Talk:Steele dossier/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

RFC on stating no public evidence of collusion

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

---

Should the article state that "To date, news agencies have reported that there is no public evidence of collusion by Trump or his campaign." per [1] Casprings (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Sourced content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Collusion claims To date, news agencies have reported that there is no public evidence of collusion by Trump or his campaign. The New York Times has said there is no known evidence of clandestine discussions about disseminating the hacked emails, but noted that Trump had publicly urged Russia to hack Clinton's emails, which his son claimed was a joke. The Times also reported that despite extensive evidence of links between Trump associates and Russian intelligence operatives, there is no known evidence of a direct link between Trump and the Kremlin. Newsweek has said that it is proven that Trump maintained ties to wealthy businessmen in Azerbaijan, but that it was unproven that the Kremlin had been cultivating Trump other than attempting to contact him during the 2016 campaign; or that it had offered him lucrative real estate deals; or that there was any evidence the "golden showers" tape existed. Politicial figures and other commentators have disagreed on the significance of existing public evidence. Adam Schiff, the House Intelligence Committee ranking Democrat, and some critics have argued that the evidence already known shows collusion, with Schiff further saying that additional non-public evidence further supports the allegations. Early investigations and beginning of formal probes Soon after the allegations of collusion surfaced, former DNI Clapper said in March 2017 that a report assembled by the NSA, FBI, and CIA under his supervision as Director of National Intelligence included no evidence "that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians", and that to his knowledge, none existed during his time as Director. He later clarified that he would not be aware of any matters arising after his tenure, and that he had not been aware of a separate investigation by the FBI that had existed at the time. Still later, in an interview with Chris Matthews of MSNBC, he said that the Russian effort to meet with Trump's son was a "classic, textbook Soviet and now Russian tradecraft" whereby they confirmed that those close to Trump would be interested in receiving information damaging to Hillary Clinton. In November 2017, Clapper told CNN's Jake Tapper that since his earlier reports, "a lot more has come out that raises, I think, circumstantial questions if nothing else". As questions about possible Trump links to Russian leadership mounted, separate investigations by the Department of Justice and both houses of Congress began. Partisan division on House Intelligence Committee; Republicans end investigation saying no evidence of collusion The proceedings and conclusion of the House Intelligence Committee in its investigation were marked by partisan division. The New York Times wrote that "the day-to-day reality of running a closely watched investigation potentially implicating a sitting president left the committee badly frayed", and noted that Democrats on the committee had accused Republicans of hindering the investigation to protect Trump, while Republicans had complained that Democrats were turning the investigation into a TV spectacle to earn political points. In early 2018, as the special counsel investigation continued, the Republican majority on the house committee ended its investigation—declaring in press statements, and a memo authored without Democratic input, that no evidence of collusion had emerged. Republicans also seized on what they said were efforts by investigators to conceal the association between the document and Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign from a FISA court considering a warrant for a wiretap against Carter Page, an argument buttressing Republican claims that the surveillance and Russia investigation were based on the dossier, at its roots a Democratic political document. Regarding the collusion accusations, Rep. K. Michael Conaway (R-Tex.), who oversees the committee’s Russia probe, said that they had found "perhaps some bad judgment, inappropriate meetings, inappropriate judgment at taking meetings", and that the Trump tower meeting with the Russian lawyer "shouldn’t have happened, no doubt about that", but said that they had found no evidence of collusion. The end of the investigation and dissemination of the memo were met with skepticism and criticism by Congressional Democrats and others who said the moves amounted to a premature end to a flawed investigative process which failed to adequately obtain witness testimony that would implicate Trump, due to Republican control of the committee's subpoena power. Democrats pointed to multiple contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia and said they had seen too few witnesses to make a judgment on collusion; one Republican panel member complained that the probe was "poison" for the previously bipartisan panel. Dissemination of the memo by Nunes also generated an outcry by Democrats, law enforcement officials, and intelligence experts, who said its release would harm national security. The Republican majority also disagreed with the assessment of the U.S. intelligence community that Putin had a preference for Trump to become President, drawing further criticism. Ranking Democrat Adam Schiff released a memo for the minority on the intelligence committee, summarizing the case against Trump. Schiff told NBC that the evidence of collusion was "more than circumstantial", and that there was direct evidence of deception. He later insisted in an interview with George Stephanopoulos that already-public information—particularly about the campaign's discussions and meeting with Russians regarding the hacked Clinton and DNC emails, and the conversations between George Papadopoulos and Russian government agents—amounted to evidence of collusion, though not necessarily proof of a criminal conspiracy. Schiff also said he thought that some of the non-public evidence in front of the committee was evidence of collusion. Others have argued that Republican actions such as the release of the Nunes memo and calls for Mueller to step down showed an attempt to discredit his probe into Russian election interference. USA Today said: "The investigation's abrupt end underscores the bitter partisan divide that has plagued the committee's work. And it increases pressure on the collegial Senate Intelligence Committee to come out with a credible bipartisan report from its own Russia probe." The Senate Intelligence Committee probe continues. Commentary Public commentary has been largely divided among partisan lines, though prominent Republicans have found the allegations credible while some Democrats have expressed doubt. Critics have said that there is mounting evidence of collusion, while supporters and skeptics have either expressed doubt that collusion actually occurred or have said that there was no evidence to prove the allegation. Commentators have also disagreed on the importance of the fact that the dossier was funded by Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, as well as what some regarded as a lack of transparency in a Carter Page FISA warrant application that referenced the dossier. Commentary suggesting collusion claims are true Congressman Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee told The Hill in an interview that there was "a lot of evidence of collusion, despite what the president and everyone else says." Colin Kahl argued in Foreign Policy magazine that circumstantial evidence suggesting collusion continued to mount, but said that even if there was no collusion, Trump's efforts to minimize the U.S. response against Moscow's interference were "incredibly troubling". Los Angeles Times former D.C. bureau chief Doyle McManus wrote: "So while there is not conclusive public evidence of direct collaboration between the campaign and the Kremlin, there's mounting evidence that both sides wanted to cooperate and actively explored what they could do for each other." Commentators from NBC news argued that "cooperation without collusion is still cooperation". Republican commentators David French and Charles Krauthammer both said that Trump Jr.'s conversations with the Russians were proof of attempted collusion. Krauthammer wrote, "What Donald Jr.—and Kushner and Manafort—did may not be criminal. But it is not merely stupid. It is also deeply wrong, a fundamental violation of any code of civic honor." David A. Graham wrote in The Atlantic that "the Trump campaign and later transition were eager to work with Russia, and to keep that secret." Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank said that as evidence of the Trump campaign's "entanglement with Russia" continued to emerge, Trump and his advisors were forced to come up with "revised talking points" as part of a "veritable Marshall Plan for the moving of goal posts". Commentary skeptical of collusion claims As the story of collusion claims broke, Scott Shane of The New York Times wrote: "Under the circumstances, many in Washington expected the agencies to make a strong public case to erase any uncertainty. Instead, the message from the agencies essentially amounts to 'trust us.' There is no discussion of the forensics used to recognize the handiwork of known hacking groups, no mention of intercepted communications between the Kremlin and the hackers, no hint of spies reporting from inside Moscow’s propaganda machinery." Jason Kirchick, a Brookings Institution visiting fellow, wrote in Washington Post that "Trump's Defense Department in 2017 proposed a boost in financial support for [NATO]; he's announced the sale of antitank weapons to Ukraine; and, according to reports, U.S. military forces recently killed 'at least 100' Russian mercenaries in Syria. Yet so attached to the collusion narrative are some Trump critics that their theories are impervious to countervailing data." Richard A. Epstein, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, law professor at New York University and senior lecturer at The University of Chicago, wrote in Newsweek: "I agree with the Hoover Institution’s Paul Gregory, who has extensively studied Russian propaganda tactics, that the Russians knew that they could not influence the outcome of the election with a few well timed tweets. But they understood that a disinformation campaign could raise the specter of collusion with either party, which would then weaken the presidency no matter which candidate won." Jonathan Turley, a law professor specializing in public interest law at George Washington University, said in The Hill that "[i]t takes willful blindness not to acknowledge either the lack of direct evidence of collusion or the implausibility of many of the theories abounding on cable news programs." Writers for The New Republic and The Atlantic suggested that it was likely Mueller had not found evidence to implicate Trump. James S. Robbins, national security expert and member of USA Today's Board of Contributors, called the dossier a "sketchy gossip-ridden anti-Trump document paid for by the Clinton campaign and compiled with input from Russian intelligence sources" and said its use to authorize surveillance on Trump campaign members "was an unprecedented investigative intrusion into the American political process that makes Watergate look like amateur hour." Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Victor Davis Hanson argued in National Review that "[a]side from former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, a few minor and transitory campaign officials have been indicted or have pleaded guilty to a variety of transgressions other than collusion." Aaron Maté, writing in The Nation, argued that officials had acknowledged they had seen no evidence of collusion or wrongdoing, and that "[w]ell-placed critics of Trump—including former DNI chief James Clapper, former CIA director Michael Morrell, Representative Maxine Waters, and Senator Dianne Feinstein—concur to date." "[T]he relentless pursuit of this narrative above all else has had dangerous consequences," he later wrote. References

