes unproven, salacious allegations about President Donald Trump and Russian prostitutes." Source Who Is Glenn Simpson, Man Entangled in Two Russia Scandals?--FeralOink (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

How do RS describe the corroboration, and lack of same, of the dossier? Intoxicated Editor, I have to agree with Slatersteven. What you say is not true. There are parts of the dossier which haven't been corroborated, at least not to the public. (What the intelligence community is keeping for later use in court will be surprising. They are no doubt laying traps, at least that's what former intelligence people say is happening.) For example, the salacious "golden showers" incident (the only "salacious" detail in the dossier, AFAI can remember) has not been corroborated publicly, although foreign intelligence agencies and Russian sources stated that this was not the only sexual incident. They claim that there were episodes in other cities, including St. Petersburg.

On other matters, RS say that many meetings between Russians and named Trump people have been confirmed, right down to the times and places mentioned in the dossier, but that's not the same thing as "basically all claims". "Much of it", according to the FBI, would be more accurate.

FeralOink, NBC is not the only RS to be cautious and accurate. That's what real news does, not fake news. I believe that all mainstream RS do that, and rightly so, because of what I've just described. Some information has been corroborated, and the FBI has corroborated "much of it", enough to get a FISA warrant. They trust it enough to use it as their roadmap for their investigation. But, again, it has not been totally corroborated, as far as we know.

One can quickly sense which side of the issues media sources are on. Trump friendly sources invariably describe the dossier as "discredited" and "fake news", when that is not true at all. They often cite one piece of information found on pp. 34-35 of the dossier, about Trump's lawyer Cohen being in Prague to pay the hackers who hacked the DNC. Cohen denies having been there, even though he was within reach of the area at the time, and they just take his word for it and thus consider the whole dossier as "discredited". That's a pretty naive position. My life in Europe over several decades has included travel all over the place, mostly within the Schengen Area, where Prague is located, and my passports don't show all the countries I've visited. Only my early passports do that. After the Schengen Area was established, that gradually stopped, and I got fewer stamps in my passport. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

BullRangifer, I was agreeing with what Slatersteven observed on 12 July 2017, and providing additional information sourced from WP:RS as of 27 July 2017 from NBC News, in support of his observation. Also note that user Intoxicated Editor has been BLOCKED as of 12 July 2017.--FeralOink (talk) 09:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Then you may not understand what I mean, I meant the article does not say it is proven as far as I am aware.Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

That editor is blocked and I think we're all on the same page. Can we just end this thread now? -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Veracity

A recent Associated Press report on the Don Jr. situation includes this intriguing excerpt on Trump's 2013 trip to Moscow:

A person with knowledge of the 2013 trip to Moscow said Emin Agalarov offered to send prostitutes to Trump’s hotel room, but the repeated offers were rejected by Keith Schiller, Trump’s longtime bodyguard. The person with knowledge of the trip insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized by Trump to publicly discuss the matter.

• Source: "Unlikely Middlemen: Trump Jr. Emails Point to Father-Son Duo". Associated Press via The New York Times. 2017-07-12. Retrieved 2017-07-13.

This can't be added to the article unless other reliable sources pick up on it specifically in relation to the dossier—but that may be something to look out for.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

That is indeed interesting, given the Agalarovs show up in Junior's emails and meeting with Kushner and Manafort. But you're right, let's wait to see if other sources pick this up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Business Insider has compared some details of the dossier with Trump Jr.'s emails, though it doesn't mention prostitutes. _Gravity 00:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2017

This edit request to Donald Trump–Russia dossier has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

At 9:00 AM - 11 July 2017, Donald Trump Jr tweeted an email exchange between Jared Kushner , Paul Manafort , and Rob Goldstone . On June 7, 2016, Goldstone emails Trump Jr. to schedule a meeting with a "Russian government attorney." Goldstone writes, "This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin ." Two days later, Trump Jr. -- joined by Kushner and Manafort -- meets at Trump Tower with Goldstone, Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya and a Russian-American lobbyist named Rinat Akhmetshin. At least eight people attended the meeting, according to a CNN report on 14 July 2017.

This meeting was alluded and is corroborated by the Donald Trump–Russia dossier under Details, as the second bullet point in the numbered list at the very beginning of the document posted by BuzzFeed. The passage, in full, reads:

→″2. In terms of specifics, Source A confided that the Kremlin had been feeding TRUMP and his team valuable intelligence on his opponents, including democratic presidential candidate Hillary CLINTON, for several years (see more below). This was confirmed by Source D, a close associate of TRUMP who had organized and managed his recent trips to Moscow, and who reported, also in June 2016, that this Russian intelligence had been "very helpful". The Kremlin's cultivation operation on TRUMP also had comprised offering him various lucrative real estate development business deals in Russia, especially in relation to the ongoing 2018 World Cup soccer tournament. However, so far, for reasons unknown, TRUMP had not taken up any of these.″

This confirms that Source A, Source B, Source C and Source D gave, at least, some verifiable facts to the original author of Donald Trump–Russia dossier. Information from Source E, the most salacious informant in the dossier, has yet to be confirmed in any way by the email tweeted by Donald Trump Jr on 9:00 AM - 11 July 2017. Manthan23 (talk) 05:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

What is your suggested edit?Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

This looks like WP:OR – @Manthan23: Do you have a source making the connections you are highlighting? — JFG 11:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I updated the article lead

Based on independent journalist reporting, see here Scandal Deepens: ‘Fusion GPS’ Sleazy Venezuela Links Shed New Light on Trump Dossier ("News of the News: an oppo-research-for-hire outfit of former reporters tries to seed stories in the American press for global clients") and testimony by Thor Halvorssen, to the U.S. Senate about the organization who commissioned the dossier, I updated the lead of the article. The dossier was part of a Russian smear campaign against both candidates in the 2016 U.S. general election for president.--FeralOink (talk) 05:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Is tablemag an RS?Slatersteven (talk) 09:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Also it should not be in the lead, and you know this.Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I object to including this anywhere in the article. The sentence, currently in the Reactions section, says In July 2017, Lee Smith of Tablet considered the dossier a part of a "Kremlin information operation," which was "to defame both candidates, and sow chaos, and thereby to discredit the American system of government.". This is one person's opinion, from one questionably reliable source (we have no idea if Tablet has "a reputation for fact checking and accuracy" or not). The item is written in sensational tabloid style rather than a neutral news-report style. ("The scandal has also lifted the lid off a sewer of corporate information warfare and opposition research that the flailing institutions of the mainstream press now regularly re-package as news, without ever saying where it came from—or who paid for it.") I don't see any reason to give this report any credence. Earlier there was also a citation, now removed, to Thor Halvorssen's testimony before Congress, but that was a primary source, and his testimony does not seem to have been picked up by secondary sources (except non-RSs like the Washington Times), so it should not be here either. We already have an extensive paragraph about the doubts about Fusion GPS's motivation sown by Chuck Grassley, who is at least a player and entitled to have an opinion. I am going to remove this sentence and then let's talk about it. --MelanieN (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I totally agree. This is one of the most self-contradictory and desperate conspiracy theories I've seen in a long time, and it's now trying to gain traction, but RS hardly touch it. It has its origins in very unreliable sources. I mention it below. This theory is growing as a fringe GOP and extreme right-wing conspiracy theory, which is evidenced by the fact that the first two pages of a Google search about it only produced unreliable sources, unlike this one article, one of the only RS which mention the theory:

• A Top Republican Wants You To Believe Russia Was Behind That Famous Trump Dossier

To get an idea of how scatter-brained the smear tactic is (using mere mention of a word or association and throwing it out there to smear the Trump/Russia collusion narrative and the 35-page dossier), read this from Hannity and Rivera at Fox News, and read the context. They are pushing the theory that Debbie Wasserman Schultz and her IT guy (who just got arrested for theft) leaked the Podesta and DNC emails to Wikileaks:

RIVERA: That's the easy part, that they colluded against Bernie Sanders. What if they were the source for WikiLeaks? What if the whole of Russia- gate story now hinges on this now investigation, the guy is now charged.

HANNITY: Bingo.

That makes no sense, because the leaks placed the DNC and Clinton in a bad light, with zero benefit for the DNC or Hillary Clinton, not even a hope. It ONLY could help Trump, and ALL agree that it did. This is a desperate tactic to avoid admitting that Russia was behind the hacks (confirmed by all foreign and domestic intelligence agencies (except the FSB) and RS, and known ahead of time by GOP operatives like Roger Stone) which made the DNC look bad and made Trump look good, ultimately helping him win. Neither Trump nor the GOP will admit that. Now they are fighting back with this theory, and it's found only on fringe conservative websites like The Daily Caller and Townhall, and above mentioned by Fox. The conservative NewsBusters confirms that pretty much only conservative sources deal with this: "The Times gave Trump headlined treatment only because he retweeted a Thursday morning Townhall.com tweet about the press's failure to cover Awan's arrest:..." They then describe how the Daily Caller and Townhall did cover the story.

Conspiracy theories do get mentioned in articles here if multiple RS mention them (we also see this one mentioned by some editors, as above, who obviously believe those fringe websites), but this one is so nonsensical and desperate that it may not take off. Time will tell. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Tablet Magazine isn't a fringe website. The Wall Street Journal isn't either, see here, Who Paid for the ‘Trump Dossier’?: "Fusion GPS. That’s the oppo-research outfit behind the infamous and discredited “Trump dossier,” ginned up by a former British spook... We know Fusion is a for-hire political outfit, paid to dig up dirt on targets... Thor Halvorssen, a prominent human-rights activist, has submitted sworn testimony outlining a Fusion attempt to undercut his investigation of Venezuelan corruption. Mr. Halvorssen claims Fusion “devised smear campaigns, prepared dossiers containing false information,” and “carefully placed slanderous news items” to malign him and his activity. William Browder, a banker who has worked to expose Mr. Putin’s crimes, testified to the Grassley committee on Thursday that he was the target of a similar campaign, saying that Fusion “spread false information” about him and his efforts. Fusion has admitted it was hired by a law firm representing a Russian company called Prevezon." The Wall Street Journal article is dated July 27, 2017.--FeralOink (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The Halvorssen stuff is or should be irrelevant to this article. About the WSJ piece, I can't tell (paywall) if it is a news article or an op-ed, but the article's subtitle - "Democrats don't want you to find out - and that ought to be a scandal of its own." - suggest it is an op-ed and not news reporting. Likewise the second paragraph, which begins "Nevertheless, the Democrats have now meekly and noiselessly retreated...", sounds more like opinion than news reporting. The material you quote - such as "infamous and discredited" - suggests the same. We can't use something this opinionated as a fact source. As for Tablet, nobody has called it "fringe"; we are questioning whether it is "reliable" per Misplaced Pages's definition, which has nothing to do with whether its viewpoints and material are fringe or mainstream. (Some other sources here were described as "fringe conservative websites", but not Tablet. I for one have no idea whether they take a neutral view of the news or slant their coverage in one way or another. Our Misplaced Pages article describes it as "an American Jewish general interest online magazine" but there's nothing fringe about that, and their recent articles do not seem to be extreme.) Again, Misplaced Pages's definition of "reliable" is that the source "have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I see no evidence that Tablet has such a reputation. --MelanieN (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN, you're right about the subheading in that WSJ article indicating that it may be more of an opinion or editorial piece than news. For similar reasons, I would object to inclusion of the HuffPo article, A Top Republican Wants You To Believe Russia Was Behind That Famous Trump Dossier with subheading, "But Sen. Chuck Grassley’s insinuations don’t add up". The article omits any mention of Democrat Senator Diane Feinstein who is also part of the committee and playing an important role in the investigation. The article says that Grassley's motive for the investigation is FARA agent registration in general (while unfairly picking on Fusion GPS in particular), whereas Grassley stated, on the record in March 2017 and repeatedly after that, that he was concerned that the FBI was using material to investigate Russian interference into the US elections (i.e. the Trump dossier) that was produced by Fusion GPS while Fusion GPS was simultaneously working for pro-Russian interests (stopping passage of the Magnitsky Act). The HuffPo piece is not included as a source in this Dossier article, although it is included as a source for Fusion GPS. I will continue further comments in new section on that article's talk page, not here.--FeralOink (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

You are accusing me of acting in bad faith, Slatersteven ("...and you know this"). I object to that. It is not true.--FeralOink (talk) 08:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

No I am saying you know policy, and it says that the lead should reflect the body. Thus you know full well that if it not in the body it should not be in the lead.Slatersteven (talk) 08:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Possible source

An interesting article:

• A Top Republican Wants You To Believe Russia Was Behind That Famous Trump Dossier

There may well be something we can use here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Respectfully, why are you spamming this HuffPo article into the talk pages of various Trump–Russia talk pages? If you think there's something substantial to add to the articles, just be bold, add it and cite the source. Otherwise this looks like advocacy for a POV. — JFG 05:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

That's not respectful. It assumes bad faith, as confirmed by the rest of your comment. I suggested it as a possible source on this and another article, both of which are specifically relevant for a RS speaking on this topic. What editors decide to do is up to them. That's a perfectly legitimate way to use a talk page. Attacking the motives of good faith editors is not.

I may get around to doing something myself, depending on whether this conspiracy theory gains traction here. BTW, this topic is growing as a fringe GOP and extreme right-wing conspiracy theory, which is evidenced by the fact that its origins dominate the first two pages of a Google search and only produce unreliable sources, unlike this one article. Conspiracy theories do get mentioned here if multiple RS mention them, but this one is so nonsensical and desperate that it may not take off. Time will tell. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I do not doubt your good-faith motives, I said that adding the same comment to several talk pages looks like advocacy for a POV, not is advocacy for a POV. — JFG 16:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. (BTW, I was adding more to my comment above while you were writing.) Provision of RS from any POV should be welcomed here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. No worries. — JFG 16:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Did you notice the subtitle to that article: "But Sen. Chuck Grassley’s insinuations don’t add up." ? --MelanieN (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes. That's the point of the article. This conspiracy theory is desperate, grabs at straws that are not connected, is self-contradictory, and makes no sense. That's why mainstream RS pretty much ignore it, but conservative sources are firmly imprinting it into the minds of those inclined to believe anything Trump says, regardless of the facts. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM, but mainstream RS are not always liberal, and conservative RS are not always in the mainstream, so the terms "mainstream" and "conservative" are pretty far from being mutually exclusive. Regardless of which partisan source is doing the better job of brainwashing their reader/viewership, Atsme has started a robust discussion regarding the source of the dossier here, so your link would probably be much better received on Talk:Trump campaign-Russian meeting (and more productive, as well). Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

HT, you just NOTAFORUMed somebody inappropriately (they were discussing a source) then went on a little NOTAFORUM rant yourself! Come on.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Hidden Tempo, I understand what you say about RS and largely agree. My descriptions in this case are generally accurate. As far as the other article, I don't see any connection between the dossier, Steele, or that meeting in Trump Tower. Please explain it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Pissgate RfD

I have listed the redirect Pissgate, which redirects to this article, at redirects for discussion. All are welcome to participate at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 25#Pissgate. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Wording on Republican funding

The article currently states:

The research was initially funded by Republicans who did not want Trump to be the Republican Party nominee for president.

The "Stop Trump movement" is linked in the sentence.

But the cited article (WP) actually says:

Fusion GPS’s research into Trump was funded by an unknown Republican client during the GOP primary.

Note singular. One client. In fact, it's possible that client is Ted Cruz or a supporter of Ted Cruz, who was not involved in the Stop Trump movement per se (because he was running).