Survey

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

Starting this section and this edit in general seems designed to push a narrative that there is no collusion. This is neither backed up by the facts or by WP:RS.Casprings (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Additional Note: This just broke: Mueller Has Dozens of Inquiries for Trump in Broad Quest on Russia Ties and Obstruction Questions such as:

What knowledge did you have of any outreach by your campaign, including by Paul Manafort, to Russia about potential assistance to the campaign?

clearly show that there is some evidence that the campaign was working with Russia and the investigation continues.Casprings (talk) 08:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

As to your additional note, I don't think it's reasonable to assume the evidentiary bases for the questions from their wording. The questions neither support nor undermine whether evidence for collusion exists. Dyrnych (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

These are opinion sources and reported claims of democrats. Fact sourcing says there is no evidence. Moreover the cited material itself plainly shows that it is utterly backed up by both facts and RS. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

SO WHAT MOST OF YOUR SOURCES ARE ALSO OPINION SOURCES AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IT MEANS "REPORTED CLAIMS OF DEMOCRATS" EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT THAT'S BLATANTLY FALSE!!!!!!!!!!. Seriously, why did you feel the need to bold your comment? Bolding words doesn't make them magically true (and for example the first source is not "reported claims of democrats" (sic).Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

VM, your yelling blew-out my hearing aids...and I had them down to low volume. Please reciprocate in-kind. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Take it up with Factchecker.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• No, as this is irrelevant. There is an ongoing investigation and it has been claimed that there is an "abundance” of evidence of collusion with Russia and obstruction by Donald Trump’s campaign and administration that is not yet public". Also it is not that black and white [[2]].Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

  There is an abundance of evidence that Trump was framed and this whole collusion narrative is a fraud.Phmoreno (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

  Maybe, and if there is we can say that. This question is about whether or not there is public evidence of collusion.Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

  Phmoreno, but is that "evidence" found in RS? No. We don't include conspiracy theories, but if they are discussed in RS, we might mention them. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, there are RS's, but most some not in the scope of the dossier article. The DeSantis letter is part of the evidence directly related to the dossier. The Trump server fraud is connected because Alfa-Bank is mentioned in the dossier. Because Carter Page was an FBI informant in a case involving Russians he was someone who could be framed as a spy (Title 1 FISA), but this would make him a double agent. There is the suspicious link of Bruce and Nellie Ohr to the the dossier that is backed up by RS. Apart from the dossier, there are suspicious links and in some of the other circumstantial evidence, such as the Natalia Veselnitskaya / Fusion GPS sting operation. Also the George Papadopoulos operation looks like it was a set up.Phmoreno (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• No. This is well explained by people above. My very best wishes (talk) 04:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
• Yes – but it should be made clear that this specifically refers to the dossier allegations of collusion.
  1. There has been no public corroboration of the salacious allegations against Mr. Trump, nor of the specific claims about coordination between his associates and the Russians. — The New York Times (answering the question "How much of the dossier has been substantiated?")
  2. That assertion is unproven — as are many of the other claims in the document. That includes the overarching claim that Russian government officials allied with Trump employees and campaign aides to help his election. — The Washington Post
  3. The 35-page dossier, written mostly by former British spy Christopher Steele, includes unverified allegations about Trump, including contacts between Russian officials and his staff during the presidential campaign, and Moscow’s possession of compromising information about the president. — Bloomberg
  4. No evidence has surfaced so far that Trump aides or campaign advisers were involved in Russian efforts to disrupt the 2016 election — The New York Times
  5. Those ties originate in part from a document compiled by former MI6 intelligence officer, Christopher Steele, which contains unverified allegations of misconduct and collusion between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia. — Newsweek
  6. dossier containing unverified allegations about collusion between President Trump and Russia — The Hill
  7. It contains unproven allegations of coordination between Trump's advisers and Russians on hacking the emails of prominent Democrats and makes unverified claims about sexual activities. — AP
  8. dossier that made unverified allegations of collusion between Trump’s campaign for president and the Kremlin — Times of Israel / AP
  9. It contained as yet unproven allegations that the Russians had wanted Mr. Trump to win the election, that Russians had shared valuable information about Hillary Clinton with the Trump campaign, and that Russia had compromising sexually explicit video of Mr. Trump that could be used as blackmail. — PBS
  10. At this point, no evidence of collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign has been made public. It may or may not exist. However, there is an ongoing investigation. — factcheck.org (updated regularly but this is not specifically about dossier allegations, unlike other sources I listed above)
      It is DUE to include one sentence about what news sources have reported. Reliable sources have deemed it necessary to report that as yet there is no evidence. We should follow reliable sources. Politrukki (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

  The text doesn't say "there is no conclusive proof" it says "no evidence". This is false and RS do not state there is no evidence. SPECIFICO talk 12:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

  That's demonstrably false. Some sources say "no evidence", others say the allegation is unverified/uncorroborated/unproven. Which one would you prefer? Politrukki (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

  This RfC is about the first. Now where are your sources? SPECIFICO talk 13:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

  Check Factcheck.org: "no evidence of collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign has been made public". The rest of my sources above are specifically related to dossier. If you don't like specific wording, you can make constructive suggestions instead of opposing the proposal. Politrukki (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Yes as per Politrukki --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support with different wording I recommend the House Intel Committee's Report findings (External links section). "When asked directly, none of the interviewed witnesses provided evidence of collusion, coordination, or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government." See p-61 for Brennan and Clapper's statement's of "no collusion". That should conclude the matter.Phmoreno (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support as per Politrukki. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. With all of the back-and-forth over recent days, the article currently lacks an easy-to-find description of the highly exculpatory House Intelligence report. What we must attempt to do is find a version that is simply a neutral description of that report. Like Phmoreno, I am opposed to the summary tagline given in the RfC (which was, I note, wording taken from the original long edit). For now, I suggest settling on Phmoreno's suggestion, but we should also plan to include a neutral description of Friday's minority report as well. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose as worded. The conclusion of the majority report of the HPSCI are that there has been no public evidence of collusion. This should certainly be covered in the article. And it must also be attributed. And the minority report should also be mentioned and attributed. That is how to satisfy NPOV. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - this is a ridiculous proposal. Which sources? When? Is there a secondary source that actually says this ("news agencies said that blah blah blah") or is it just a collection of some cherry picked sources WP:SYNTH'ed to reach a conclusion by the person wishing to put this into the article? Answer: it's the latter. Blatant POV and SYNTH attempt. No.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: unneeded, possibly OR, and unhelpful to readers. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support - as there's yet to be any evidence of collusion. Indeed, there isn't even any clear definition of what's meant by collusion. GoodDay (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support - it is needed, it is factually accurate, there is no OR involved, and ommission would be a disservice to our readers. In fact, more of the same kind of editing updates for accuracy and compliance with NPOV is needed throughout this article. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• No. Unsourced OR that contradicts sourced content. SPECIFICO talk 01:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

  Which part is OR? "news agencies"? We could simply say "There is no public evidence of collusion by Trump or his campaign." or, if the question is specifically about the dossier allegations, "The dossier's allegations of collusion between Trump campaign and Russia have not been corroborated." Which source says there is evidence? Politrukki (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support This is getting a little silly now isn't it? It is overwhelmingly covered that there is no public evidence to date by several high quality sources. It would be a dis-service to our readers to not have this information and give the article an even bigger POV issue. PackMecEng (talk) 01:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

  This just isn't true. See below. Two of these high quality sources are from April 2017, before a lot of developments (in particular, Papadapolous getting busted) came about. The next two or three are being straight up misrepresented and don't say what this text claims they say. THAT is silly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

  "Papadapolous [sic]" is not even mentioned in the dossier. Is Factcheck.org a reliable source? Above I provided nine sources that say the dossier allegations of collusion are uncorroborated/unverified/unproven or there is "no evidence". Many of them are from October, one from January 2018. Politrukki (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

  ""Papadapolous [sic]" is not even mentioned in the dossier." - yes, but the proposed sentence isn't about the dossier, it's about collusion in general (this also address your nine sources). (your factcheck link doesn't work for me)Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