Might seem like a semantic issue, but there's a pretty big distinction between attributing the funding to an anonymous Republican donor and attributing it to an entire movement of people including figures such as Mitt Romney. 73.61.20.1 (talk) 03:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I've seen the phrase "anti-Trump Republicans" in some sources, but most sources (like WaPo) mention one primary donor during the Republican primaries. _Gravity 16:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Dossier was not funded by Republican opposition according to WaPo

A distinction must be made between the dossier and the alternative opposition research conducted through FusionGPS. According to the Washington Post's recent report, a Republican conducting opposition research utilized FusionGPS prior to the dossier being created to investigate Trump's financial ties to Russia. The DNC / Clinton Campaign employed FusionGPS, afterwhich, the dossier author, Christopher Steele, was hired, and the dossier was created. This is an important distinction that needs to be addressed in the opening paragraph, where it is implied the dossier was partially funded by Republican opposition research -- which, as of present, is unfounded. Source: Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.95.115.97 (talk • contribs)

I'll have to admit that the IP has a point. What happened to the original research before Steele started creating the dossier? They aren't the same thing. Steele was hired by Fusion GPS after the Republican stopped funding research, and then he proceeded to write his reports, which ended up being a 35-page dossier. Those 35 pages are the subject of this article. What preceded them is not part of the dossier, but still is part of the history. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. This is made clear in this analysis by the Washington Post. selfworm 07:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The opening summary mentions the initial research but still does not specify that the dossier was created afterward, nor does it make clear that Steele was hired subsequent to DNC/Clinton introduction, as outlined in the WaPo article. As it stands, the summary is ambiguous as to whether the dossier was begun under Republican opposition funding. Those are two separate events, and seeing as this article is specifically about the subsequent event (the dossier), I feel as if it should be clarified. -- 96.95.115.97 (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

"does not specify that the dossier was created afterward, nor does it make clear that Steele was hired subsequent to DNC/Clinton introduction," The article states:

Some of the pushback on the left has focused on the fact that a still-unidentified Republican client retained Fusion GPS to do research on Trump before the Clinton campaign and the DNC did. Thus, they argue, it's wrong to say the dossier was just funded by Democrats.
But the dossier's author, Steele, wasn't brought into the mix until after Democrats retained Fusion GPS. So while both sides paid Fusion GPS, Steele was only funded by Democrats.

So I'd say that the article clearly states that "Steele was hired subsequent to DNC/Clinton introduction" or did I misunderstand what your problem was?selfworm 17:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Selfworm: I think there's some confusion here. The IP contributor was probably talking about an early version of this Misplaced Pages article, not the WaPo report. _Gravity 21:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I see. Thank you Falling Gravity.selfworm 23:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

That's a valid point. How about something like this?

The dossier was produced as part of opposition research during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. A research firm, Fusion GPS, was initially hired and funded by an unnamed Republican during the Republican Party presidential primaries. After Trump won the primaries, attorney Marc Elias of the Perkins Coie law firm took over the Fusion GPS contract on behalf of the DNC and Clinton presidential campaign. Fusion GPS hired Steele to research any Russian connections shortly thereafter, when the Russian hacking of Democratic computers was revealed. Following Trump's election, Steele continued to research the subject with financing from Glenn R. Simpson of Fusion GPS, and he passed on the information to British and American intelligence services.

Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's much clearer and gives a more accurate portrayal of what we know as of this writing. It seems to be a distinction that some media organizations have had difficulty articulating and I read an article in Vanity Fair today that explained it in similar detail to yours above. As of present, it's certainly unclear what role the prior Republican-funded research played in Steele's subsequent investigation, but his hiring after DNC/Clinton involvement is an important characteristic as he is the author of the dossier. -- 96.95.115.97 (talk) 02:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree. That's much better. What happened to the original, GOP-funded research? We don't seem to know. Did it become part of, or inform, Steele's research? We don't seem to know that either. All we know now is the sequence of events, and that the 35-page dossier was Steele's work.

The GOP-funded research should still be mentioned as the historical prelude to the dossier. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

WaPo has updated their claims

According to the Washington Post: Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier

Unless the Clinton campaign and DNC isn't considered to be Republican opposition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‪12.125.176.58‬ (talk • contribs)

Under the "Veracity" section

The section states:

"On January 6, 2017, the Director of National Intelligence released a report assessing "with high confidence" that Russia's combined cyber and propaganda operation was directed personally by Vladimir Putin, with the aim of harming Hillary Clinton's candidacy and helping Trump. Gillette wrote: "Steele's dossier, paraphrasing multiple sources, reported precisely the same conclusion, in greater detail, six months earlier, in a memo dated June 20."

It was already known that Russians had infiltrated DNC computer systems and accessed opposition research by June 20th. In fact, this had broken in the US media the week before (June 14th, 2016). Many news organizations were already posing the question / suggesting the possibility that Russia was actively assisting the Trump Campaign through the use of cyber espionage. Stories regarding Russian cyber-propaganda, attempts to influence the Brexit vote, and the Russian "Troll Army," were already rampant in the western press. Therefore, it can hardly be considered prophetic that Steele's dossier came to the same conclusion many independent sources had already surmised by June 20th. Should the timeline of this hack / news-break not be noted, lest readers believe the above statement occurred in a vacuum of Russian-related events? I mean honestly, how many of you believed the Russian hacking of the DNC's opposition research was anything but a blatant attempt to assist Trump's campaign? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.95.115.97 (talk • contribs)

Yes, it has been confirmed that Putin was trying to harm Clinton and help Trump. We already cover that in the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

History section

The section sub headings don't really describe the contents of the subsections. For example in "Steele dossier funded by Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign", there's like one or two sentences about the funding, and the rest is the history and time line of the dossier. I suggest we just say something like "Since April 2016". Volunteer Marek  15:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I've removed those headings, mostly because they created a very short paragraph followed by a very long paragraph. _Gravity 02:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm... I don't buy that reasoning. The first paragraph was the "lede" for the whole section, and the subheadings identified distinctly different phases in the history of the opposition research. Now it's just one very long section, with no indication that we're describing distinctly different things.. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

IMO that first paragraph "lede" is flawed and should be removed. It says:

According to reports, the dossier and the investigations preceding it were all part of opposition research on Trump. The investigation into Trump was initially funded by "Never Trump" Republicans and later by Democrats.

• What does "investigations preceding it" mean?
• "Never Trump Republicans" makes no sense; as far as we know it was funded by a single person, an unidentified donor who opposed Trump.
• We already say all this (better) in the next paragraph, so this introductory paragraph is unnecessary.

The paragraph is left over from when there were subheadings in the section - having been intended as a kind of lede paragraph. That is no longer needed and I think we should simply delete that two-sentence paragraph. Even if we restore the subsection headings, which I gather is under discussion here. We don't have to have a lede paragraph in a section, and this one is very poor. --MelanieN (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, at least we've been able to get rid of "Never Trump Republicans" now that we know who it was. --MelanieN (talk) 01:52, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Corroborated information

I made a revision here, removing synth from this CNN article. I was reverted here by FallingGravity. I contend since the CNN article says officials familiar with the process, not this specific case, say they think the FBI would only use the information if they had corroborated it. It is not the same as CNN saying " CNN reported that corroborated information from the dossier had been used as part of the basis for getting the FISA warrant". It is a clear case of our article saying a+b=c. So since the CNN does not clearly state the information was corroborated vs what CNN actually said which was officials familiar with the process said they think if parts were used, it was corroborated. With the CNN article going on to say the officials would not say what or how much was actually corroborated. PackMecEng (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I think we should just stick to the source. I've tried to avoid adding wordy explanations, but I guess it seems necessary here. I've updated the article accordingly. _Gravity 18:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks! PackMecEng (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Russian sources

The lead currently does not specify that many of the sources for the dossier were Russian nationals. I think this is important information for the reader to know, because, obviously, the conclusion is that the Clinton Campaign, via an intermediary, was colluding with the Russians to try to undermine Trump's election campaign. FredericaFan (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add it with a solid citation. The dossier was a document created from sources who were Russian nationals. It's an important fact that should be reflected in the lead. MiamiManny (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. This needs to be in here. Gabrielthursday (talk) 23:55, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Would we not then need to list all the sources, not just the Russian ones. We cannot single out one aspect of the dossier.Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Steele has not revealed any of his sources... nor will he. It's a reasonable conclusion that many of them were Russian nationals, but that is guesswork / original research. Are there Reliable Sources making a point of this? --MelanieN (talk) 01:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Change lede sentence from unverified allegations to partially verified

The current lede states the following:

The Donald Trump–Russia dossier, also known as the Steele dossier, is a private intelligence dossier that was written by Christopher Steele, a former British MI6 intelligence officer. It contains unverified allegations of misconduct and collusion between Donald Trump and his campaign and the Russian government during the 2016 U.S. presidential election and the period preceding the election.

(Bold part mine) Parts of the document HAVE been verified. See:

• http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39435786
• http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/09/a_lot_of_the_steele_dossier_has_since_been_corroborated.html
• http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/politics/russia-dossier-update/index.html
• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4213800/U-S-officials-verify-Trump-dirty-dossier.html

I suggest we change the lede either:

Version A:

The Donald Trump–Russia dossier, also known as the Steele dossier, is a private intelligence dossier that was written by Christopher Steele, a former British MI6 intelligence officer. It contains partially verified allegations of misconduct and collusion between Donald Trump and his campaign and the Russian government during the 2016 U.S. presidential election and the period preceding the election.

Version B:

Change: Per discussion below, this version seems to have support:

The Donald Trump–Russia dossier, also known as the Steele dossier, is a private intelligence dossier that was written by Christopher Steele, a former British MI6 intelligence officer. It contains allegations of misconduct and collusion between Donald Trump and his campaign and the Russian government during the 2016 U.S. presidential election and the period preceding the election.

Please respond with Version A , Version B, or keep current. Casprings (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Casprings: Why did you post a "support-or-oppose" question here and then immediately make the change anyhow? And in the lede? The appropriate way to make a significant change in the lede is to get some feedback, some support, and THEN change the longstanding wording. I am going to change it back until it become clear if this change has consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Basically to trigger discussion among those who watched the page. It’s what I think it should be, so go ahead and do it and let the discussion occur. Happy to change it back until this is resolved.Casprings (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Neither. It makes more sense just to say "allegations" without adding additional qualifiers. Some parts have been verified, while other parts remain unverified (most notably the most salacious details). According to WP:ALLEGED: "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined". Focusing on the verified or unverified parts also violates WP:POV. _Gravity 20:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, because absolutely no reliable sources claim to have confirmed ANY of Steele's "allegations of misconduct and collusion" by Trump. (This is probably why Casprings provides only a series of links, without quoting any relevant portions to explain what, specifically, has supposedly been "corroborated.") From CNN's original "US investigators corroborate some aspects of the Russia dossier":

For the first time, US investigators say they have corroborated some of the communications detailed in a 35-page dossier compiled by a former British intelligence agent, multiple current and former US law enforcement and intelligence officials tell CNN. ... None of the newly learned information relates to the salacious allegations in the dossier. Rather it relates to conversations between foreign nationals. The dossier details about a dozen conversations between senior Russian officials and other Russian individuals. 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 did not comment on or confirm any alleged conversations or meetings between Russian officials and US citizens, including associates of then-candidate Trump. One of the officials stressed to CNN they have not corroborated "the more salacious things" alleged in the dossier.

None of Casprings's other sources change this assessment. The Daily Mail article he cites, for example, is from an unreliable source and is completely derivative of CNN's account. Former CIA official John Sipher's highly speculative opinion piece for Slate also contains no new information and was thoroughly refuted by independent journalist Marcy Wheeler's "John Sipher's Garbage Post Arguing The Steele Dossier Isn't Garbage"; Sipher's primary argument is that the U.S. intelligence community "corroborated" Steele on Russian hacking, but as Wheeler notes: "The Steele dossier was way behind contemporary reporting on the hack-and-leak campaign .. What the timeline of the hacking allegations in the Steele dossier (and therefore also 'predictions' about leaked documents) reveal is not that his sources predicted the hack-and-leak campaign, but on the contrary, he and his sources were unbelievably behind in their understanding of Russian hacking and the campaign generally (or his Russian sources were planting outright disinformation). Someone wanting to learn about the campaign would be better off simply hanging out on Twitter or reading the many security reports issued on the hack in real time." (I also particularly like the part where Sipher cites a Michael Isikoff report explicitly based on the dossier in order to "corroborate" the dossier!) Only the BBC provides a specific "corroboration," namely "that a Russian diplomat in Washington was in fact a spy," albeit with the caveat that "So far, no single piece of evidence has been made public proving that the Trump campaign joined with Russia to steal the US presidency—nothing." In sum, Casprings's proposed edit is a bait-and-switch that misrepresents all of his sources; it would be more accurate to say that, whatever other unspecified details may have been confirmed, not a single one of Steele's allegations against Trump has been "corroborated" following over a year of frenzied investigation by media outlets and intelligence agencies.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: Not the one playing with what sources say:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39435786

Steele's work remains fiercely controversial, to some a "dodgy dossier" concocted by President Trump's enemies. But on this vitally important point - Kalugin's status as a "spy under diplomatic cover" - people who saw the intelligence agree with the dossier, adding weight to Steele's other claims.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/09/a_lot_of_the_steele_dossier_has_since_been_corroborated.html

The U.S. government only published its conclusions in January 2017, with an assessment of some elements in October 2016. It was also apparently news to investigators when the New York Times in July published Donald Trump Jr.’s emails arranging for the receipt of information held by the Russians about Hillary Clinton in a meeting that included Manafort. How could Steele and Orbis know in June 2016 that the Russians were working actively to elect Donald Trump and damage Hillary Clinton unless at least some of its information was correct? How could Steele and Orbis have known about the Russian overtures to the Trump Team involving derogatory information on Clinton?'

We have also subsequently learned of Trump’s long-standing interest in, and experience with Russia and Russians. A February New York Times article reported that phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Trump’s campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian officials in the year before the election. The Times article was also corroborated by CNN and Reutersindependent reports. And even Russian officials have acknowledgedsome of these and other repeated contacts. Although Trump has denied the connections, numerous credible reports suggest that both he and Manafort have long-standing relationships with Russians, and pro-Putin groups. Last month, CNN reported on “intercepted communications that US intelligence agencies collected among suspected Russian operatives discussing their efforts to work with Manafort … to coordinate information that could damage Hillary Clinton’s election prospects” including “conversations with Manafort, encouraging help from the Russians.”

We learned that when Carter Page traveled to Moscow in July 2016, he met with close Putin ally and chairman of the Russian state oil company, Igor Sechin. A later Steele report also claimed that he met with parliamentary secretary Igor Divyekin while in Moscow. Investigative journalist Michael Isikoff reported in September 2016 that U.S. intelligence sources confirmed that Page met with both Sechin and Divyekin during his July trip to Russia. What’s more, the Justice Department obtained a wiretap in summer 2016 on Page after satisfying for a court that there was sufficient evidence to show Page was operating as a Russian agent.

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

For the first time, US investigators say they have corroborated some of the communications detailed in a 35-page dossier compiled by a former British intelligence agent, multiple current and former US law enforcement and intelligence officials tell CNN. As CNN first reported, then-President-elect Donald Trump and President Barack Obama were briefed on the existence of the dossier prior to Trump's inauguration.