  Nothing wrong with the link. The source was last updated on May 1, 2018. The relevant part is quoted above. Politrukki (talk) 11:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: there remains considerable debate, but while there is such debate, we can't have such a bald claim. Bondegezou (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose While the public evidence wouldn’t be enough for certainty, there is certainly evidence. And, I don’t see the preponderance of RS stating that there is no evidence. O3000 (talk) 12:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment – There are two separate questions: (a) Should it be mentioned that there is no public evidence of collusion between Trump campaign and Russia? and (b) Should it be mentioned that there is no public evidence of the dossier's allegation of collusion between Trump campaign and Russia?
  It seems that everyone who has opposed, is answering the question (a), but the questions are separate because the dossier for example does not mention Papadopoulos or the Trump Tower meeting (if someone thinks they prove collusion). Politrukki (talk) 13:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support: This has been going on for what? A year and a half now? Nobody seems to be able to find any solid evidence to back the assertion that Trump and Russia colluded to win the election. However, it should be stated simply that "There is currently no evidence of collusion between President Trump and the Russian Government". To say that there isn't public evidence would make people assume he did collude. To say there isn't any evidence period would simply be wrong as the investigation may have something that hasn't gone public yet. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 17:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • How long did the Benghazi investigation go on? Somehow that wasn't a problem. How many arrests or indictments did that produce? None. Somehow that wasn't a problem. This investigation has had more than a dozen arrests and it probably barely just scratched the surface. Solid evidence is the Papadapolous et. al guilty pleas.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

    "solid evidence" Factchecker_atyourservice 18:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

    Apparently according to Papadopolous himself since he pled guilty.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

    It has been 6 months since he pled guilty to lying about things that were not illegal, so if anybody thought that was "solid evidence" of collusion, there's been plenty of time for them to say so and yet the fact sources say there is no evidence. Do you think they forgot about Papadopoulos when they made that assessment? Factchecker_atyourservice 19:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

    Well, no, actually, you presented a bunch of sources from before Papadopoulos pled guilty ("to things that were not illegal"? Really, ) and tried to pass them off as recent. That's your "fact sources say there is no evidence". Quit trying to play shenanigans with the timeline.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

    Oh quit your iterated nonsense. The BBC source is from March 13th. The WaPo source is from Feb 23rd. Both many months after guilty plea. Factchecker_atyourservice 01:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

    I'm going to save myself a bit of time and copy/paste my previous reply which you failed to address:

    Take this source (BBC from March). It doesn't actually say "news agencies have reported that there is no public evidence". What is says is "Republicans claim that there is no public evidence." So this is a straight up misrepresentation of a source. The WaPo (from Feb) source is a bit better here but it too uses words like "directly" and is talking about whether Trump advisers "sought to aid" (you don't have to "aid" to "collude", you just need to know and do nothing, or benefit from it). And so on and so forth. Basically this is a sorry hatchet job - WP:POV and WP:SYNTH.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Neither best -- or include both - This is all going into a lot of things not one of the Steele collection of allegations, a result of them, a cause of them, or tied to them. None of this is from or about the dossier so it does not belong in this article. But if the article talks collusion then include this or similar also. Talk of 'collusion' seems more a dog whistle term on later suspicions of conspiracy. But if collusion is included, then I think NPOV and BALANCE requires this one or something of the same ilk. Best to not go offtopic once, second best is to go offtopic twice as two wrongs would make an almost-right. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are clearly significant Reliable Sources giving opposing or more complicated views on the subject. That may be due to differing standards of what is "evidence", differing scope of of consideration, or other reasons. Unfortunately it's still going to be some time before Reliable Sources resolve this mess down to a single coherent narrative. Alsee (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) Support with revised wording, which should say there is no evidence substantiating any of the allegations in the dossier. As far as I'm aware, nobody currently believes the dossier to have been reputable. Meanwhile, the current proposal addresses the collusion investigation altogether, which is outside the immediate scope of this article. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
• I now oppose per my comments below. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Compassionate727, two points:

1. There are many RS, and especially the intelligence community, which take the allegations very seriously, and have found independent evidence confirming that a number of allegations are true, and others very likely true. That's why the intelligence community uses it as the "road map" for the whole investigation. If it was unreliable, they would have trashed it immediately, or as soon as its claims were found to be unreliable. That has not happened. On the contrary. You should read this article. We cover this quite well, and you can read the RS.
2. You are absolutely right that the RfC is malformed as it discusses matters outside the scope of the dossier. I have pointed this out several times, to no effect. The discussion must focus ONLY on the dossier.

Your narrative, that "nobody currently believes the dossier to have been reputable", only applies to Trump supporters, far-right unreliable sources, and those who believe them (but not to Trump and top GOP leadership, who know the dossier is right). RS tell a very different story, backed up by evidence, rather than conspiracy theories, such as this one in the National Review, which flies in the face of the RS evidence that Papadopoulos was that "inside source" close to Trump, and that he drunkenly revealed that the Trump campaign had inside knowledge of the hacking far earlier than any innocent person should know. That fits the dossier narrative that the Trump campaign worked with Russia and hackers and partially paid for the hacking, all with Trump's knowledge. The FBI later contacted Papadopoulos and flipped him. He then worked for them as an informant. He worked out a plea deal, and was only convicted of lying to the FBI. This is very worrying for Trump. That Nunes and the GOP leadership are panicked that there may be others in Trump's close orbit who are also feeding incriminating evidence to the FBI is logical. Rather than being patriotic and supporting the legitimate efforts to uncover Trump-related corruption and collusion with Russia, they are carrying water for Trump and Putin and seeking to find out who it might be, and feed the info to Trump. Treason? Clearly obstruction of justice. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: I would dispute the reliability of the intelligence community as a reliable authority on this issue, but that would be wading into FBI/DOJ conspiracy grounds, and it's frankly not relevant. There's been a lot of POV-pushing in this RfC from both sides, and I'm sick of the toxicity. There's a reason I'm interested in politics but don't edit political articles. Anyway, returning to the matter at hand, I'm switching my vote. I completely failed to do basic research before voting here, such as reading this article, for which I apologize. In my (new) view, the third paragraph of the lead here satisfactorily addresses the disputed reliability of the dossier, and this addition is wholly unnecessary in light of that. I thus oppose the proposed addition, unless someone would like to argue that "the media tends to treat its allegations as gossip" is different than what we're trying to establish consensus for. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

No need to avoid these topics, since you are clearly able to consider facts and sources and form straightforward editorial judgments. In the WP sense, there's actually only one POV narrative being promoted here for the past 2 years. One of the many false accusations is that NPOV mainstream responses to it are somehow equivalent POV's. Well the mainstream is different than the GOP and right-wing conspiracy theories, but in Wikipedia terms it's NPOV representation of the mainstream view. We don't deal in absolute truth here. We just reflect the weight of mainstream accounts, and for the time being at least the mainstream view is not accepted by folks who hear it for the first time on a WP talk page and discover that it refutes the Daily Caller, Fox News, Breitbart, Washington Times, and other weapons of mass deflection. BTW, you may want to change your bolded !vote at the location of your strikethrough to make it clearer for whoever closes this thread. SPECIFICO talk 17:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, you'll appreciate this from Aaron Blake, on Twitter summarizes his WaPo article:

A collusion denial play, in 7 acts

1. No communication w Russia

2. No communication *we're aware of*

3. No *planned* communication

4. Planned meeting, but not re: campaign

5. Was re: campaign, but no good info

6. Collusion isn't crime

7. No info was used

Analysis: Rudy Giuliani just watered down Trump's Russia collusion denial — again. This is now at least the seventh time the goal posts have been moved — all in one direction. The Washington Post

Blake closes with this: "One thing, Rudy Giuliani: The Trump campaign *did* use it."

So even by the Trump campaign's own moving-goal-post redefinitions, they can't escape the obvious conclusion that they really did collude. Maybe they can't settle on a definition which removes them from the guilt-equation, but we know the definition, and it fits what they did, and are still doing. It hasn't stopped. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. We definitely lack the sources for such a strong claim; the sources that people are trying to cite for this are largely much, much more circumspect and careful in what they say, with numerous qualifiers. Additionally, the wording implies a unanimity among the sources that is definitely not there. --Aquillion (talk) 04:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Aquillion and others: a "unanimity" of sources does not exist. It's not "all or nothing". We can't make such a categorical statement when the weight of RS don't do it either. We can't cherrypick only some RS which say that and ignore those which don't. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no fact sourcing that says there is evidence of collusion, so you apparently don't know what "cherry picking" means. Since no evidence has emerged, RS's have been unanimous in stating that in their own editorial voice. Factchecker_atyourservice 15:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose- For all the obvious reasons - we report verified facts not the ongoing absence of verified facts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons stated above. All of the evidence in the Trump/Russia investigation is not public because it's not supposed to be public. Saying there is "no public evidence" appears to be an attempt to claim "NO COLLUSION" the same way we might see from Trump's twitter feed. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Totally out of the question, as it would violate multiple core policies. Fails verification, as it doesn't accurately portray the source material. In addition the source was written last summer; that's not "to date." Fails neutrality; see sources supplied by Cassprings. Our goal is to summarize verifiable facts, not to repeat mantras. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion 2

• The subject can certainly be covered better. A section which quotes various RS might work. Doing it chronologically is important, as serious sources have tended to change their way of discussing it. Failure to stay up to date and continue to make the "no collusion" claim as the only possible claim is a sign of a careless or agenda-driven journalist/author/source.