• Over and over WP:RS have stories saying parts of the document have been verified. We should reflect that fact.Casprings (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The lead already states that "In February, 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," which has the merit of actually being true. Your revision—"partially verified allegations of misconduct and collusion between Donald Trump and his campaign and the Russian government"—is completely inaccurate, as anyone that takes the time to read CNN et al. can quickly confirm for themselves.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Neither makes sense to me. Just say "allegations". Some of the things in the dossier have been verified (like meetings between certain people); some have not (like the salacious stuff, which we do not include in our article anyhow). We can avoid endless arguments about whether some "independent journalist" is more reliable than a "former CIA official", or whether certain information has been confirmed but it's not specifically about Trump so it doesn't count, or whatever else would result in the article never being stable and all of us wasting enormous amounts of time over it. Just say "allegations" and be done with it. --MelanieN (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The current lead has been stable for a long time and does a good job of explaining that some of the dossier's content "related to conversations between foreign nationals" has been verified, while the allegations against Trump remain unverified. (If/when that changes, we can, of course, revisit Casprings's proposal.) I see no good reason to throw all of that out. The broader point is that the lead is supposed to summarize the body, which is why drive-by POV edits to the lead are particularly unhelpful absent any new reporting and any corresponding additions to the body.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Why not split it up? - We can take the second sentence and break it up into two. Something like

The Donald Trump–Russia dossier, also known as the Steele dossier, is a private intelligence dossier that was written by Christopher Steele, a former British MI6 intelligence officer. It contains allegations of misconduct and collusion between Donald Trump and his campaign and the Russian government during the 2016 U.S. presidential election and the period preceding the election. Some of the information in the dossier has been independently corroborated.

Note I purposefully used the word "information" not "allegations". Volunteer Marek  22:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, screw it, it really should be "Some of the allegations in the dossier have been independently corroborated". The Manafort and Carter Page aspects most definitely qualify as "allegations" and these HAVE been confirmed. Volunteer Marek  22:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek makes a valid point: That a FISA court considered independently corroborated allegations from the dossier sufficient justification for the FBI to monitor Carter Page's communications probably should be in the lead, and certainly has more bearing on Trumpworld than conversations solely between foreign nationals. It is still worth noting, however, that whatever was confirmed—and whatever the FBI learned from spying on Page—has yet to result in an indictment, so we do need to be careful about stating or implying that Page is guilty of a crime.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I know what Volunteer Marek's reference to Paul Manafort, above, may mean. An August 22, 2016 Steele memo states that "YANUKOVYCH confides directly to PUTIN that he authorized kick-back payments to MANAFORT, as alleged in Western media," but that had already been reported by The New York Times on August 14. The allegation that Manafort recieved $12.7 million in illicit payments from Yanukovych is based on unverified ledgers supplied by the current Ukrainian government and has not been indepedently confirmed; however, even if it is true, Steele was not the first to report it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Keep as is – The bulk of the dossier consists indeed of unverified allegations. Some facts about people mentioned in the dossier have been confirmed (Mr. X was a spy, Mr. Y met Mr. Z), but no evidence of "misconduct and collusion between Donald Trump and his campaign and the Russian government" has yet come to light, despite quite intense efforts to find such proof. — JFG 08:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep as is To describe a lengthy document that makes many allegations and statements in which only a few peripheral statements have been verified as "independently corroborated", even partially, leaves a misimpression. If we did use that language, we would have to thoroughly canvass the allegations of libel and the Cohen evidence in the lead if we were to have a neutral point of view. The current lede is the best option on the table. Gabrielthursday (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I think I am going to start a formal RFC. It will be hard to get consensus without one.Casprings (talk) 07:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC about use of unverified

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Per the discussion here, do you support:

1. Removing the word unverified as a qualifier for the term allegations. An example of possible wording in the lede would be:

The Donald Trump–Russia dossier, also known as the Steele dossier, is a private intelligence dossier that was written by Christopher Steele, a former British MI6 intelligence officer. It contains allegations of misconduct and collusion between Donald Trump and his campaign and the Russian government during the 2016 U.S. presidential election and the period preceding the election.

2. In the lede, describing that some of the information in the document is verified. An example of possible wording is:

The Donald Trump–Russia dossier, also known as the Steele dossier, is a private intelligence dossier that was written by Christopher Steele, a former British MI6 intelligence officer. It contains allegations of misconduct and collusion between Donald Trump and his campaign and the Russian government during the 2016 U.S. presidential election and the period preceding the election. Some of the information in the dossier has been independently corroborated.

Please respond with:

• Support Both Remove both unverified and also include that the some information is verified
• Support 1, Oppose 2 Remove unverified, but do not include in the lede that some information is verified
• Oppose 1, Support 2 Keep unverified, but support adding to the lede that some information is verified.
• Oppose both Oppose changes. Keep unverified and do not include information in the lede that some of the information is independently verified