There are obviously two general narratives, with the Trump camp insisting there is only one proper way to interpret all this, and that is that there is absolutely no form of collusion. They will continue to make that claim until they die in jail, if that happens. Truth is irrelevant to them. This is a legal strategy, and the modus operandi Trump learned from Roy Cohn: "Deny, deny, deny, and immediately accuse your enemies of what you are doing."

The other view is that there is lots of evidence of several forms of collusion, but we still haven't concluded the investigation, so a final verdict can't be added as a definitive conclusion. The many sources, including Brennan, who see lots of evidence of collusion on several fronts, should be included.

That way NPOV is met by covering both sides of the issue. Trump, Fox, GOP, and fringe sources insist "no collusion" is the only correct POV, while RS are much more nuanced and varied in their interpretations of the available evidence. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer:, as I have repeatedly complained, "the Trump camp insisting there is only one proper way to interpret all this, and that is that there is absolutely no form of collusion" is a dumb straw man and you're simply preventing constructive discussion by repeating this nonsense.

Please strike your comment and move it to your own userspace where similar angry personal attacks and diatribes fester. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Just how many threads do we have on this? Can we keep this all in one place?Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: maybe it would be useful to close this, uh, "RFC", which was not presented straightforwardly. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

One, we needed a formal RFC because above wasn't going anywhere. Two, how much more straightforward do you want?Casprings (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

My mistake, for some reason I thought you had linked a diff of the lead sentence, I must not have checked. Factchecker_atyourservice 01:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

As an RFC is now open the other thread should be closed.Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: "cherry picking" implies I'm skewing the source presentation by ignoring fact sources that say there is public evidence of collusion. No such fact sources exist that I am aware of—not high quality ones, at any rate.

Would it alleviate your SYNTH concerns If the text were changed to match the source exactly, so it simply reads, "There is no public evidence that . . ." without the initial language attributing it to news agency reporting? Factchecker_atyourservice 21:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

No. Cherry picking is just the first of your problems. Another one of your problems is that the sources being added are outdated. Yes, at one point in time, there was no public evidence. But let's see... the Papadapolous story broke in October 2017, right? So why are you trying to use a source from April 2017? Or take this source. It doesn't actually say "news agencies have reported that there is no public evidence". What is says is "Republicans claim that there is no public evidence." So this is a straight up misrepresentation of a source. The WaPo source is a bit better here but it too uses words like "directly" and is talking about whether Trump advisers "sought to aid" (you don't have to "aid" to "collude", you just need to know and do nothing, or benefit from it). This is another source from April 2017, before Papadapolous. This source is again, being misrepresented. What it says is that Trump himself hasn't been connected. In the very next line it actually explicitly mentions "illegal activity" by "his campaign". Trump not knowing about it is not the same as no evidence it didn't happen.

And so on and so forth. Basically this is a sorry hatchet job - WP:POV and WP:SYNTH.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: It is the picture being painted by top RS fact sources in their own editorial voice. I have looked and looked for a contrary one and did not find it. If I'm wrong show me. Additionally, the "analysis" sources linked, such as from BBC and WaPo, also say there is no evidence, although they don't all say the exact same thing that there is no evidence of—none of them say there is evidence of something. If fact sources say there is public evidence of some Trump collusion, show them now now now.

The sources saying that the evidence known shows collusion, like the sources saying there was probably no collusion, are all opinion commentary. Additionally, in the specific case of Adam Schiff, I treated him like a fact source by putting his views about public and non-public evidence in the introductory summary as well as the investigation subsection, rather than the commentary subsection.

Moreover, the "collusion probably true" opinion commentary all acknowledges the lack of collusion evidence, as we see when NBC News says "cooperation without collusion is still cooperation" and numerous other quotes saying the same and similar things. The idea that we wouldn't report what newspapers say about whether there is any evidence of impeachable offenses by Trump seems extreme, especially given the readiness with which this article reports sensational accusations not widely circulated in high-quality RS. Factchecker_atyourservice 20:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

"It is the picture being painted" <-- Is that like a new fancy way of saying "I just did a bunch of WP:SYNTH?" Cuz that's what it sounds like.

"by top RS" <-- some of which are outdated, from before more recent significant developments, and some of which don't actually say what you claim they say. As explained in detail above. Somehow your response didn't bother addressing these two issues.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: How, then, does your fantasy-based view account for statements like Ongoing congressional and FBI investigations into Russian interference have so far produced no public evidence that Trump associates colluded with the Russian effort to change the outcome of the election.]? That's from 2 weeks ago. Ever hear of Reuters? They're, like, totally a thing. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Lol. Yeah, if you're going to obnoxiously accuse others of having "fantasy-based views" you MIGHT want to leave that fantasy timeline you're living in which is always one year behind the non-fantasy timeline. It's 2018 buddy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Woops! That source is indeed from 2017! That said, you did obnoxiously accuse me of "misrepresenting" sources which is an, uhm, interesting proposition at best given the supplied source quotes. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

"you did obnoxiously accuse me of "misrepresenting" sources" <-- I did. And then I backed it all up in the paragraph above which starts with "No. Cherry picking is just the first of your problems...." which then goes on to explain precisely how you're misrepresenting them. And I like how you basically say "woops, I was wrong, but I am still right dognabbit!" in your second sentence. Time to fold up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Oppose As not all the sources say this "no clear-cut evidence of "collusion" has been unearthed." is not saying there is none, just that it is not strong. "We hasten to note that there is no public evidence at this time that Trump campaign staff directly sought to aid..." does not say there is no evidence of collusion, just no evidence of direct collusion to aid the attempts. "So while there is not conclusive public evidence of direct collaboration", again this is not saying there is no public evidence of collusion. Sorry the sourcing is not strong enough to say this in wiki's voice.Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Per my comment ("There are two separate questions) above, which question is more relevant to this article? Should we have two separate RFCs if one group is answering to question (a) and another to question (b)? Politrukki (talk) 13:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

As Jimmy Dore would say, what collusion? What does that mean? Where's this evidence at? GoodDay (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Why should anyone care what that particular person would say? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The guy's correct. There's been no evidence of collusion, no explanation of kinda collusion. There's no treason committed. You can't have treason, when the 2 countries aren't at war with each other, according to the US Constitution. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The guy's a ... lemme watch BLP here. Anyway, the guy is a non-notable, non-reliable... comedian? Also not sure where you got "treason" from. Has anyone said anything about treason? No? So why are you bringing it up? Also, Papadapolous and Page are your evidence of collusion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• "We found evidence of collusion in the abundant secret meetings & communications between Trump campaign officials & associates such as Manafort, Gates, Papadopoulos, Don Jr., Flynn & others, w/ emissaries & officials from, or linked to the Russian gov." Adam Schiff -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

That's Schiff's view—entitled to special prominence, but it's still just a view. Factchecker_atyourservice 20:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The guilty pleas say otherwise.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Factchecker_atyourservice 17:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

It's time to close this RfC and possibly start another one. We've been chasing the wrong rabbit down the wrong path.

Politrukki made some very good points here.

This RfC is about the wrong question, one better suited for the Special Counsel investigation (2017–present)‎ and Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections articles. We should not be discussing the broader question of whether there is evidence of collusion.

Instead we should be discussing whether there is evidence for the narrower allegation of "conspiracy" (and other allegations which could be included under the "collusion" umbrella) found in the dossier.

The dossier does not mention Papadopoulos or the Trump Tower meeting, two factors which many consider evidence of collusion. IIRC, many RS note that Mueller may consider the Trump Tower meeting the strongest evidence of collusion that the public knows about. There Trump himself wrote a deceptive press release, and signed it with his son's name. That tied Trump into what happened; because he wrote a press release which was a cover-up of what actually happened, he could not claim to be uninvolved or ignorant. The act of lying was evidence of a guilty conscience.

There are many activities which, seen together, are interpreted by many to be evidence of collusion: the activities of Papadopoulos, Carter Page, Manafort, and Cohen; other secret contacts between Trump campaign members and Russians; intercepted conversation between Russian nationals discussing their contacts with Trump campaign members; and other information shared by friendly foreign intelligence sources. All of this started the CIA/NSA/FBI investigation into Russian intervention before the dossier mentioned Carter Page.

Trump's own actions are also suspiciou: his odd refusals to condemn Putin; his refusal to take action to prevent further cyber attacks, even though $120 million has been granted to fight Russian meddling (none has been used); his refusal to do anything to improve election security; and his refusal to definitively accuse Russia of interfering in the election to help him. This is interpreted as evidence that he is controlled by Putin, IOW that he is being blackmailed.

The dossier covers some things which have been confirmed, and others not, at least not publicly. Not all things in the dossier are related to collusion, and it never deals with questions of treason, as those are legal questions. Collusion is not illegal when it does not involve secrecy to commit illegal actions, but it is equal to conspiracy (which is illegal) when it does involve secrecy to commit illegal actions.

So we've been discussing the wrong question. We need to focus on what's relevant for this article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, the USA & Russia aren't at war with each other, so treason is impossible according to the US Constitution. GoodDay (talk) 03:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

What are you going on about? The only person bringing up treason is you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: so basically you are saying we should reject RS characterizations of the evidence, and instead make up one that suits the interests and views of some Wikipedia editors? Couldn't we just cite Reuters saying "Ongoing congressional and FBI investigations into Russian interference have so far produced no public evidence that Trump associates colluded with the Russian effort to change the outcome of the election." a mere 2 weeks ago and then we could cite User:BullRangifer by saying "but Wikipedia user Bull Rangifer disagrees with this characterization and says there is oodles of evidence"? Factchecker_atyourservice 14:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

No, he's probably saying the same thing as other folks - that we shouldn't base our article on outdated sources, like you're trying to do, and we shouldn't misrepresent reliable sources, like you're trying to do. Can you please strike this nonsense about "a mere 2 weeks ago". It's embarrassing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

"Outdated sources" were included just to show you that fact sources have consistently reported the lack of evidence for over a year now. I didn't "misrepresent" any reliable sources. If you think better wording could be used for what the RS's say there is no evidence of, I'm all ears. But I don't see how you can argue that RS fact statements like the following are not saying there's a lack of collusion evidence.
"no clear-cut evidence of "collusion" has been unearthed"
"there is still no public evidence of a direct link between President Trump himself and the Kremlin"
"there is no public evidence at this time that Trump campaign staff directly sought to aid Russian interference efforts"
"There’s no public evidence that Trump is connected to any collusion with Russia to influence the 2016 vote."
Factchecker_atyourservice 17:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

So which one of these are from last year? I don't feel like checking again. And none of these say what the proposed text is claiming.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

These are all fact sources from 2018, and 3 of them are top-drawer. There is also ample admission of lack of evidence in anti-Trump opinion commentary such as the NBC commentators saying "cooperation without collusion is still cooperation". As you can see in my proposed text, there was an expansion tag on the section of commentary saying Trump colluded or that there's evidence of collusion—inviting editors to flesh out that view more extensively rather than trying to eliminate coverage of the contrary view, which has been stated in the reported pages of top papers rather than merely in opinion columns. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I see. You're just repeating the same claim made before even though it's already been replied to and debunked. Here let me copy paste my previous comment, rather than waste my time writing it up again:

Take this source. It doesn't actually say "news agencies have reported that there is no public evidence". What is says is "Republicans claim that there is no public evidence." So this is a straight up misrepresentation of a source. The WaPo source is a bit better here but it too uses words like "directly" and is talking about whether Trump advisers "sought to aid" (you don't have to "aid" to "collude", you just need to know and do nothing, or benefit from it).(...) This source is again, being misrepresented. What it says is that Trump himself hasn't been connected. In the very next line it actually explicitly mentions "illegal activity" by "his campaign". Trump not knowing about it is not the same as no evidence it didn't happen.

And so on and so forth. Basically this is a sorry hatchet job - WP:POV and WP:SYNTH.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Pay attention, it most certainly says that. "That these are the key questions is good news for the Trump administration - an admission that no clear-cut evidence of "collusion" has been unearthed." Factchecker_atyourservice 19:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

This long song has a simple refrain. "Evidence" is not the same as "proof". We just keep repeating that after every attempt to shoe-horn some kind of exculpatory OR into the article. And even "proof" comes in many flavors. Chocolate, sugar-free, butterscotch, and lemon chiffon. RS tell us there's a ton of evidence. Whether there's proof is left to the future. SPECIFICO talk 17:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

"RS tell us there's a ton of evidence."—if that were true then fact reporting would say so. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Evidence: [3] Not proof. Proof comes from an argument that builds on and interrelates Evidence. RS tell us there's a ton of evidence. I didn't say to put "ton of evidence" in the article, so we don't need a source for "ton" although I'm sure you could easily find one. SPECIFICO talk 17:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I think given the levels of sniping going on this has gone way beyond constructive and should be closed.Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Who is talking about "proof"?? Factchecker_atyourservice 17:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Per NYT yesterday, Mueller question for Trump: "What knowledge did you have of any outreach by your campaign, including by Paul Manafort, to Russia about potential assistance to the campaign?" Prior to this disclosure, there had been no publicly available information indicating any such outreach. Now there is. soibangla (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

What the actual" quote says "This is one of the most intriguing questions on the list. It is not clear whether Mr. Mueller knows something new, but there is no publicly available information linking Mr. Manafort, the former campaign chairman, to such outreach. So his inclusion here is significant. Mr. Manafort’s longtime colleague, Rick Gates, is cooperating with Mr. Mueller." It is telling they do not say anything other then about Mr Manfort.Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I was not quoting NYT, didn't intend to create that appearance soibangla (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

No I know, I think that was my point.Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Sources characterize the state of evidence in one very specific way: "there is no public evidence". They do not all use the exact same wording, but they are all clearly talking about the lack of evidence of Trump collusion. Here we have editors wanting to contradict top quality RS characterizations of the evidence because they disagree with it. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

No, how is saying "they have not said X so we cannot say they have said X" contradictory them, you admit they are not actually saying X. It is your personal interpretation that reads them as saying X, one I disagree with. As I said they (in this instance, and how I interpret it, which is no less valid then your interpretation) knowingly just said Manfort. That is not contradicting them, as it does not say anything that is opposite to what they have in actuality said. But as I said this is just going nowhere and should now be closed.Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

My personal interpretation? This is interesting. I think we need to take things slowly, because maybe words don't mean stuff.

""no clear-cut evidence of "collusion" has been unearthed"

What is your personal interpretation of this statement?

My personal interpretation is that it is saying that no clear-cut evidence of collusion has been unearthed.

Factchecker_atyourservice 17:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

"No clear cut" means not unambiguously, not non existent. Thus it is saying it is not clear if evidence is available. That is not the same as saying it does not exist.Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

"not clear if evidence is available"--no, it's saying the evidence that is available is not clear-cut evidence of collusion--to wit, no clear-cut evidence has been "unearthed". Before moving along I want to make absolutely certain we are on the same page here.

To the extent that Mueller has additional evidence, and he may, it does not change the reported fact that none of the public evidence shows collusion, which is what the news agencies are reporting on, nor does that change the fact that some people have argued the existing evidence shows collusion--which is what users are doing here by piecing together bits of evidence that they think are strong. Factchecker_atyourservice 18:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

OK word it like that then, now what did the BBC actually say "That these are the key questions is good news for the Trump administration - an admission that no clear-cut evidence of "collusion" has been unearthed. "We just didn't look hard enough" doesn't carry as venomous a political sting.". So no they are not saying there was no clear cut evidence unearthed, which in context of the above paragraph and the whole section is asking (not saying) the (key there words) question that maybe the reason that the committee said (and note they are saying it was the committee, not the BBC) said they had found no clear cut evidence was they had not really tried.Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Slater if you look at my proposed text, I gave very significant coverage to the views arguing that this was not a full investigation. I also went into Schiff's views about the existing evidence, additional non-public evidence, and attempts at deception. Nonetheless as the BBC analyst has put it, no clear evidence has emerged. If you think the summarizing language could be adjusted in a way that you feel would be adequately NPOV that would be helpful, but I don't think it makes sense to just say we can't talk about the news agency summaries of the evidence. Even most of the opinion commentary sources saying Trump probably colluded admit there is no known evidence of it. Factchecker_atyourservice 18:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Note that the quoted text I was replying to is from this cite [[4]], which was referred to here [[5]], with that decision to alter what I was replying (after it was made clear that it was being misrepresented) to I am now bowing out. There is no reason to keep this open.Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you are accusing me of? I removed an unnecessarily snarky remark from one of my own comments? And I supposedly misrepresented a source? Factchecker_atyourservice 18:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrarier break

The story is at least starting to develop though, with some juicy crystal balling from the NYT editorial board explicitly speculating Mueller may know "a great deal more than he's letting on". Although the bulk of the questions relate to obstruction, a couple of them about Manafort and Stone suggest Mueller might have some collusion evidence. It will be very interesting to see whether Trump agrees to answer any or all of them and if he refuses, there's a possibility we may get to hear what evidence there is, although there is also a possibility Mueller will continue to keep it secret and maintain an active investigation. Factchecker_atyourservice 00:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

That's really beside the point. The key question is who leaked this document to the press and why and what reaction were they seeking to precipitate. Those are the questions editors ask. SPECIFICO talk 00:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oh lord, you're an editor and I'm not. Very profound Mr. SPECIFICO, and very specific as always. Actually I misremembered, the story didn't say they were leaked, though it seems likely given that the NYT story doesn't say where they got the documents from. At the same time if Mueller were going to "leak" them for some reason he wouldn't want the NYT to say where they got the questions. Factchecker_atyourservice 01:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC) No, you don't seem to understand how, why, and when reporters get their hands on such material and why they publish it. SPECIFICO talk 01:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC) Enlighten me or shut up. Do not tell me what you think about me personally. Factchecker_atyourservice 02:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC) What you understand is your business. I'm just explaining it's incorrect and not a fruitful approach for our jobs here. Not going anywhere useful. SPECIFICO talk 02:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC) Either say why it is incorrect or unfruitful or shut your incorrect, unfruitful mouth. Factchecker_atyourservice 02:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC) I will pray for you on Sunday. Meanwhile, I summarized the issues above. SPECIFICO talk 02:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2018

skripal - steele - connection https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/07/poisoned-russian-spy-sergei-skripal-close-consultant-linked/ 78.104.181.71 (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

What edit do you want made?Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Skripal

It's all over the internet that Steele has done business with Sergei Skripal's minder, Pablo Miller, and that Skripal probably gathered material for the dossier on his visit to Estonia in the month following Trump's nomination by the Republicans. Any reliable sources for this? Shtove (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

You say it's "all over the internet". Where? I only read RS, and I haven't seen it...yet. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Try this - if you go through the comments you'll see plenty other unreliable sources speculating on the connection. Shtove (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Correct that. Yes, there was something about a distant "connection". Is there something there worth including? Suggest something and the sources you'd use. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Here's Newsweek. Shtove (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2018--Edits to Lead-In

 Done

• Lead-in, 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence edit: "became the presumptive nominee" >>> "became the presumptive Republican Party presidential nominee" REASON: presumptive nominee is not a clear statement without context

• Lead-in suggestion: Move "Steele was hired without knowing, or ever having direct contact with, his ultimate clients,[3] and his only instructions were to seek answers to this basic question: "Why did Mr. Trump repeatedly seek to do deals in a notoriously corrupt police state that most serious investors shun?"[4] " to second paragraph. REASON: first paragraph isn't easy to read, and reading those sentences first before the 2nd Paragraph timeline make the timeline confusing

• Lead-in, 3rd paragraph edit: "While the media tends to treat its allegations as gossip,[14] the intelligence community takes the allegations seriously and tries to validate them.[15][16][17]" >>> "However, the intelligence community does take the allegations seriously and investigates them. [14][15][16][17]" REASON: 1."Gossip" remark in source is opinion, not fact, and previous sentence already clarifies media treats the dossier as un-verified 2. "Tries to validate" makes it sound like the intelligence community is trying to prove, not just prove or disprove Mcps39 (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• Mcps39, all three of your suggestions seem reasonable improvements of the article, so I have implemented them exactly as suggested. Thanks for the great suggestions. Please feel free to participate more here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Dossier is only a small part of Steele's research

Has anyone seen any info on the following?

The dossier, according to the paging (80-135, 166), contains only a small fraction of Steele's research, but RS don't help us with how to describe it or what's happened to it. Pages 1-79, and 136-165, aren't in the dossier we have. Where are they? I suspect intelligence agencies and Mueller have all of them, but that's just speculation and unusable here. We may find out from future court proceedings. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Propose change of Warner quoting

 Done Mark Warner is quoted as "little of that dossier has either been fully proven or conversely, disproven". Reading Warner's full statements, this is misleading. I suggest to write:

On January 29, 2018, Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said "A lot of it has turned out to be true", but also cautioned that "little of that dossier has either been fully proven or conversely, disproven". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.239.41.181 (talk) 09:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Here's the whole section from the Wheeler source:

"Rep. Adam Schiff of California,... complained, “Those who attack the dossier and Christopher Steele would like you to believe that if they can discredit the dossier, then you should ignore everything else that we’ve learned,” even while insisting, “A lot of it has turned out to be true.” Yet this week, the Senate Intelligence Committee’s top Democrat told POLITICO, “little of that dossier has either been fully proven or conversely, disproven.”

At first glance the suggestion looks like an improvement, but it conflates a statement by Schiff ("A lot of it has turned out to be true") with a statement by Warner ("little of that dossier has either been fully proven or conversely, disproven"). Therefore we shouldn't change it, but you've brought up a Schiff statement which can be used.

What we could do is add Schiff's statement and use a different source, because he has said that several times in different situations. The WSJ quotes him and gives the context for what he means:

[Schiff] "... saying that its allegations that Russia sought to help elect Mr. Trump “turned out to be true.”

In a Wall Street Journal interview Wednesday, Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Calif.) said that much of the 35-page dossier, compiled by ex-British intelligence official Christopher Steele, is about Russian efforts to boost Mr. Trump, which U.S. intelligence agencies later affirmed in a report."

Using that, we could add something like this, following the chronological format we're using:

On November 15, 2017, Adam Schiff stated that much of the dossier's content is about Russian efforts to help Trump, and those allegations "turned out to be true", something later affirmed by the January 6, 2017, intelligence community assessment released by the ODNI.

So, getting past the initial conflation of the two statements, we can still improve the article, so thanks for the suggestion. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Sources

I forgot to mention that I have already installed this edit. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this would be a good addition, and thanks for catching the mis-attribution of Schiff's statement to Warner. Should we also say anything about Warner, or not? --MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

It's entirely possible that Warner had more to say, and we could include it if relevant. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Why Team Trump is wrong about Carter Page, the dossier and that secret warrant

Interesting: Why Team Trump is wrong about Carter Page, the dossier and that secret warrant -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Krugman's properly attributed statement on Ukraine deleted

I see that my addition of Paul Krugman's description of Trump's position on Ukraine was deleted, with an odd edit summary. The statement is an opinion that is properly attributed. That's what we do here. What gives? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Mostly because it has nothing to do with the Trump-Russia dossier or Republican position on Russian conflict with Ukraine. Yes the article talks about the Ukraine, but the quotes added are not about that. The Siberian candidate part is only from the headline, and not in the article itself. It is just an undue addition over all, yes it is a properly attributed opinion piece but not particularly special. PackMecEng (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Just what I was about to say. The edit summary says "source is not talking about dossier" and I agree that what BR added, and PackMecEng deleted, is probably not sufficiently related to the subject of this article to be included. I see that BR then added the same reference elsewhere in the article as evidence of Trump trying to undermine the NATO alliance. That is a little more related, but I think we could find far stronger references to say the same thing. In any case this can only be used as evidence to support the dossier; I don't think repeated attempts to insert the phrase "Manchurian Siberian candidate" into this article are justified. --MelanieN (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I have replaced the Krugman op-ed commentary about NATO with a Los Angeles Times news report on the same subject. --MelanieN (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The article describes actions which are related to the subject, the Veracity of certain allegations in the dossier. It's on-topic and from a very notable source. Numerous other RS also describe the actions of Trump and his campaign in that regard, many at the time it was happening, even before they knew that the dossier was documenting these actions as something related to quid pro quo deals being made by the Trump campaign behind the scenes, in this case involving negotiations by Carter Page and Paul Manafort. Manafort was Trump's campaign manager, being secretly paid as an unregistered agent to get this to happen. History shows that he was successful, and that these policy changes happened on Trump's watch, and we can use historical sources here when they are prescient and relevant. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

If we are documenting that the source is talking about the dossier before they knew it so to speak that would be synth since the source is not making the connection. PackMecEng (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I understand the SYNTH danger here, but we're documenting that they described what the dossier was talking about, IOW two independent sources describing the same events. The subject isn't the dossier, but the events. Many RS have described this and also mentioned the dossier in the same article, enough that they have performed the synthesis for us and thus established that this is now a sky-is-blue situation. I think this justifies pointing to the history at the time when it's clear that they are talking about exactly the same set of events. If there was any doubt, there would be an inappropriate SYNTH violation. I don't think that's the case here because it's so clearly about the same events. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

That is a poor justification for synth, the "but everyone knows it's true" is not a valid reason. Find a source that makes the connection or drop it. PackMecEng (talk) 14:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

There are other sources in that section which describe how the Trump campaign were involved in the GOP platform change, and at least three of those RS are from before the dossier was published. You're focusing on the dossier, and not on the section heading. This was already revealed by others than the dossier before it came out. The content is relevant here because it is on the same topic as some of the allegations. The topic is the subject, not just the dossier. It was published after the fact, but contemporary RS which describe what the dossier describes are fair game. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2018

What has been verified on the dossier? 146.88.224.53 (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 22:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

To provide a partial answer, we know the intelligence community knows far more than is currently revealed, so we must be patient and not assume that a lack of public information means there is no verification known to them. They know a lot. The leaders of our intelligence agencies are pretty much all agreed, and very publicly, that Trump is not good and is likely compromised by Putin. They say it openly.

John O. Brennan said this:

"When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America...America will triumph over you." [6]

"When the full extent...becomes known", ergo, Brennan knows more than he's allowed to say. No wonder Trump wants to remove his security clearance, if he didn't already automatically lose it.

We have a whole section dealing with specific aspects and factors which have been verified, but the biggest factor has been proven beyond doubt. That is the major theme of the allegations, which center on Russian interference in the election to help Trump. That's been nailed down beyond doubt to any reasonable person. Anyone who still doubts that is incompetent to edit these articles because they are not following and believing RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2018

 Done

Replace the intro to the history section.

Delete: "There were two phases of political opposition research performed against Trump, both using the services of Fusion GPS, but with completely separate funders. Only the second phase, which was funded by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign, produced the Steele dossier.[22][23]"

Add: "The opposition research conducted by Fusion GPS on Donald Trump was completed in two phases with separate funders. The first research phase, from October 2015 to May 2016, was funded by The Washington Free Beacon. The second research phase, from June 2016 to December 2016, was funded by the DNC and Clinton Campaign, unrelated to the Washington Free Beacon request. The second phase produced the dossier and utilized research from the first phase."

Notes:

• "political opposition research" is redundant, you don't need "political"
• I think it's more accurate to say "research conducted ON a subject," not "AGAINST a subject"
• I'm not positive it's accurate to say the second phase was finished December 2016. Mcps39 (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Mcps39, as with your first request above, you again make some very insightful observations, and I like 98% of them. Before I do anything, I'd like to clarify a couple points (that 2% ) and then we can finalize the wording.

1. Yes, the dossier, as we have it, was finished in December 2016, but research has continued, and a second dossier exists which alleges that Russia rejected Trump's first choice for Secretary of State, chose Tillerson, and Trump obeyed.
2. You finish with "...utilized research from the first phase." Do you have any RS which back that? We currently have this: "...the Free Beacon stated that "none of the work product that the Free Beacon received appears in the Steele dossier."

I'll wait for your response before doing anything. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Sources

I have gone ahead and installed the edit, but left out the last phrase. We can always return to it if necessary. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

BullRangifer thank you for making the edit. I agree that the last phrase should have been left out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcps39 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

AP review

The AP writes that in the 18 months since the publication of the dossier, "As a whole, the Steele dossier now appears to be a murky mixture of authentic revelations and repurposed history, likely interspersed with snippets of fiction or disinformation".[7] I don't edit this article, but I'm sure this 1hr old AP piece deserves a mention. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

We're not going to know what happened until the Mueller probe is complete and/or other documentary evidence comes to light. Is this really any more than today's chapter of the ongoing discussion and speculation? SPECIFICO talk 17:36, June 29, 2018‎ (UTC)

That is a very odd review. I went looking for an identified example of a snippet of fiction or disinformation identified in the article, and no examples were given. The conclusion that "As a whole, the Steele dossier now appears to be a murky mixture of authentic revelations and repurposed history, likely interspersed with snippets of fiction or disinformation" appears to be just speculation with no evidence given one way or the other. SPECIFICO is correct, we aren't going to know till Mueller probe is complete.--I am One of Many (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. We haven't used it either. It seems like some sort of politically correct guesswork which doesn't match the reality described by other RS, or with the unfolding history we've been watching. So far the dossier has proven to be a very good road map for investigations by intelligence agencies and journalists, and giving intelligence agencies more and more confidence in its accuracy. When they research it, they strike gold, again and again. There are very few allegations left to be verified, but some may never be verified. Interestingly, although Steele estimated the whole dossier was 70–90% accurate, which is extremely good, but just 50-50% for the golden showers allegation, James Comey's experiences with meeting and talking to Trump changed him from a doubter to one with more confidence that it could very well have happened. When I heard him say that I had a "wow" moment. Trump's own bodyguard's testimony didn't help him, and neither did Trump's own lies about his Moscow visit help him. It only made one wonder why he was telling easily disproven lies about not overnighting, alibis which were shown to be false. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Not a forum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Libelous and perverted sexual accusations that are "50-50" but "could very well be true" do not belong in an objective reference source about a living person, and people who would defend their presence lack the understanding and objectivity themselves to be editing those sources. 24.185.76.170 (talk) 23:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC) Has anyone said "could very well be true?" I don't see it; maybe you are incorrectly inferring it. Would it be preferable to simply ignore that allegation in this article? Of course not. It's in there, so we need to report that, but note that the peetape allegation isn't in the lede, it's way down deep in the article. soibangla (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC) The comment above me says "it could very well have happened." What's the effective difference between that and "it could very well be true" which I used as my paraphrase? I'll wait for you to demonstrate what it is. If you can't, you're just exposing that you're disingenuous, like many people editing this article. 24.185.76.170 (talk) 11:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Judge orders intel agencies to answer some ‘dossier’ questions in BuzzFeed case

This may be relevant here.

References

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Bias in this article is ridiculous

Instead of stating the facts article tries really hard to hide the fact that Steele was paid by Democrats and biased. For example: "Steele was hired without knowing, or ever having direct contact with, his ultimate clients," Yeez I wonder who may want dirt(real or invented) on Trump? The tone of the question also does not give any hints(""Why did Mr. Trump repeatedly seek to do deals in a notoriously corrupt police state that most serious investors shun?"") 46.188.138.239 20:47 July 17, 2018‎ (UTC)

Your command of English makes it difficult to determine what your point is, but this article is based on reliable sources. I hope that helps.--I am One of Many (talk) 23:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The phrasing could be better, but what you quoted is an accurate statement, in addition to the fact that a conservative group was the first to hire Steele. Also the fact that it was in part funded by the Hillary campaign is plainly stated in the lead-in, and "Research funded by Democrats produces dossier" is it's own sub-header. --Mcps39 (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

My command of English is fine, this article is pathetic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.217.32.157 (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

DO you have any concrete proposals to make?Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the editor's command of English. There's a palpable and demonstrable slant to the coverage of Trump in many articles on wikipedia, including specific ones frequented and edited by specific people, as I pointed out below with referring to false and extremely inappropriate and libelous accusations (golden showers) as "publicly unverified but not disproven" as though the onus is on the Trump administration to engage with and "prove the negative" about things like that and that they should be reported publicly otherwise and treated as credible and respectable. I did this in more detail on other articles like the "Timeline of Russian Interference" showing specific examples of events that are purely circumstantial, like Trump hosting a beauty pageant in Russia. This includes the overall impression given by all of these articles that no false allegation or news story has ever been printed or spread about or involving Donald Trump, including completely minimalizing the insanely inaccurate pre-election polling. The effect of this, as I stated below, is not to discredit Donald Trump, but to discredit the editors and source in the eyes of many people, as can be seen by this comment. 24.185.76.170 (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

You write: "false and extremely inappropriate and libelous accusations (golden showers)" In fact, no one knows it's false, at least not publicly. Trump supporters may insist that the allegation is so outrageously preposterous that it simply must be false (and therefore, they insist, the whole dossier is false) but no one actually knows. What is known is that Steele once headed the MI6 Russia desk, has an extensive network of sources in Russia, and collaborated with American intelligence for years in that role. This was known by both Fusion and the FBI, so they knew he was credible, and some of the dossier contents were independently corroborated by American intelligence, but not (to public knowledge) the peetape allegation. That allegation, and other assertions in the dossier, remain publicly unverified but not disproven.

I encourage you to make edits that reflect any false "news story has ever been printed or spread about or involving Donald Trump" in the appropriate place, especially those that went uncorrected.

As far as the "the insanely inaccurate pre-election polling," polls reflect the popular vote, which Clinton won handily, not the complexities of the electoral college, which Trump won. Trump beat the slim odds to be elected, but there were very few who asserted he had zero chance of winning, and those who did are outliers who don't understand probability/statistics and thus don't deserve much attention, except maybe by people want to holler "Trump proved everyone wrong!"

Finally, regarding "There's a palpable and demonstrable slant to the coverage of Trump in many articles on wikipedia," let me ask you this: do you think Trump is honest? Or would it be more accurate to say he has set a new standard in American public life for stating falsehoods, such that he is in a league of lying all his own? Might it be possible that objective reality is overwhelmingly not on his side and WP articles reflect that? soibangla (talk) 02:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

24.185.76.170, when it's raining, raining, raining, RS document that it's raining, but Trump supporters don't like such coverage of Trump. Like him, they call it fake news. They know that all sources have reported Trump saying it's dry and sunny, when in fact it's raining, and they refuse to accept the evidence of their own eyes and wet clothes, but believe him and only the sources which parrot his false claims. They only trust fake news and unreliable sources which say it's dry and sunny. Fortunately the majority are sensible and believe the RS (which we use here) that report it's raining. Do you want us to quote Breitbart, Fox News, The Washington Times, Daily Caller, etc. that say it's dry and sunny, or should we stick to RS that report it's raining? Maybe that's a conundrum for you, but not for me or soibangla. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 09:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

1) "No one knows it's false" IS NOT A QUALIFICATION TO PUBLISH A LIBELOUS ACCUSATION. Barack Obama was publicly accused of having a homosexual relationship. That is undisprovable. But no major news source took those accusations seriously, and I think most people don't even know the accusation was made, because there was no real evidence, and it was salacious and libelous. 2) Documented, videotaped, true, relevant and damaging information about Hillary Clinton, like her collapse at the 9/11 Memorial, was completely scrubbed from the 2016 election page during the campaign under the false pretense that they "don't publish health or medical information" in BLP articles, even though that exact same information was in the person's personal campaign article. The "objective editor" in question then disappeared without replying. It was also demonstrated that the event was significant in that it had over 4 million views at the time and was reported by major news organizations. Nothing. No arguments to defend it, they just suppressed the information. So undemonstrated and libelous information was and is published here about Trump, damaging and PUBLICLY KNOWN and significant information about Hillary Clinton was hidden without any proper justification. I personally don't even like Donald Trump, but this type of dishonest presentation of information irritates me. The editors of the page show indefensible bias, which is why I don't care to edit the article, but instead, people must either deal with those editors as individuals and potentially go over there heads to other authorities at wikipedia. 3) "Polls reflect the popular vote, which Hillary Clinton won handily." No they do NOT. Those polls DID NOT and WERE NOT INTENDED OR MADE TO reflect the popular vote. Those polls AND the projections, were made SPECIFICALLY to forecast who would win the electoral college AND the Presidency. The Huffington Post projection of 98% Clinton was for her to WIN THE ELECTION. 538's projection that Donald Trump had a "-10% chance" to win the Republican nomination was NOT just due to the popular vote. That's another example of a completely false argument made in an attempt to defend dishonest coverage of Trump, and I'm going to use you and that complete fail of an attempt in the future as an example. 4) "Do you think Trump is honest" is not in any way a valid defense for covering him dishonestly. Should the wikipedia article for any propagandist be free to include ANY false and damaging information about them that the editors feel like putting in? Again, that's a paper-thin argument like the others I've documented that you couldn't even defend. Please look in the mirror at your own bias, because its warped your perception of reality. 24.185.76.170 (talk) 11:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

To Bullrangifier, I see that your reply to demonstrations of slanted coverage of Trump is the same as above, "but Trump isn't honest!" As though that's justification for you to deliberately slant coverage on objective reference sources, and you throw in a childish line about "it's raining, it's raining," which demonstrates the problem even further. If the coverage of Trump is "objective" or "true," and Trump just lies about it, then what were the pre-election claims that Trump was 98% likely to lose? FiveThirtyEight gave him a "-10% chance" of even being nominated. That's NEGATIVE 10%, a number that barely even exists in statistics. Were those true? 11:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

"Obama was publicly accused of having a homosexual relationship" by Larry Sinclair and other nobodies. Chris Steele? Headed the MI6 Russia desk, has an extensive network of sources in Russia, and collaborated with American intelligence for years in that role.

"completely scrubbed from the 2016 election page during the campaign under the false pretense that they "don't publish health or medical information" Can you provide evidence of that? No evidence = didn't happen.

"538's projection that Donald Trump had a "-10% chance" to win the Republican nomination was NOT just due to the popular vote" First, please provide that 538 analysis. I find this: Donald Trump Is Just Barely On Track To Win The GOP Nomination and this: It’s Trump’s Nomination To Lose Second, yes, 538 uses proprietary techniques that include polls.

"I'm going to use you and that complete fail of an attempt in the future as an example" I see, so you're gonna stalk and troll me now? Got it. You're wrong, and the HuffPo example is exactly what I was talking about when I mentioned the outliers who didn't understand probability.

"is not in any way a valid defense for covering him dishonestly" You have not demonstrated he is being covered dishonestly. Meanwhile, there is abundantly demonstrable proof that Trump is the biggest liar in anyone's living memory and that it's a deliberate strategy to gaslight the press and the public. Steve Bannnon: "The real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit." soibangla (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Christopher Steele did not have a wikipedia page before 2017. So he was not a public figure, and even if he was, a person working for a foreign government does not justify reporting libelous accusations made without evidence as though they were credible, unless you want to remove the conspiracy theory labels from Pizzagate, the Birther movement, or a load of other nonsense. Regarding 538, the "-10%" was assigned by their Senior Political Analyst Harry Enten in their podcast on August 5, 2015. He put it in writing too. I'm not surprised they have marginalized the prediction, but it's still there, the paper where he wrote it (and that he defended) is still available, and Enten later had to apologize. So you can try to label the Huffpo as Outliers who don't understand probability, but their prediction was more accurate than 538's Senior Political Analyst, so that argument, like many you've used, doesn't hold water. Furthermore, the "golden shower" accusations, which are of course completely unsubstantiated, are the first and easiest example of dishonest reporting on Trump, especially since the defenses offered include "it's unverified but hasn't been disproven" (which fits claims that the Moon Landing was faked also), and "do you think Trump is honest?" which implies that the standards of wikipedia reflect Trump's standards of honesty and not those of an objective reference source. I don't care enough about you to "stalk you," you're just one of many examples of dishonest and non-neutral editing that gets defended with terrible arguments. And I'm keeping yours just like these other examples. 24.185.76.170 (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Look, after all your diversions, here's the bottom line: if you think the peetape thing is "dishonest reporting," then your issue is with Steele, not with anyone who reports his findings. This article is about the dossier, we are duty-bound to include the peetape allegation because it's in the dossier, but the peetape allegation is not prominently placed in either the lede or the body, it's actually buried quite deep in the article and gets only brief mention, and there is no suggestion whatsoever in the article that the peetape "could be true" even though it's unverified. I suspect your frustration with this whole issue is that Trump and his supporters cannot disprove the peetape allegation, so it hangs out there with everyone gossiping about it, but that's not what is happening in this article. And if you think it is happening here, then edit the content instead of railing about it here. But there is absolutely nothing dishonest about how this article presents the topic. That's all I got here. soibangla (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Those are not "diversions," they are substantive responses to the relevant points. The claim was that Larry Page was a "nobody," which was replied to, factually, by pointing out that Christopher Steele had no wikipedia page prior to the "Dirty Dossier" being released. He was neither a public figure nor a journalist of any repute whatsoever. I listed the actual author, date, and source of 538's numerical prediction of "-10%" in response to claims that Huffpo was "an outlier who didn't understand probability" so their 98% claim of Clinton victory is somehow not noteworthy or indicative of wide-scale misunderstandings. I went further and pointed out that the contents of the "Steele Dossier" (aka literally a propaganda report funded by opponents in a Presidential Campaign, and I do mean literally, look up the definition of propaganda) are libelous and have no standard of evidence and that the responses of "you think Trump is honest?" "it's 50-50 but could very well have happened," and "they are unverified but not disproven" reflect a lax standard of information for an objective news source, as though Trump's standard is now wikipedia's, and that the onus is on the subject of libelous material to prove the negative and otherwise it should be widely distributed to people, which is of course wrong to any reasonable person. Those are not "diversions," those are substantive, factual and relevant points that you apparently have no response to at all. 24.185.76.170 (talk) 13:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

No, that is actually NOT the "definition of propaganda". Doing opposition research on a candidate is NOT the same thing as making shit up about a candidate. I have no idea what Huffpo has to do with any of this. It's as if you're just using the talk page to air a laundry list of grievances.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I suspect you mean Larry Sinclair, whoever that is, rather than Larry Page. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 13:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

We are not a news source, and no one is notable until they do something notable. And where do WE say that the dossier is " unverified but not disproven", if WE say that I would support altering it so as not to put it in Wikipedias voice. Ohh and it is not libelous as that is a criminal offence, and no one has been persecuted.Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

We just document what myriad RS say. That's our job. According to WP:PUBLICFIGURE, we "should" include this material. (BTW, there are lots allegations in the dossier which we do not mention because RS don't mention them. We only report those mentioned by multiple RS.) The dossier is certainly a notable intelligence document, and highly regarded by intelligence agencies, with much of it verified. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 13:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so then it's acknowledged that neither Steele nor Sinclair (tyvm) are notable people per wikipedia's standards, which invalidates the first claim. Secondly, the "WE," is a fine claim, except that in many cases there is no feedback or explanation for non-neutral POV in articles except for these totally invalid arguments. If you don't reply or justify and also refuse to change the text (i.e. the CNN/Fox pages, where the only justification for having detailed criticisms of one on the page and essentially nothing for criticism on the page of the other) is "they're two different pages, they won't look the same." Then the natural conclusion is that the pages on all of these topics are clearly slanted in a manner that the editors either don't recognize or refuse to change. 100.35.112.60 (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Not clear on what you are going on about.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

No it has not been acknowledged they are not, nothing in notability supports your assertion. No one is notable until they have been noted.Slatersteven (talk) 08:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

From to between

Stupid minor change, but I believe that "written from June to December 2016" in the lede should be changed to "written between June and December 2016" -- thanks. 60.248.185.19 (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done Not stupid at all, so thanks for the suggestion. I tend to agree and have made the change. If anyone thinks it's wrong, they are welcome to improve it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 13:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Section "Possible earlier interest in Trump"....new source

Donald Trump: Russian ‘Asset’ Since 1987 When KGB ‘Compromised’ Him On Moscow Trip, According To New Book

Discusses a new book by Craig Unger: House of Trump, House of Putin: The Untold Story of Donald Trump and the Russian Mafia

Also mentions coverage by Newsweek at the time.

It turns out that Trump was already openly discussing running for the presidency at the time, making him even more a target for surveillance and cultivation than he already was as an ordinary rich American who voiced anti-American sentiments. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)