Casprings (talk) 07:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Support Both: As OP - As mentioned above, large parts of the information in the document are now verified. We should reflect that fact. We should drop the use of unverified and include information that information in the document has been independently verified. Keep verified as a qualifier is unneeded, as an allegation suggests something is unverified per its definition, and pushes the article towards a POV as it adds an unneeded discrediting qualifier. We should not do that, especially when other information in the document is independently verified.Casprings (talk) 07:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support 1, Oppose 2. Some of it's been verified, some of it's not been verified. Is there any source that describes the approximate verified to unverified ratio? Can we truly say "most of it's verified" or "most of it's unverified"? If not, then we shouldn't try to give either impression. _Gravity 08:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The proposed wording does not say "most of it's verified". Nice try though. Volunteer Marek  05:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose both The thrust of the dossier (and what everyone cares about) is that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. None of those major allegations have been substantiated, and describing the dossier as unverified is clear and accurate. I could be convinced on the first suggested change, but to do both would be far out of bounds. Gabrielthursday (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support 1, Oppose 2: I favor a simple "allegations" without opening the can-of-worms about verification - way too complex for the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support 1. Version 2 includes unnecessary repeat (read 2nd paragraph currently in the lead). My very best wishes (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support 1, Oppose 2: Allegation assumes unproved. Some…has been corroborated is problematic unless it is close to an explanation of "some". Keep the lead clean. O3000 (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose both: The current lede is preferable. Four options in this EfC will make evaluation difficult. It should be restructured. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I have a feeling it will be possible to come up with a consensus even with four options. --MelanieN (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Anything is possible but it is not ideal. Three of the four listed options include changing the lede. One of the three includes each of the other two - is rank implied e.g. if not A then B? Are options that support or oppose only A or B allowed? If some specify rank and others do not and oppose/support-only are allowed (we already have one) we have 10 possible options: A not B, B not A, A before B, B before A, A and B, A only, not A only, B only, not B only, neither. A yes/no question would be much more clear. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support 1, Oppose 2, without affirming WHAT has been verified, it's a bit pointless to say that 'some' is, apart from being unhelpfully 'muddling'.Pincrete (talk) 23:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose both – Most of the dossier is garbage, which is why no reputable newspaper wanted to touch it before BuzzFeed spilled the beans. The few things that have been confirmed are either of no importance or had been independently reported prior to being incorporated in the dossier. — JFG 23:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Honeat question: has anything been shown as false?Casprings (talk) 00:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Can't prove a negative. Logic 101. We may as well say "my dossier asserts that Casprings had a glass of orange juice this morning", and ask skeptics "can you prove that Casprings did not drink that juice this morning?" — JFG 02:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Bunkum. It is most certainly possible to prove something false. Hell, most logic and math theorems rely on that approach. In fact, there are lots of claims in the dossier that could easily be proven false ("Person A was in place X at time T") if they were indeed false. So asking "has anything been shown as false" is a perfectly legitimate question. You need to go back to Logic school Volunteer Marek  05:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• • • • It gives locations and times of meetings. You can certainly show you were not or couldn’t not have been at a location for a meeting. That is done all the time.Casprings (talk) 10:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
        • See Anthony Cormier, "This Is The Inside Of Trump's Lawyer's Passport," BuzzFeed News, May 5, 2017: "Many news organizations attempted to verify or debunk claims in the dossier, including that Cohen was in Prague around that time. A BuzzFeed News reporter spent three days visiting about 45 hotels in the city and found no evidence Cohen had stayed in any of them during that period. Cohen has said that he couldn't have been in Prague because he was visiting the University of Southern California with his son on a college baseball recruiting trip. He posted a photograph from his daughter's social media account showing the two of them together in Los Angeles on the final week of August." That said, Steele's time frame of "August/September 2016" is so vague that it is virtually impossible to definitively falsify.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support 1, Oppose 2 - Fallingravity's position is correct. Neutrality 05:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support 1, Oppose 2. Simple and neutrally conveys RS reporting. Editors, please, do not present your OR ruminations on the dossier here. They're quite corrigible, distracting, and irrelevant. SPECIFICO talk 16:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose both - keep the long-standing "unverified allegations" as the summary or bulk is that. The couple disproofs and couple supports are minor amounts that should be down in the detail section. They are not sufficient to move the overall view of mostly unverified. Also, the phrase more accurately portrays the dossier as it was constructed, a collection of rumors that is not within itself supported further. Can also support phraing from RS with NYT phrasing "unverified" or "unsupported" and Guardian 'dodgy dossier'. Also, "unverified" seems more neutral covering rather than listing various significant WEIGHT (by Google count) of phrasings to prefixes 'fake' or 'false' or 'politically motivated'. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support 1, Oppose 2. For reasons described above. "Unverified" is not entirely correct, nor is "verified". Furthermore "unverified" is an unnecessary qualifier for "allegations". #2 too strongly implies to the average reader that the majority, if not entirety, of the dossier is factual. Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
• A big problem for this RfC is that it was started, and most !votes were made before the November 2nd testimony of Trump's former foreign policy adviser Carter page to the House Intelligence Committee, in which he corroborated parts of the dossier. Volunteer Marek  05:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support both in light of Carter Page's testimony to the House Intelligence Committee on Nov 2, which further corroborated some of the info in the dossier. Volunteer Marek  05:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support both, per Carter Page's testimony, which confirmed several details in the dossier, such as the 19% of Rosneft to Trump if he lifted the sanctions. Some would call that $11 billion a bribe, others would call it a huge pay-to-play deal. Page confirmed it it happened, and Trump's own actions and declaration were very open about wanting to lift the sanctions. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose both rewrite per WP:PUBLICFIGURE with inline-text attribution to RS and include updates that include factually accurate information less the editorialized opinions, innuendos and projections. Examples of sources to include: this update, and this one. 16:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Your first source is not RS. Neither of your sources actually support your !vote. And what in the world does WP:PUBLICFIGURE have to do with this? Are you just posting random sources and policies?  Volunteer Marek  17:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Comment. Casprings recently attempted to change the lead to "partially verified accusations of misconduct and collusion" based on his own misunderstanding of what reliable sources state. Although RfCs are supposed to be neutrally written, Casprings's description of the "Oppose" position ("Keep unverified and do not include information in the lede that some of the information is independently verified") is non-neutral and again seems to conflate the allegations against Trump with the parts of the dossier that have been corroborated (unspecified conversations between foreign nationals, a Russian diplomat's role as an undercover spy, and at least some of the content on Carter Page). While I wouldn't fight too hard to retain the "unverified" adjective in the second sentence if editors consider it redundant, the lead already states that "In February, 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."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment There are both NPOV issues with the lede, and some stylistic issues. Yes, it is a "private intelligence dossier" but it is also opposition research commissioned by political adversaries via a skeezy political outfit. The first sentence, apart from the term "unverified" puts the dossier in the most respectable light possible. The details of its release don't belong in the first paragraph, and arguably not in the lede at all. The prior opposition research by the Free Beacon - which did not include the dossier - is peripheral information and doesn't belong in the lede. We need to be wary of the lede reflecting the narrative of one side of a very divisive and partisan issue. Gabrielthursday (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• @Volunteer Marek: I support removing the word "unverified," as do you, but I think it was improper for you to remove the word from the lede while this RfC is going on. I am going to restore it until consensus is clear. --MelanieN (talk) 20:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment This has been open for a week. Discussion has died down (the last comment was 3 days ago), and the option "support 1, oppose 2" has 8 supporters while "oppose both" has 4. IMO it's too early to do a final close of this RfC, but I think that trend is sufficiently strong to remove "unverified" for now, pending further discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
• I have added my voice in support of BOTH, per Carter Page's testimony. That changes everything. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The Republicans never funded the dossier

@Al-Andalus: You have added false information to the lede in this article. After I removed it, you restored it. You should not have done that since this article is covered by WP:Discretionary sanctions, which include a warning that you "must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article." The false information you added is that the dossier "was commissioned and initially funded by The Washington Free Beacon for fellow Republican adversaries of then-primaries candidate Donald Trump". That is not true. The Free Beacon stopped funding any research on Trump in May, and the dossier was commissioned in June. Please self-revert this claim. (I cannot revert it again, because the Discretionary Sanctions also prohibit reverting something more than once. But if you self-revert it you will no longer be in violation of the DS.) You can then discuss it here if you want. --MelanieN (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I restored an earlier version. Gabrielthursday (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Gabrielthursday: Thanks, but the version you restored still contains the error about it being funded by the Washington Free Beacon. --MelanieN (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

All fixed now. --MelanieN (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

No, it is NOT all fixed now. As soon as 24 hours had passed, Al-Andalus re-inserted the information in slightly changed form. Now it does not say that the Free Beacon commissioned and funded the dossier, which was plainly false. Now it says The investigation into Trump was initiated by Republican-backed conservative political website The Washington Free Beacon during the Republican primaries., which is true but disingenuous: saying "the investigation into Trump" was initiated by them leaves a misleading impression that the "investigation" means the dossier. I think the lede should not mention the Republican funding or the Free Beacon at all, since it was peripheral to the subject of this article, namely, the dossier. The historical involvement of a Republican source is explained in the article text; it should not be in the lede because it is not a major part of the story. I am not going to remove the sentence again so as not to edit-war; instead I am seeking consensus about whether this sentence should or should not be included in the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Pinging other editors active on this page, for their opinions: @Gabrielthursday, Casprings, FallingGravity, My very best wishes, Objective3000, James J. Lambden, Pincrete, JFG, TheTimesAreAChanging, Neutrality, SPECIFICO, and Markbassett: --MelanieN (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Reading through the sources, it appears clear that the Washington Free Beacon initially funded research and that the DNC continued the funding after the Beacon dropped out. What I can’t nail down is when Steele became involved or if either the Beacon or the DNC knew of his involvement or the likely end product at the time he began work. What seems clear is that both the Beacon and the DNC were performing opposition research and that the dossier was at least part of the end product. As far as I can see, there is nothing illegal about creating this document and opposition research is common practice. So, I’m not sure that trying to pin down who knew what when matters that much. Clearly both the Rs and Ds expected something to come from the funding. If RS nail this down at some point, it would be worth including. Until then, the finger-pointing is a bit annoying. Seems all we can do is point out that funding for opposition research came from two sources, and the dossier was commissioned by Fusion. Just some random thoughts. I’d like to hear from others before having a solid opinion. O3000 (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Objective, the timing is pretty clear. The Republicans stopped paying Fusion in May, and the counsel for the Dems took it over. The Russian hacking of the DNC was revealed in June. It was then - in June - that Fusion decided to do some Russia research and hired Steele. Since this article is specifically about the dossier - not the oppo research in general - then that timing matters. --MelanieN (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

OK. It’s likely that the dossier may have never been commissioned had the Beacon not originally hired Fusion. But, I suppose that’s happenstance and not worth mention in the lead. O3000 (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree and have (partially) reverted. The lede should focus on the subject of the article Donald Trump–Russia dossier. We do not know whether the opposition research conducted by Fusion prior to the hiring of Steele influenced or was included in his dossier. Elaboration is appropriate for the body but not the lede. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN - I think the coverage WP:WEIGHT is generally about that DNC or Clinton paying for it. The website payment mentions is down at the level of FBI payment mentions, too minor for even a tail mention in the lead. Seems often enough to deserve mention in the history. But the early details sound like it may not been 'the dossier' but rather a background on all Republican nominees, and then Fusion remade and re-marketed an effort for a negative dossier. For a feel of coverage, here are the top hits from misc British sites in general leftish to rightish order

BBC Clinton team and Democrats 'bankrolled' Trump dirty dossier

Guardian Report: Clinton campaign and DNC helped fund Trump-Russia Steele dossier

Mirror Hillary Clinton's campaign paid for research that led to Trump 'dirty dossier'

Independent (#2) Firm behind Trump-Russia dossier got initial funding from conservative website

Times Trump hits out over Clinton link to dossier funding

Telegraph (FBI was #3) Conservative website funded research that led to Donald Trump Russia dossier

Sun Hillary Clinton’s campaign ‘helped bankroll’ research for ‘golden showers’ dossier on Trump

Daily Express Donald Trump dossier accusing him of links to Russia 'was paid for by Hillary Clinton'

Daily Mail Hillary Clinton defends funding Steele dossier on Donald Trump

(Daily mail next) A YEAR of Clinton lies about the 'golden showers' dossier exposed as Hillary's lawyer is under fire for falsely denying paying for it

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

(pinged) Agree with most commenters here: the timing is clear, Republican-funded opposition research predated the start of the dossier, and is therefore off-topic / UNDUE for the lead section. — JFG 22:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

(pinged) Fully agree that this is barely relevant background information that deserves a mention in the body of the article, so long as there's no implication the previous opposition research informed the dossier. There isn't even any evidence afaik that Steele looked at the opposition research Fusion GPS had previously done on Trump, much less that it affected what he put together, much less that it was a significant influence. Gabrielthursday (talk) 04:07, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

It looks like we have consensus not to include anything about the Republican funding in the lede. Al-Andalus, please take note of this consensus and do not add it again. It would help if you would participate in these discussions, but in any case, do not violate consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that the research that resulted in the document started here. Rather or not it predates it is not relavent, if this is the start of its development.Casprings (talk)|

Sources that show funding originated from GOP backed groups:

• Newsweek: Website With GOP Ties Funded Research on Trump Dossier
• New York Times: Conservative Website First Funded Anti-Trump Research by Firm That Later Produced Dossier
• Britbart: Anti-Trump Dossier Original Funder Paul Singer an Open Borders Establishment Republican Billionaire

This is a wide range of sources that show the same thing. This should certainly be in the lede. If the research that was foundational to the document started with Conservative media, that fact should not be hidden in the article and it should be included in the lede.Casprings (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Casprings that’s too low WP:WEIGHT for lead, and note all 3 say they got a general internet survey — not Mr. Steele, nothing that was in or led to the dossier. These cites say they did not fund the dossier. Markbassett (talk) 02:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

"that’s too low WP:WEIGHT for lead" - but trying to push the Daily Mail, Daily Express and the Sun, as you tried to do above, is legit for establishing due weight? Volunteer Marek  05:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I second Casprings’ argument. All sources of good repute, both from liberal and conservative media (even extreme right wing Breitbart), concede that research that was foundational to the dossier started with Republican-backed conservative media. Had it not been for that fact (i.e. some segments of the conservative camp dislike of Trump) the dossier would not even exist because of an interruption in the sequence of events to the coming into being of the dossier. Everyone had a hand in why the dossier came into existance; Republicans, Democrats, and an independent party. That fact is being hidden in the article by those who want to make it seem that 1) the funding of the dossier was somehow illegal, and 2) those responsible for funding it were Democrats, and that therefore 3) Democrats did something illegal. This is a fictitious point of view that one side is trying to paint. If funding of the dossier is going to be included in the lead at all, when It is entirely irrelevant who actually funded the dossier in any case (because there was nothing illegal about it in any event, and therefore that fact is not noteworthy), then it must be stressed that everyone had their hands in the pie. Or it should not be included at all. if it had been entirely the Democrats that were behind the funding of the dossier (which is not true) and if had it been the Democrats that started the sequence of events that led to the dossier’s creation (also not true), then that perhaps would be noteworthy even if not it was not illegal per se. However, that was not the sequence of events as per the facts themselves. It’s disingenuous to mention the Democrats in the lead, when they were merely the intermediate step in the sequence of events. There was a step before the Democrats (ie republicans) and a step after the Democrats (ie Fusion GPS themselves). Al-Andalus (talk) 02:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Nobody is implying there was something illegal about the dossier. It was part of opposition research, which is legal and all candidates do it. The time sequence is what matters here. Some Republicans were doing opposition research on Trump during the primary, but they stopped doing it long before Russia became an issue or a subject to be researched. Questions about Russia arose on June 14, 2016, when it was revealed that (to quote the Washington Post) Russian government hackers penetrated the DNC. That's what gave Fusion the idea to investigate whether there was something going on with the Russians. That was a new idea; previous research had primarily focused on his business activities, and probably on attempts to find out if there had been any sexual hanky-panky or other embarrassing material that could be exposed. Russia was a new angle. So Fusion hired a Russia specialist, who focused his investigation on "has there been contact between Russian and the Trump campaign?" as well as "Do the Russians have something on Trump, have they compromised him?" That's the subject of this article - Steele's research and Steele's report. The fact that some other group had previously hired the same firm to do oppo research - but was long gone when Steele was hired - has no connection with this dossier. At least not enough of a connection to put in the lede. The previous Republican funding is clearly explained in the article text. --MelanieN (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The idea that the Republican funding was separate from the dossier is a recently clarified point, not understood until the last couple weeks. Now that we're getting the two phases of opposition research separated, the Republican part should still be included, but only as the historical precursor to what later led to the creation of the dossier. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I would agree.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Can you provide a source which explicitly says that the Republican funding was separate from the dossier? From what I've read, while Steele came on board later, without the initial Republican funding there never would've been a dossier. So no, not separate. Volunteer Marek  05:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Reputation in the Intelligence Community

This section has major NPOV problems. I haven't time at the moment, but we are missing quotations from Comey ("salacious and unverified) and Mike Morrell and James Clapper ("The has not made any judgment that the information in this document is reliable, and we did not rely upon it in any way for our conclusions.") These are all far more significant figures than the analysts currently quoted. Gabrielthursday (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Morrell is already quoted in the "Veracity" section. Note that one of Morrell's objections—that Steele paid his sources—is rather weak; it's normal for spies to pay their sources, and we should actually be more wary of the unsolicited information freely offered up to Steele in December 2016 (after both the election and David Corn's October 31 Mother Jones report discussing the dossier).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Casprings just nuked the whole section. User:PackMecEng restored it. Discussion time, folks. --MelanieN (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Gabrielthursday, you seem to be proposing that we should use old and outdated views based on lack of information instead of much newer and better views based on the fact that most of the dossier's claims have been verified. You should also read the dossier. The "salacious" golden showers part is on the first page. That's it. The sensational press reports have given undue weight to that, and ignored the rest of the much more serious content. We should not make that undue weight error here. It's quite inaccurate to label the whole thing as "salacious" when it's not. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

What are RS NOW saying about this, what indeed do Comey and |Co now say?Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Recent additions

@Al-Andalus and Volunteer Marek: Within the span of a few days, the sentence "It is unknown the extent to which the allegations in the dossier have formed a part of the ongoing 2017 Special Counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections." becomes the sentence "At least part of the dossier has formed a part of the ongoing 2017 Special Counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, and a team of Special Council investigators has met with the dossier’s author, Christopher Steele." I find it incredible that something that is unknown becomes known in the course of a few days. Does interviewing Steele somehow count as integrating the dossier into the investigation? Is there something here I'm missing? _Gravity 22:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

it is known that the dossier has formed a part of the investigations. What is unknown is the extent. What is difficult to understand about that? We know the earth is covered by water. What we don’t know is how many litres exactly. Just because we don’t know the exact amount doesn’t mean we shouldn’t mention the earth is covered with water. Some water-haters might want to pretend it’s actually liquid mercury. Al-Andalus (talk) 02:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Simply looking at cited source , it tells: The FBI has confirmed some parts of the dossier and Special counsel Robert Mueller is looking into other details as part of an investigation into possible coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign. So, I do not see any problems with both versions which are not mutually exclusive. My very best wishes (talk) 02:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

If anything, Republican spinsters in the media over the last day have made it a talking point to paint the fact that the dossier has been included as any part of Mueller’s investigation as somehow being a wrongful act on muellers part. Yet here we have people trying to omit the fact that the dossier has formed a part of mueller’s investigation at all. Meanwhile, legal experts say that if mueller hadn’t or insnt including the leads in the dossier in his investigation he would be derelict in his duty. Which is it? Al-Andalus (talk) 03:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

You created duplicate content; FallingGravity removed it in both places . I think the dossier being used by Mueller certainly worth mentioning and well sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 03:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it could belong in the article, but it's already mentioned in the lead: "giving U.S. intelligence and law enforcement greater confidence in some aspects of the dossier as investigations continued." Per WP:LEAD: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic." Adding an additional paragraph musing on how it's unknown how much the dossier factored into the investigation or the extent of the dossier played is unnecessary; maybe an additional sentence would do. I have no objection to restoring the paragraph to a different location, but I think somebody with more time should have a look at it and its sourcing. _Gravity 04:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, I reincluded this as separate section. Welcome to fix if needed. There was also something about Mueller going interrogate a bodyguard of D. Trump about the "most salacious" claims in the dossier. My very best wishes (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

"Corroborated"

This edit summary (diff) suggests dossier claims were corroborated by Page's testimony. I assume this refers to the Sechin meeting from the (poor) Business Insider source. But CNN's take is different: "During his sworn testimony, Page denied a key claim from the infamous dossier but acknowledged talking to a high-ranking official from the Russian energy giant Rosneft.", "No public evidence has emerged to corroborate this specific claim in the dossier." Thoughts? James J. Lambden (talk) 06:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

It's based on several sources provided in the article. And it isn't limited to the Sechin meeting. Sources refer to key parts of his testimony as "corroboration". Now, can you self-revert and undo your 1RR violation?  Volunteer Marek  06:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Which sources and which parts? Be specific. James J. Lambden (talk) 07:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

In addition to Business Insider, we also have Newsweek (which you removed as a source - violating Misplaced Pages policy) ("his comments also appear to corroborate sections of the controversial document and raise new questions over his meetings in Russia.")

Oh, and here's our man Chuck Ross in the Daily Caller. Not a reliable source but worth quoting for illustrative purposes:

"Some of what former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page disclosed in testimony to the House Intelligence Committee last week matches up loosely with allegations made in the infamous Steele dossier"

"Page’s statements about a trip he made to Moscow in July 2016 included details that are laid out in the dirty document"

"Steele’s document did nail down something that Page revealed for the first time in his House testimony"

"Page revealed some new details about his Moscow visit that resemble other allegations in Steele’s report"

"While there is still no evidence to support the allegations made about Page in those two memos, parts of two other Steele reports ring true."

 Volunteer Marek  07:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

1RR and DS violation by Lambden

User:James J. Lambden violated 1RR as well as that restriction on consensus changes on this article;

• First revert
• Second revert

Additionally, that second revert restores changes were made by consensus.

Since I expect there's gonna be some deflecting coming soon (Lambden has a tendency to accuse others of what he's guilty of himself) let me address my edit. In particular my adding of the "corroborated" to the lede. The addition of that word was based on new information - Carter Page's testimony on November 2nd - and new sources (Newsweek in lede, several other sources in the text). As such it's not a revert since it is based on new developments which have not been previously covered. Regardless, Lambden's reverts cover not just the use of that word in the lede but other changes to the article as well. Volunteer Marek  06:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

This violation of DS by Lambden, is also in addition to removal of well sourced information for... basically no reason what so ever. Except of course POV and IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. That in itself constitutes WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, discretionary sanctions or no discretionary sanctions. Volunteer Marek  07:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

1RR and Consensus Required DS violation by Volunteer Marek

In his recent series of edits VM violated 1RR and Consensus Required on this text:

• Version reverted to:
• VM's 1st revert:
• VM's 2nd revert:

and Consensus required here with respect to the Business Insider paragraph:

• VM's addition:
• My removal:
• VM's restoration without consensus:

The edit VM complains about is the one in which I reverted his multiple DS violations. James J. Lambden (talk) 07:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Can you please stop mimicking my comments? It's an obvious taunt and a form of WP:HARASSMENT. And like I predicted above - you're trying to use the "I'm going to accuse you of what I'm guilty of myself" tactic as a way of deflecting attention from your own disruptive behavior. Volunteer Marek  07:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Notification of DS violations are not mimicry although they are inappropriate for an article talk page in my opinion. Can we agree to remove them? James J. Lambden (talk) 07:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

You formatted and wrote your "notification" to exactly resemble mine. It's mimicry designed to provoke and taunt. Volunteer Marek  07:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

No editor who writes this gets to complain about hurt feelings. Hat please. James J. Lambden (talk) 07:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

You didn't hurt my feelings. You are however trying to WP:HARASS me, just like you have tried to harass several other editors (User:Snooganssnoogans, User:NorthBySouthBaranoff, User:SPECIFICO and a few others whom you've deemed to be "politically inappropriate" in your WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to editing Misplaced Pages). This kind of behavior short circuits collaborative efforts and makes it difficult to improve the encyclopedia. Hence, it is disruptive (and yes, it's also obnoxious and creepy). You have also been repeatedly asked to not comment on my talk page - leaving a notification, even if completely bad faithed, is one thing, but making taunts with full knowledge that you are not welcome there is also incivil and abusive behavior. Volunteer Marek  07:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer Marek's DS violation is clear and straightforward, and his aspersions against James J. Lambden are beyond the pale. (In addition, the canvassing above is questionable at best.) Volunteer Marek was just let off the hook for another clear-cut DS violation in October because—while all parties acknowledged the violation—no admin was actually willing to sanction Volunteer Marek. I did not comment in that particular case because I generally agreed with Volunteer Marek's edits and because I strongly believe that the "consensus required" DS should be rescinded from most articles; however, any honest observer can see that countless editors have been topic banned for a fraction of what Volunteer Marek alone is routinely allowed to get away with. Have we all just accepted that Volunteer Marek is above the law?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh nonsense. I expected better from you. Volunteer Marek  17:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Elections and Referendums articles
• WikiProject Elections and Referendums articles
• Start-Class Espionage articles
• Mid-importance Espionage articles
• Start-Class International relations articles
• Low-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• Start-Class Journalism articles
• Low-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• Start-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• Start-Class American politics articles
• Low-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Start-Class Russia articles
• Mid-importance Russia articles
• Mid-importance Start-Class Russia articles
• Start-Class Russia (politics and law) articles
• Politics and law of Russia task force articles
• WikiProject Russia articles with no associated task force
• WikiProject Russia articles
• Start-Class United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• Start-Class United States articles of Unknown-importance
• Start-Class United States presidential elections articles
• Low-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• Start-Class United States Government articles
• Mid-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment