Talk:Steele dossier/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Luke Harding and "Collusion"

This edit was removed because "Undue, claim published in sensational book, largely ignored in reputable media and it's not even about the dossier"

• The book, "Collusion," was a #1 NYT bestseller published by a major publishing house; excerpted on a major politics site; discussed on nationwide radio and in serious policy magazine.

• The author, also cited in four other places in this article, appears serious and reputable, rather than a sensationalist

• The book/edit asserts Russia's interest in Trump dates back to at least 1987, perhaps even 1977, and this buttresses the assertions made in the dossier that Russia had been actively cultivating him for "at least" five years.

I suggest the edit should remain in the article. soibangla (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

"Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win" is not a book of sensational claims? What do we make of the fact that the author isn't reserving judgment, like typical facts sources do, but instead tries to persuade the reader that Trump colluded? Biased sources are supposed to be used with caution—if at all. If this claim is important and/or credible, why isn't it widely reported? Factchecker_atyourservice 22:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Books by their nature can be more detailed than website and newspaper articles, but the other parts raised are good. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Can you cite specific "sensational" items in the book? If you think these topics haven't been widely reported, I suggest you read Special Counsel investigation (2017–present) thoroughly. There were secret meetings, there are numerous indications of dirty money, and the CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency. soibangla (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

This is all a red herring, because the source is the article, not the book, although it's also in the book. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Soibangla: the specific sensational allegation we are talking about right now is a perfectly good example so I don't know why you are demanding others. Factchecker_atyourservice 15:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks like @BullRangifer: removed it here citing "Restoring longstanding content is okay, per NeilN's interpretation of DS. Deletion of that is then not OK. Deal with this on the talk page." I assume BullRangifer means that he is challenging the removable of material and warning others not to restore unless consensus on talk is reached? If that is the case what is your rational for restoring the material? PackMecEng (talk) 02:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

It's the other way around. It was long-standing content, so I restored it. According to the clarification NeilN provided in response to your query, it would violate DS restrictions to delete it again without consensus.

The idea is to promote article stability, so we should leave such content in place and seek to improve it as described at WP:PRESERVE (fix, rather than delete). When we have reached a consensus version, we can then replace the existing content with the improved version, if there is any consensus to even change it. I hope I've got that right! -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah that is kind of what I thought you did. You have it wrong in your understanding. Please check this discussion on his talk page. "If someone removes long-standing material and someone restores it then it should not be removed again without consensus." That is not the same as don't remove long-standing material at all without consensus. Did you have another reason for the restoration besides it was long-standing? Also pinging @NeilN: since your ping was not done correctly. PackMecEng (talk) 03:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

That was a previous misunderstanding, one I have not repeated here.

My reason was to promote stability and prevent gutting of the article, one section at a time. The edit summary seemed to use spurious excuses which would need much further explanation before I'll accept them. The discussion section below is for that. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay so because you did not believe the edit summery? PackMecEng (talk) 12:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

That's an oversimplification. I obviously believe it's good content. The dossier speaks of things which started before it was written, and Harding adds more history to that information in the context of what is in the dossier. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I like simple, gets right to the root of the problem with little fuss. I am just trying to nail down the objection so we can correct it. PackMecEng (talk) 15:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

So do you plan on posting a rational yet? PackMecEng (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

No good reason for deletion has been provided. I've already explained why it's a nice addition. It provides historical context for the dossier's allegation. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

This thread is all a red herring, because the source is the article, not the book, although it's also in the book. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Possible earlier interest in Trump

The "Possible earlier interest in Trump" section needs a better location, as it's not strictly part of the allegations. Any ideas? Can it be incorporated into an existing section? It's only one paragraph. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

• Bumped from above as it's relevant here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Closed.

PLEASE USE DISCUSSION SECTION BELOW.

Immediately before the current content, we find this tie-in to the dossier

"Trump's first visit to Soviet Moscow in 1987 looks, with hindsight, to be part of a pattern. The dossier by the former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele asserts that the Kremlin had been cultivating Trump for “at least five years” before his stunning victory in the 2016 US presidential election. This would take us back to around 2011 or 2012."

Sources

Current content

Possible earlier interest in Trump

Although the dossier alleged in June 2016 that the Kremlin had been cultivating Trump for "at least five years", Harding wrote that the Soviet Union had been interested in him since 1987. In his book Collusion, Harding asserts that the "top level of the Soviet diplomatic service arranged his 1987 Moscow visit. With assistance from the KGB." Then-KGB head Vladimir Kryuchkov "wanted KGB staff abroad to recruit more Americans." Harding proceeds to describe the KGB's cultivation process, and posits that they may have opened a file on Trump as early as 1977, when he had married Czech model Ivana Zelníčková; the Soviet spies may have closely observed and analyzed the couple from that time on.

Sources

Discussion about Harding content

BR, the concern over adding material that pre-dates the dossier is two-fold:

1. It's OR because of the assumption of a connection with the dossier and any prior interest in Trump. Our job is not to solve mysteries.
2. The key collusion allegations in the dossier are still unsubstantiated. If something substantial is proven, there will be a timeline trail to all kinds of material to draw from in RS. Their investigative reporters will put the pieces together, and publish factual evidence. Is from the latter that editors can build an article. The allegations must first move beyond speculation to become corrobated and confirmed. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

1. Maybe you're thinking of a SYNTH violation? That's always a danger, but Harding ties this together as part of a pattern. The question of Putin cultivating Trump is part of the dossier, and Harding, who has written a whole book dedicated to the dossier and related Trump-Russia matters, shows how the Russians didn't start this cultivation in about 2011, but probably much earlier. This is why this content is attributed to Harding. It's not our ideas, but his. He's an expert on this subject.
2. Irrelevant here. We document what RS say. That's our job. We don't wait til the investigation is finished. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: The article, not book, is the actual source. Since it refers to the book, that source is provided, a practice we often follow when a secondary sources refers to, or quotes from, a primary source. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

See WP:OR - This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

It's Harding's OR and SYNTH, which is okay. It's attributed to him. It's about a subject in the dossier, written after the dossier was published, and he ties it directly to that content. Your dispute is with him. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Under WP:EXCEPTIONAL, this should be cited to multiple high quality secondary sources, not a single guy trying to make money by presenting speculative claims as established fact without reserving judgment. Factchecker_atyourservice 14:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing exceptional about describing what is commonly known practice in the USSR and modern day Russia. It would be "exceptional" if this didn't happen to Trump and Ivana, and later just to Trump. It's presented as his opinion as a subject expert. If that isn't clear enough, we could add qualifiers to make it even more clear that it's his opinion. The idea is to improve content, not delete it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: This is an WP:INCOMPETENT response.

First, the current president is alleged to have been cultivated by the Soviets for 30 years. The claim is "exceptional" in the plain English sense.

Second, more importantly, if you actually read the WP:EXCEPTIONAL policy, then you'll see that any "APPARENTLY IMPORTANT" claim falls under "exceptional".

Obvious misinterpretation of both English words and WP policies are not constructive. Factchecker_atyourservice 13:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Second, more detailed version is better - it should be included. Yes, it is precisely the point by the author that influencing elections in other countries is nothing exceptional for the USSR and Russia (USA influenced elections in other countries as well). How successful they were in doing this is another question. My very best wishes (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The "Second, more detailed version is better" violates WP:V Factchecker_atyourservice 13:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

How exactly 2nd version violates WP:V? The text is sourced to the book, with direct quotation. Moreover, this is very clearly attributed to the book by the notable author. My very best wishes (talk) 14:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

How about waiting until Mueller and his team actually determine collusion - and even if there was, guess what - it's not a crime so why obsess over it? This whole ordeal sorta reminds me of the chem trail conspiracies and other batpoop crazy theories that allowed conspiracy theorists to make money writing books - none of claims proven...Kennedy assassination comes to mind, 9-11 comes to mind...and so on. Here's an idea - create an article about the book. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

But the text in question does not tell anything about actual collusion. The book by Luke Harding qualify as a secondary WP:RS by any reasonable standard. What you say is your personal opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: it violates WP:V in exactly the way I just described in the talk page section you're replying to—by sourcing a WP:EXCEPTIONAL / WP:REDFLAG claim only to a single source with an apparent conflict of interest, when that policy says such claims should be sourced to multiple high-quality reliable sources, and that we should avoid taking disputed claims from sources with an apparent conflict of interest. Factchecker_atyourservice 14:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Once again, this is not an exceptional claim. What "conflict of interest"? My very best wishes (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Just curious...how is it not an exceptional claim? ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Forget "exceptional", that is just the word that fringe editors fixate on in order to claim that nothing's "exceptional" if they think it is true. What the policy actually says is that any "APPARENTLY IMPORTANT" claim is covered.

@My very best wishes: If you bother to read what the policy says you'll see it points out that "Sources that may have interests other than professional considerations in the matter being reported are considered to be conflicted sources."

Unlike journalists, who don't have an interest in the outcome, simply report facts and avoid reporting anything that can't be substantiated, a guy writing a TRUMP IS GUILTY book has an interest in the outcome, wants to persuade readers that Trump is guilty. The same would not be true of Harding's Guardian columns. Factchecker_atyourservice 14:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Authors of almost every book have positions/opinions on a number of subjects. These positions are usually based on results their research. It is not uncommon that some of them emphasize main idea of the book in the title (this is actually a good practice). That does NOT invalidate any secondary sources. Was the author a reputable journalist, known for his research and fact checking? Only that is relevant. And he is definitely a reputable journalist. My very best wishes (talk) 15:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say he "has views" I said he is not reserving judgment like a fact reporter. Instead, he is trying to convince readers his speculation is correct. Moreover he has a financial interest in selling these claims rather than reporting impartially on them. It very clearly falls under the footnote on sources with a conflict of interest. More importantly, once again, this claim has been ignored by other sources. Factchecker_atyourservice 15:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Every author wants to sell his book. This does not invalidate any sources. Now, speaking about your question (the "exceptional claim"), are you familiar with the literature about KGB operations? My very best wishes (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, actually it means that sources not written in a disinterested tone are not treated the same as other sources, certainly they are not treated as neutral fact sources.

Your supposed expertise on "the literature about KGB operations" is irrelevant. If it is claimed that the president was cultivated by the Soviets for 30 years, that claim is "important" and thus the policy applies. QED, with nothing left for you to argue about. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not an expert in this. I simply asked what do you know. How can you claim that something was "exceptional" if you are not familiar with the subject? Do you know about Urho Kekkonen, for example? My very best wishes (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Your argument and questions make no sense. The claim is that the president was cultivated by the Soviets for 30 years. It is an "apparently important" claim. The clear language of the policy applies. QED. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I think you do not understand the policy. The "exceptional claims" (aka fringe claims) are those "that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history...". In that case, the mainstream views would be not YOUR views, but views from the books by historians on the subject of KGB operations. My very best wishes (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

You obviously cannot read WP:EXCEPTIONAL. The quote you quoted is one bullet item in a list. The list is a list of different red flags. You quoted one of them. It's the fourth one in a list of four. The ones I was citing are the first two ones in the list of four. Again, the claim was largely ignored. It was made only by Luke Harding and he appeared on an interview show talking about it. That's about it. If anything, it merits a brief sentence saying that Luke Harding has asserted this in his book, and we should give the title of the book so the reader understands it is not being presented by the source as a verified factual claim, the way it would be if a newspaper were presenting it as fact in its own voice.

Moreover, the claim that Trump was cultivated by Soviets for 30 years is important even if the KGB did not use special super sekret spy craft to do it. None of what you are saying makes sense. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

"Your" version (on the left (here) makes an incorrect summary of the source. I can agree that version by BR could be probably summarized more briefly or rephrased (but not as you did). But there is nothing extraordinary in this claim. Do not you know that almost every important Western businessman or politician who came to the USSR was considered a potential subject of recruitment? It only mattered if he was of any interest for the KGB. When the foreigner applied for the Soviet visa, his documents went to a KGB officer who decided if the foreigner was "a person of interest" for potential recruitment. This is actually a trivial information. My very best wishes (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

It is quite very very very very very very very very very obviously not "trivial information" if it is being presented as contributing evidence of a plot of collusion or criminal freaking conspiracy with the Russians mmmk? How do you think I gave an "incorrect" summary of the source? Factchecker_atyourservice 18:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

So, here is a summary article by Luke Harding published in Politico. This is the book. Harding makes references to a number of sources, including Natalia Dubinina, a daughter of Soviet ambassador Yuri Dubinin, and opinions by experts. This is not a "speculation", but an investigation and analysis by a notable journalist. How exactly this should be included is debatable. If you have a text alternative to suggestion by BR, you can post it here for discussion. As for the "trivial", well, if you do not trust me, please read the comments by Victor Suvorov cited by Harding (first link above). My very best wishes (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

You are missing the point. I am not saying it is unusual Soviet intelligence practice. IF IT POTENTIALLY HELPS TO IMPLICATE THE PRESIDENT OF COLLUSION THEN IT IS IMPORTANT. There is simply no way to dispute this so please stop.

I didn't say the book wasn't based on research and claims, I said it is speculation because it purports to offer conclusions about things which are not known. This is why the title of the book is, essentially, TRUMP TOTALLY COLLUDED, PEOPLE—which is totally unlike any repuable fact sourcing. This is an opinion source.

The proposed text is the exact proposed text which you removed. If you think it is "inaccurate", say why. Factchecker_atyourservice 18:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you are the only one on this page who repeatedly tells about "COLLUSION". Once again, please suggest an alternative text based on the sources above.My very best wishes (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea what you just said. The alternative text I proposed is the one you deleted. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Then post it here for discussion and wait for comments by other contributors. My very best wishes (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with your position, MVBW, but appreciate your input as well as Factchecker's and for giving us a chance to evaluate what you've both presented. It's time for the back and forth to end, and call an RfC for whatever it is that is proposed for inclusion/deletion. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Harding's KGB speculation irrelevant to Steele dossier

Howdy y'all, back from wikibreak! I was about to delete the blurb enshrining Harding's KGB speculation, but I saw this recent discussion and refrained from bold action. Let us remember that the topic of this article is the Steele dossier, which was compiled in 2016, and only alludes in passing to potential "cultivation" of Trump by Russia over several years, ostensibly since he set up the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow, and perhaps a couple years earlier as he was exploring real estate projects in Russia. Harding further speculates in his book that the KGB may have kept tabs on Trump and his Czech wife in Soviet times. Well, sure, that may be the case, but it's extremely speculative to link the alleged 5-year-old "cultivation" of Trump to an alleged 30-year-old KGB file; the latter, if it existed, may just as well have been routine vetting of visitors to the Soviet Union. Whatever we think of the likelihood of a link, this paragraph strikes me as woefully WP:UNDUE in an article about the Steele dossier. @BullRangifer, Atsme, Emir of Wikipedia, Factchecker atyourservice, My very best wishes, NeilN, PackMecEng, and Soibangla: would you agree to delete this? Bearing in mind that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence (part of our core WP:Verifiability policy), did anybody else than Harding independently make that claim? (aside from articles citing Harding, naturally) — JFG ^talk 10:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

And it's "extraordinary" cause why? SPECIFICO talk 11:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Keep. This is precisely on the subject of the page. This is also not a speculation and not an extraordinary claim, but something pretty much obvious for anyone familiar with the history of KGB operations (like Harding). This is a conclusion by a notable journalist and a result of his analysis and investigation. This should stay, as has been already discussion above. My very best wishes (talk) 13:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: I object to your characterization that the text reflects a conclusion by Harding. In the cited book excerpt, Harding himself admits that he is only speculating:

• "When did the KGB open a file on Donald Trump? We don’t know,"
• "At this point it is unclear how the KGB regarded Trump."
• "Dubinin wouldn’t have answered to the KGB. And his role wasn’t formally an intelligence one."
• "Dubinin’s invitation to Trump to visit Moscow looks like a classic cultivation exercise, which would have had the KGB’s full support and approval." (emphasis on conditionals indicating speculation)
• "That July the Soviet press wrote enthusiastically about the visit of a foreign celebrity. This was Gabriel García Márquez, the Nobel Prize–winning novelist and journalist. […] Trump’s visit appears to have attracted less attention. There is no mention of him in Moscow’s Russian State Library newspaper archive. […] The KGB’s private dossier on Trump, by contrast, would have gotten larger. The agency’s multipage profile would have been enriched with fresh material, including anything gleaned via eavesdropping.
• "Nothing came of the trip—at least nothing in terms of business opportunities inside Russia. This pattern of failure would be repeated in Trump’s subsequent trips to Moscow."

In summary, nothing there, and especially nothing remotely connected to the Steele dossier 30 years later. — JFG ^talk 21:14, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• No, I think you are mistaken. Here is article by Harding, and he tells: Trump's first visit to Soviet Moscow in 1987 looks, with hindsight, to be part of a pattern. The dossier by the former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele asserts that the Kremlin had been cultivating Trump for “at least five years” before his stunning victory in the 2016 US presidential election. This would take us back to around 2011 or 2012. So, the author makes a direct connection to this dossier. Reading the source further, one can see that Harding indeed tells about Dubinin and many other things to justify his conclusion. Of course one can call it not "conclusion", but "view", "assertion", "claim", whatever, but it does not change anything. As an additional note, I think BullRangifer make an excellent work with sources here. My very best wishes (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Certainly BR did a great job dissecting sources, and I helped. You and me are quoting the exact same article by Harding. If you go beyond the first few paragraphs, you will see that everything I quoted demonstrates that he is speculating. He says, in summary, "Steele alleges cultivation of Trump by the Kremlin since 2011, and Dubinin invited Trump to Moscow in 1987, therefore it's a pattern." A bit light indeed. And to repeat my earlier question, can you cite anybody else than Harding who connects the Steele allegations to KGB practices in the 1980s? — JFG ^talk 22:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

"can you cite anybody else"? Meaning earlier than 5 years prior to the elections? Well, there was obviously something like this about connections with "Felix Sater, a felon with ties to Russian organized crime" [2] in 2005. And the claims about "cultivation" appear in a number of sources [3], [4]. This is not just a single RS, but it was repeated many times, even by RT Russia (obviously, RT said that was only a "speculation", pretty much like you say...). My very best wishes (talk) 03:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, let's see what we have: WaPo talks about real estate plans that never happened, and does not allege that Sater was connected to the Soviet KGB, or that the Russian government entertained any cultivation of Trump; the only mention of the Kremlin is Putin calling Trump "colorful" in 2015 when questioned about his presidential bid, and agreeing that improving US–Russia relations would be good. NYT is an opinion piece that largely cites Harding ("I mostly forgot about these reports until I read Luke Harding’s new book"). NPR and US News are just repeating what Harding wrote. Again, Harding looks like the only source for this speculation, as his writings were echoed all across the press (as you noted, even RT, hah!). In any case, there is nothing relevant to the subject matter of this article, i.e. the Steele Dossier. — JFG ^talk 05:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

That material was not included by me. You asked for my opinion (by pinging), and I am telling that the claim was published in multiple RS, starting from the book, by a notable and highly professional journalist, and that the wording on the page is careful and neutral. My very best wishes (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

JFG, you're saying too many things that just are not true and that are evidently not true to anyone who has read the sources. It's a waste of time unless you have views you can support with RS references. These are not the fine points you're getting wrong. These are the big bones. SPECIFICO talk 21:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

You make some good points. Vague claims of potential this or that mean very little. I would classify it as an extraordinary claim for obvious reasons. I would be fine with removing the section. PackMecEng (talk) 13:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Delete - it's the stuff conspiracy theory style books comprise - speculation and unsubstantiated allegations - the latter being the only commonality or relevance to the dossier. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing extraordinary about it. It would be highly unusual, dare we say impossible, that this hadn't happened, especially with such a high profile person. It was routine intelligence gathering in the typical style in the USSR, and only later became even more pertinent and useful when he voiced wanting to become president, and planning, with Russians, his plan to run for the presidency in 2016, something he didn't share with the American people at the time. It was their plan, and only a few Russians knew, and unfortunately for Trump, seen with hindsight, they publicly mentioned how they knew of the plans and expressed how they'd support him. Now those expressions are evidence that something was indeed brewing in Russian that was kept from the view of Americans. The cultivation occurred at several levels, from the government, intelligence gathering angle, and also from personal friendships. Wealthy friendships are not limited by country borders. Now we're learning that the cultivation occurred with the NRA as well, and for some time Russia has been exploiting that angle, and ended up funneling illegal monies to the Trump campaign through them. What a tangled web. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The extraordinary claim is cultivation in general and that it was specifically targeting Trump vs what they did to everyone. Basically it's a bunch of paranoid nonsense that has no value, and the article text should be removed as well. PackMecEng (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Now that is a very extraordinary claim. I'll stick with RS and a renowned subject expert. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Really? And what did the Russians want with Trump then? They admired his smooth command of language? They wanted to purchase steaks? It would be extraordinary if they did not cultivate him, as they have done with thousands of Americans. In Trump's case he took the bait, apparently. SPECIFICO talk 14:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, is the steak any good? My point is it goes to far to say they targeted him for someone special as opposed to as you say the thousands of Americans they looked into. It presents the situation as much more than it really was. PackMecEng (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

In the beginning it was just the standard practice. It only became "more" when he expressed political ambitions, and especially so when he started getting help toward that end. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

See that sounds like guesswork that would be almost impossible to prove. I would still like to know if the steaks are any good though. PackMecEng (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Trump's physicians all say they're nice and lean, but... you be the judge. BR has it correct. It's like fishing. Trump responded, they tailored the approach, they learned his proclivities, then when he became financially needy they turned the screws. This is all well-documented in RS. SPECIFICO talk 15:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: "This is all well-documented in RS." — I hate to lecture a supposed D. Phil. on basic logic, but if that were true then we wouldn't be arguing about the fact that Harding is the only source for this speculation. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

We are soapboxing now, please stop, all of you.Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Latest New York Times report confirming "no public evidence"

The latest in-depth report from New York Times says the following:

"A year and a half later, no public evidence has surfaced connecting Mr. Trump’s advisers to the hacking or linking Mr. Trump himself to the Russian government’s disruptive efforts."

I don't want to argue about paraphrasing so I'm not going to attempt to paraphrase it. Does somebody have some objection to quoting the latest assessment of the "evidence" against Trump? News reports have been doing this for over a year. They talk about allegations but they don't fail to mention the evidence (in this case, none).

This article, nominally about the dossier, presents reams of fact and opinion presented as supposed evidence of Trump collusion and it should have some RS analysis about the state of the evidence. Factchecker_atyourservice 21:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Agree: this simple fact should be mentioned in the article lead. — JFG ^talk 10:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree the quote should be included in the lede.Phmoreno (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't be. There's no "public" evidence because the Mueller team is still investigating and, if they have that evidence linking Trump to Russia, they're still keeping it close to the vest. WP:CRYSTAL applies. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't crystal be guessing they are keeping something close to the vest? Not confirming there is no public evidence. PackMecEng (talk) 14:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

My concern, which I did not explain clearly, is that people will take "no public evidence" to mean "no evidence", much as we might see from tweets from The Donald decrying the "WITCH HUNT". We shouldn't try to suggest there is "NO COLLUSION" and nor should we imply that Mueller does have any smoking guns that will end with DJT himself being indicted. I think it's better to make it clear that the investigation is ongoing and not say anything (yet) about what evidence there is or is not. With the exception of what has been definitively released, including the indictments and convictions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: The approach you propose is irresponsible and that is why reputable news desks have taken the different approach of explicitly saying no evidence is known to the public. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

No they do not confirm, they conclude. So as proposed, no.Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "they do not confirm, they conclude" or "as proposed, no"? Factchecker_atyourservice 16:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

This is a conclusion they have drawn, as such I oppose the edit at it has been suggested, its not that hard.Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by saying it is a "conclusion". Are you just using that as a synonym for "factual statement"? Factchecker_atyourservice 18:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

No I am using it as a synonym for "it is not a fact it is an opinion".Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

It is in-depth fact reporting from The New York Times, which is probably fairly described as the finest newspaper in the world. Factchecker_atyourservice 18:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

It is still only their opinion, not a fact.

Statements, made in top quality fact reporting—not attributed in quotes or otherwise referred to as somebody's opinion, but instead stated in the editorial voice of the source—are facts. That's not even Wikipedia 101, it's Wikipedia 99. Factchecker_atyourservice 18:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Point to policy.Slatersteven (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORG. "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact.

Again: this is newbie stuff. Factchecker_atyourservice 18:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Generally, not automatically. Also it does not say "even if this disagrees with other RS".Slatersteven (talk) 08:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, automatically, unless there is a reason not to treat as fact, which in this case, there isn't any reason whatsoever. You just don't like what the source says. No RS fact coverage says anything differently. You're just fantasizing that this factual claim is contested. Factchecker_atyourservice 13:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Very strong objection. First, you didn’t include the very next sentence: “But the article’s tone and headline — ‘Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia’ — gave an air of finality to an investigation that was just beginning.” So, they found no evidence yet in an investigation that was just beginning. That’s meaningless information, particularly since many links between campaign members and Russia have been found since, and the Senate intelligence committee determined that Russia was trying to influence the election in Trump’s favor. Further, this is a very long article and that one sentence is out of context. They repeat, again and again, that they proceeded very cautiously, not even questioning anyone in the Trump campaign for fear of exposing the investigation. The FBI severely limited the evidence that they could collect as they didn’t want to affect the election. I think the article is quite interesting. But, this sentence does not at all reflect the content of the article. O3000 (talk) 14:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I should add, this is not the “latest report of the NYTimes” as posted by the OP. That was taken from a Times Oct 31st article, 6.5 months ago[5]. It is obsolete. O3000 (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean? Perhaps I missed it but the source he uses is a different article than what you list. PackMecEng (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The very long article cited by the OP had two sentences referring to an old article. I cited the original article from a half year back. O3000 (talk) 15:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah I see, thanks for the clarifications. So you were saying the new article used some references from the old article. PackMecEng (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Objective3000: Why don't you try paying attention to what you are reading?

1. THE REPORT IS FROM MAY 16, 2018, NOT OCTOBER 2017 — This is incredibly obvious from the words "A YEAR AND A HALF LATER no public evidence has surfaced . . ."

2. The sentence you quote refers to a 6.5 month old article, and the complaint from the quote is about that old article, not this one. Literally, democrats complained that the headline of an October 2017 NYT article made it sound like the investigation was wrapping up, when really it was just beginning.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the May 16, 2018 New York Times statement confirming there is still no publicly known evidence a year and a half later. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:CAPSLOCK Man fell off the roof of the Railway Exchange Building. As he passed each floor on his way down, he was heard to say: "So far, so good". Why do editors keep trying to add to this article that no public evidence exists when most of the evidence isn’t public and the investigation continues? How about a new guideline: NOTFUTURENEWS? O3000 (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

"NOTFUTURENEWS"? The news desks started saying this in spring 2017 and they haven't stopped. Factchecker_atyourservice 18:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment: All that the claim "A year and a half later, no public evidence has surfaced connecting Mr. Trump’s advisers to the hacking or linking Mr. Trump himself to the Russian government’s disruptive efforts." means is that reporters have not found any evidence? Why is reporting what reporters have not found encyclopedic? When the dust is settled, it then makes sense to say in addition to what evidence was found and what was not. --I am One of Many (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Reply: The article is chock full of details that haven't even been mentioned in any reliable source such as the claim that Carter Page had Trump's "full authority" to tell the Russians he would lift sanctions in exchange for their alleged $11 billion bribe. The supposed gas company offer is discussed in sources, the claim that Trump gave Carter page his "full authority" to accept the bribe is not discussed anywhere except a self-published source funded by a progressive activist group to publicize the dossier. It's puzzling that people think stuff like that is "encyclopedic" but the words of practically every major news desk saying there's no public evidence is somehow not. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

FCAYS, you wrote: "The supposed gas company offer is discussed in sources, the claim that Trump gave Carter page his "full authority" to accept the bribe is not discussed anywhere except a self-published source funded by a progressive activist group to publicize the dossier." There seems to be several misunderstandings there. The "full authority" comment was not connected to "accept the bribe". It was connected to stating, with Trump's "full authority", that Trump would lift the sanctions after his election, IOW, he could confirm that it was Trump's intention: "SECHIN’s associated opined that although PAGE had not stated it explicitly to SECHIN, he had clearly implied that in terms of his comment on TRUMP’s intention to lift Russian sanctions if elected president, he was speaking with the Republican candidate’s full authority."

I'm not sure why you mention the Moscow Project, which, BTW, does not make the allegation you mention. It is not a source we use or should use. That source has been ruled out by ME. I would strongly object to its use because of its crowdsourced nature. OTOH, just like here, the RS it uses could also be used here.

As you mention, "The supposed gas company offer is discussed in sources,", and a few of the RS which discuss the "gas company" matter are used in our article. They are good enough. I hope that clears things up. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

It clears up that exactly what I said is accurate -- no RS has discussed this claim or direct quote that Carter Page did anything with Trump's "full authority". So why is that claim in the article? Factchecker_atyourservice 18:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, after some attempts to figure out what you meant, I think I get the point. (The part about "accept the bribe" threw me off.) Your point is the "full authority" part of our content, which is also from the dossier. After searching the sources we currently use and not finding those exact words in them, I'm wondering if that came from some of the previous sources that got axed when I went through and reduced the number of sources for each claim. Sometimes I'd have 6-8 refs after each allegation, and that was indeed a bit much! Maybe that's what happened? Whatever the case may be, the current sources do not justify including that part, so I'll remove it. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. If I ever find the sources which do justify it, I'll return it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I checked for other sourcing and I don't think any RS ever talked about that specific part of the claim. Factchecker_atyourservice 00:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the point. It is encyclopedic to report sourced evidence but how is it encyclopedic to report things we don't have evidence for? One has to use some common sense here. One article has one sentence on what reporters have not found yet? This is embarrassing POV for a project aimed at a serious encyclopedia. --I am One of Many (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

What's embarrassing is the apparently emotional attachment to the idea of Trump guilt, and the irrational opposition to any contrary suggestion—both fact sourcing and opinion commentary. The article goes to incredible lengths to imply Trump is guilty, including extensive use of self-published, biased, and low-quality sources because they paint Trump in a worse light than more reputable sources.

What you are suggesting is cherry picking things in an effort to make it look like there is evidence of Trump guilt, while deliberately ignoring the analysis that says there is no such evidence. Factchecker_atyourservice 22:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no analysis that there is no evidence in RS. Therein lies the problem. The statement that you want in the article suggests that there is no evidence of collusion. But, the actual fact is we don't know what evidence exists, if any. So, let's not add meaningless, but misleading text. O3000 (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

False, utterly wrong. I have cited numerous such articles showing precisely that analysis, and this one is just the latest. The actual fact is precisely what the sources say. The fact it conflicts with WP editor opinions is precisely the point of WP policies that say WP editor opinions are meaningless.

WP articles reflect what RS's say about article subjects, not what WP editors want to think about article subjects. Factchecker_atyourservice 22:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

E.g., the following: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Sources

On April 30, 2018, the NYT editorial board ran its own opinion column and said "The 49 questions that the special counsel, Robert Mueller, hopes to ask President Trump as part of the yearlong Russia investigation suggest that Mr. Mueller knows a great deal more than he’s letting on — and he hasn’t even gotten to the follow-ups yet."

Yet nearly 3 weeks later, NYT still reported the above statement that no public evidence has surfaced connecting Mr. Trump’s advisers to the hacking or linking Mr. Trump himself to the Russian government’s disruptive efforts. The two statements are not in conflict, and NYT is not just blowing smoke—it's an important point. You're talking about serious criminal/treason accusation and it's important not to prevaricate.

Both these statements are directly from the horse's mouth of the #1 fact source that we should be using to cover this U.S. politics issue. Can we not mention them side by side, either quote them directly or paraphrase? i.e. no public evidence of direct Trump link to Russian meddling, no public evidence of anything connecting Trump's advisors to hacking, but Mueller is speculated to have considerable evidence. Attribute it to NYT if need be. Factchecker_atyourservice 23:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I support adding the quote. It seems to be due weight, from a reliable secondary source. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

No, as it is not about the dossier, and as far as I can tell it only evens mention it in passing. It does not say anything about its veracity.Slatersteven (talk) 08:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

It is about the dossier's accusations which are featured in a stupid level of detail in this article, far beyond any RS coverage—and WP is supposed to treat criminal accusations carefully rather than exaggerating them. Factchecker_atyourservice 13:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I oppose per others. It is one sentence in one article and multiple other WP:RS directly address the subject of "evidence" and come and state there is evidence. Also, this looks like WP:FORUMSHOP to me. There is an RFC on this page on the same subject.Casprings (talk) 09:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The RFC above stalled with everyone calling me a liar because I tried to paraphrase a source and some people claiming the news reports were too old even though they were only weeks old. This report is fresh and there should be no objection to quoting it if nobody wants to suggest a paraphrase (I can't suggest a paraphrase because anything I suggest will be called a lie). Factchecker_atyourservice 13:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

OK " a recent NYT article had nothing to say about the veracity of the dossier. Saying that whilst at this time there is no publicly available evidence the investigation is not yet finished and that its earlier story saying the "F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia” — gave an air of finality to an investigation that was just beginning.", that is what the source says.Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Could you edit or rephrase your comment? I don't know what you're saying. Factchecker_atyourservice 13:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Suggested text

"A recent NYT article had nothing to say about the veracity of the dossier. Saying that whilst at this time there is no publicly available evidence the investigation is not yet finished and that its earlier story saying the "F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia” — gave an air of finality to an investigation that was just beginning."

How hard is it?Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

That's proposed text? Are you nuts? Factchecker_atyourservice 14:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Care to raise an actual objection?Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

It's OR and it misrepresents the source. What's wrong with quoting the source or paraphrasing it in a non-OR way? Factchecker_atyourservice 14:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

So what did I write that is not in the source?Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Everything you wrote.

The source says "A year and a half later, no public evidence has surfaced connecting Mr. Trump’s advisers to the hacking or linking Mr. Trump himself to the Russian government’s disruptive efforts."

Again, what is the problem with quoting the source? Factchecker_atyourservice 14:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

It also says "...But the article’s tone and headline — “Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia” — gave an air of finality to an investigation that was just beginning." (in the same paragraph), so yes lets quote them shall we? So the only part that is not a quote is the part about the veracity of the steele dossier, well does it question it?Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The source says no public evidence of X accusations and your paraphrase is the source said nothing about the truth of X accusations.

Do you really need me to explain why this is deceptive? Similar to the way you needed me to cite chapter and verse on the fact that fact sources are sources for facts? Factchecker_atyourservice 14:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven’s suggestion looks like an honest representation of the story to me - unlike using the partial quote that omits the qualification. O3000 (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Loooooooooooool so if you're so worried about dishonesty we can just quote the whole paragraph then?

A year and a half later, no public evidence has surfaced connecting Mr. Trump’s advisers to the hacking or linking Mr. Trump himself to the Russian government’s disruptive efforts. But the article’s tone and headline — “Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia” — gave an air of finality to an investigation that was just beginning.

The second sentence is absurdly, absurdly irrelevant but if it will eliminate all this "discussion" I see no problem with it. Factchecker_atyourservice 14:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

It does not say anything about it's truth, No publicly available evidence does not mean no evidence. In fact it also says this " And when The New York Times tried to assess the state of the investigation in October 2016, law enforcement officials cautioned against drawing any conclusions, resulting in a story that significantly played down the case.", in fact the whole tone of the article is that at the time (October 2016) too much effort was made to (in effect) underplay this so as not the affect the election. In fact (in context) it seems to be both criticizing itself and the FBI for taking these allegation more seriously earlier on. So far form saying that "there is no evidence" it is saying "Much remains unknown and classified". Why is it even relevant (given there is a closed session investigation) that no public evidence has emerged (according tho the NTY)?Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Why are you trying to paraphrase claims about "truth" that the article isn't making? Why do you object to quoting analysis of factual evidence that the source is making?

I have no objection to quoting the "much remains unknown and unclassified" blurb, that says something very similar to the NYT blurb I proposed where they speculate about what evidence Mueller may have.

These are criminal/treason accusations against the U.S. president—it's important to mention the state of the evidence and that is why the top news desks keep doing so. Factchecker_atyourservice 14:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

It does not talk about the state of evidence, and it does talk about how people too early on dismissed this (including itself), and in a lot more then one sentence. why do you think that is also not relevant? This talks about public evidence, not secret or classified evidence. So no it says nothing about the "state of the evidence" only that we have not seen it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support - the proposed wording by Factchecker is a welcome addition to this unbalanced, UNDUE weighty article that appears to be one helluva batch of commentary and a ton of RS speculation which crosses into NOTNEWS territory. I also agree with what I am One of Many said above, adding that as he appropriately pointed out (but for a different reason), it is encyclopedic to report sourced evidence, not things we don't have evidence for, and the latter is exactly what this article attempts to do using unsubstantiated claims - which is nothing more than speculation without evidence - whereas the fact that there is no evidence is supported by a high quality RS and belongs in this article - omission is censorship which is noncompliant with NPOV. ^{16:25, 19 May 2018 (UTC) Atsme📞📧} 14:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• I doubt that I am One of Many would appreciate your misuse of their statement. They are speaking about our use of sources, and you are repeating your misunderstanding of Wikipedia's GNG requirements for the creation of articles. Much as you hate the fact, Wikipedia's rules do not allow deletion of this article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Are you now the spokesman for IaOoM? As for deletion of this article, a reasonable time has passed so I'm not sure why you think it cannot be nominated for AfD again, particularly as merge/delete since there is no evidence to date that ties Trump to anything the dossier claims. I'm waiting to see what develops from the ongoing investigations, because all we have now is guilt by association and a whole lotta speculation and conspiracy theories. In fact, what little of this article is worthy of keeping belongs in either Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, or Special Counsel investigation (2017–present). ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I truly hope you don't nominate this article for deletion because there's a snowball's chance in hell it will be deleted. Its notability is beyond question even if it were to be fully discredited. Instead, parts of it have been verified. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

She really means it! SMH. Again she reveals that she doesn't understand Wikipedia's GNG requirements for the creation of articles. Another AfD would just be disruptive and seriously raise (more) doubts about her competency, at least on Trump-related articles. Her single-minded devotion to deleting all things negative about Trump is a net negative for the project, and one pinpointed by User:MastCell: [Atsme], "you seem to consider anything that reflects negatively on Donald Trump to constitute "anti-[Trump] fodder" and to argue to downplay it on those grounds."[6] That explains much of her editing on Trump articles, but on other articles she can be quite reasonable.

The results of investigations are irrelevant. The speculation is irrelevant. True or false is irrelevant. Credibility is irrelevant. The only thing that counts is the obvious notability of the dossier and its allegations, warts and all, and that is beyond question. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I have said my piece and this is going nowhere.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose We don’t include what we don’t know, and further discussion will likely lead to further PAs. O3000 (talk) 15:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Isn't that most of this article? PackMecEng (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Here's the full quote:

"A year and a half later, no public evidence has surfaced connecting Mr. Trump’s advisers to the hacking or linking Mr. Trump himself to the Russian government’s disruptive efforts. But the article’s tone and headline — “Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia” — gave an air of finality to an investigation that was just beginning."

It would be very dishonest indeed to manipulate this information to mean only the first part of the full quote. Gandydancer (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing dishonest about not mentioning irrelevant crap, but as I already said I have no problem quoting the irrelevant crap if it will stop people from making nonsensical claims about "dishonesty". Sooooo by all means let's include the important blurb about dems being butthurt about a newspaper headline from 19 months ago. Factchecker_atyourservice 15:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nasty comments don't generally perturb me in the least...except when made by an editor who complains about the comments of others. Please try to improve your manner of communication on this talk page because it is needlessly confrontational, dismissive...and irritating. Re your suggested edits, I see no reason to include the obvious: Mueller has not disclosed anything so far so it is obvious that no Trump collusion has been disclosed. Gandydancer (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

You claimed I was trying to misrepresent something by omitting it, when I explicitly said it should be included if anybody had a complaint—and even if it had been omitted, that wouldn't be misleading in any way. Hence your calling it "very dishonest" is insulting and needlessly confrontational, manufacturing a gripe out of thin air. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

How dumb do you think I am anyway? Your proposed edit reads, "no public evidence of direct Trump link to Russian meddling, no public evidence of anything connecting Trump's advisors to hacking, but Mueller is speculated to have considerable evidence. Attribute it to NYT if need be." Please just quit playing dumb and acting wronged. (I speak harshly since that seems to be your manner of conversation.) Gandydancer (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I already dealt with this non-issue before you ever posted about it, literally said "we can just quote the whole paragraph then", and I already pointed this out to you immediately after your first post. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no need to point out to me what you have said or have not said in this thread. To suggest that I have made edits while not following the posts that you and others have made is insulting, dismissive and irritating. Gandydancer (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

You showed up just to call me "dishonest" and claim it was "manipulation" to fail to mention some irrelevant trivia about a 19-month old news article, even though I had already said we should quote the whole para if it would make people feel better—that's insulting and irritating. Factchecker_atyourservice 18:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I think when you combine the POV pushing, the forum shopping, and the manipulation, this is starting to get pretty ripe for WP:AN.Casprings (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Gandydancer makes a good point. There is no finality to this "state of the evidence" matter.

Note that this New York Times quote only speaks of a very limited part of the allegations, the hacking, and only about his "advisers". That's all. And for Trump himself, only about "linking to the Russian government’s disruptive efforts". That's all.

We can't imply that there is no evidence, since the state of even the "public evidence" keeps changing. We keep getting more and more public evidence (which does not equal "proof"). The hidden evidence is successfully getting people arrested, confessing, and convicted, and this isn't slowing down for lack of evidence. It's growing.

The historical development of these Trump denials has been interesting: We've gone from the Trump administration making broad denials, and now it's small denials because successive revelations have exposed the previous denials as falsehoods. "Oh, what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive!"

Aaron Blake's WaPo article the other day illustrates the point, and he summarized his article very nicely on Twitter:

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

The article: "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 (linking to another article he wrote): "One thing, Rudy Giuliani: The Trump campaign *did* use it."

So even number seven is a lie.

So even by the Trump campaign's own moving-goal-post re-definitions, they can't escape the obvious conclusion that they really did collude. Maybe they can't settle on their own fake definition which temporarily appears to remove them from the guilt-equation, but we know the definition of collusion, and it fits what they did, and are still doing. It hasn't stopped.

We must not leave any sort of dishonest impression. Focusing on a cherry picked truth ("public") which ignores the larger context, leaves a false impression. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

This source is an opinion piece, and a two-pager at that. And it also says "We don't know whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government, legally speaking." Factchecker_atyourservice 17:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

"legally speaking"... -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Your point being? Factchecker_atyourservice 18:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

My point is that the addition of "legally speaking" can (and usually does, especially when followed by "but") imply that, practically speaking, there likely was collusion, which is the underlying assumption of his whole article, otherwise he wouldn't have written it. Take it or leave it. It's not worth discussing here. I just provided it to show how the Trump campaign has repeatedly moved the goal posts for their own definition of collusion. If they were certain that they never colluded with Russians, they wouldn't do that. Their actions indicate they are uncertain and feeling guilty. Their actions indicate that it's highly likely that they are covering up "something" nefarious. When law enforcement sees that type of behavior, they see it as admissible evidence of "consciousness of guilt". -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

It is a 2-page opinion article obliquely implying that Trump may have committed "practical collusion", or "non-legal collusion", who knows what that means since there's no such thing as "legal collusion", but in any event it does nothing to detract from the fact reporting that there is no public evidence of collusion. I already repeatedly discussed that there are dueling opinions on the significance of existing evidence, with, e.g., Schiff repeatedly insisting the public evidence shows collusion, but news desks have ignored this and continued to report there is no public evidence. Your OR legal analysis is meaningless for this article. Factchecker_atyourservice 06:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, per above. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Lol, the old New York Times is wrong, or lying! gambit.

The hacking and manipulation claims are the collusion claims. So when they are talking about the lack of evidence of hacking and manipulation claims, they are talking about the lack of evidence of the collusion claims.

And there's no need to "imply" anything not stated by the source--that's why I didn't try paraphrasing it because people would claim the paraphrase is a lie. So let's direct-quote. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:06, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

That's a "gambit" I have never played, so don't imply I have made it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

BTW, the hacking is just a small, though important part, of the collusion accusations. There are many other aspects. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

You are, right now, sitting here telling me the New York Times is getting the story all wrong. It's absurd. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Be very careful how you reply, if at all. You still have an iBan. I am not talking about the NYT, but about how it can be misused to leave a false impression. That's what we must avoid. It speaks of a very limited matter, so it must not be used to speak for more than it actually says. That's why I think it's best not to use it in the proposed manner. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The source says "A year and a half later, no public evidence has surfaced connecting Mr. Trump’s advisers to the hacking or linking Mr. Trump himself to the Russian government’s disruptive efforts."

It is pure fantasy on your part your own personal opinion unsupported by any RS analysis whatever that they are not talking about the collusion allegations, or that that there is some evidence of other collusion allegations that NYT simply forgot to mention. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Stating that BullRangifier is engaging in “pure fantasy” would appear to be unwise given your IBan sanction. O3000 (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Here is some additional context regarding why New York Times (and other top sources) have always considered the current public knowledge of evidence important: "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."

Factchecker_atyourservice 17:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Why on Earth would Meuller publically announce what he knows about the people he’s investigating while he’s still questioning people? It would be liking playing Bridge with your cards facing the other players. We do not and should not know what evidence exists. O3000 (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

That piece is not directly about the collusion claims, I just quoted it because of the reference to eliminating public uncertainty. Of course Mueller shouldn't compromise his investigation. Yet the evidence is still a matter of public concern and that is why the sources report there isn't any known. Factchecker_atyourservice 18:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

There isn't any publicly known evidence because the investigation is ongoing. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, which is the reason this article has major problems - most of the claims are unsubstantiated allegations and there is no evidence of Trump collusion. FCAYS, it appears you are the target of WP:STONEWALLING which is highly disruptive, not to mention noncompliance with WP:NPOV and possibly even WP:CENSOR. I'm hard pressed to consider attempts to censor inclusion of such an important fact of no evidence cited to high quality sources anything but stonewalling, so I recommend calling an RfC, and avoid arguing with them. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

If you have a problem with editors, take them to ANI and stop attacking editors on talk pages. O3000 (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

That's some fancy attempt at WP:WIKILAWYERING there. The dossier had been partially verified, nothing in it has been officially and completely discredited, and yet you and FCAYS are trying to make it appear that the information in the dossier is false. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

yet you and FCAYS are trying to make it appear that the information in the dossier is false. That's some nonsense, please strike it immediately. I am suggesting quoting what RS's have said about the collusion claims. Factchecker_atyourservice 21:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Hate to disappoint, Muboshgu but I'm not swallowing the bait. It doesn't take a law degree to see what's going on here. I'd rather pretend O3000 didn't say what he said about me and simply focus on the article. It would be far more productive if more effort was exerted in an attempt to resolve the issues with this article instead of preventing the inclusion of important well-sourced information. If you believe the dossier is partially verified, then create a section titled Verified claims and list them in numerical order - make it a simple, independent list - no editorializing, no conspiracy theories - say what the sources say and make it easy for our readers to find the info. Get rid of the verbose sections that attempt to justify the dossier and Steele - the fluff is overboard and so are the unsubstantiated claims. Just list the claims, note them as UNVERIFIED, and move on. We don't need all the opinions and speculations and conspiracy theories that have been published with click-bait headlines in RS that want to milk this cash cow dry. If I've got the story right, there are only 17 memos by anonymous Russian operatives in that dossier - ironic that Trump is being accused of collusion and condemned while the dossier itself may be nothing more than the product of Russian deceit. The lawsuits surrounding the Mueller investigation are far more interesting than the dossier, especially the Concord case, one of three companies and 13 Russians Mueller indicted in February. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Favor to ask - I use syntax highlighting in edit mode, so when you use <p/> and <br/>, don't forget the forward slash to close them. BR, I apologize for messing up your numbers - I accidentally deleted a close bracket when adding the forward slashes to your breaks. ^{Atsme📞📧} 05:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support inclusion and especially the proposed wording by Factchecker. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support With the source listed and wording purposed. It's a high quality source that has done a lot of reporting on this issue and it related to the dossier. PackMecEng (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is basically just a comment that the investigation by the FBI continue. This is also a quotation out of context. "Nothing changed", what is value of this? My very best wishes (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Nothing was taken "out of context". An absurd claim. Factchecker_atyourservice 14:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: I requested this discussion closed here: Request closure of discussion and re-direction to open WP:RFC/ Request User:Factchecker_atyourservice warned for WP:Battle and WP:POV

Rationale is WP:Battle and WP:Fourmshopping. Casprings (talk) 23:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. There's nothing positive coming from this thread. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - That "no public evidence has surfaced" is not absence of evidence. This selective use of material from one source, out of context, would be misleading to our readers. It's also tangential to the article subject.- MrX 🖋 12:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

A pointlessly unconstructive straw man since nobody suggested saying "there is no evidence", at any point in time ever. Nor is it quoted in a "misleading" way, nor is it taken "out of context", nor is it "tangential" to the article subject. Nor is it used "selectively" since it is buttressed by numerous other sources. Every single thing you said was wrong. Factchecker_atyourservice 14:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but that bloviation has not convinced me to change my view. I stand by what I wrote in my oppose comment.- MrX 🖋 16:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I was merely just explaining the comprehensive wrongness of your comment. You are entitled to be wrong and proud of it. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

ARBITRARY BREAK

This is getting very long and convoluted.Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Lead sentence: There is "a great deal of public evidence of ties between the Trump campaign and Russian actors." based on Jan. 2017 article

Which sure sounds like confirmation of collusion accusations!

But we can't have fact reporting from May 2018 or March 2018 or February 2018 or January 2018 talking about the lack of evidence of collusion, anywhere in the article? Gosh this must be one of those things that I am deceptively dishonest for complaining about. Factchecker_atyourservice 05:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe that is because most of the sources you used said "we have no seen any evidence" which is not saying "there is none". And we do have claims that the dossiers assertions are dodgey. There may be an argument for expanding this area, but only as long as we accurately reflect what the sources are saying.Slatersteven (talk) 09:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

There is evidence that Democrat operatives set up members of the Trump campaign to create suspicious situations involving Russians: fake dossier, agent provocateurs Halper, Misfud, Downer, Fusion GPS, Veselnitskaya, setting up Trump associates, computer fraud that made it look like Alfa Bank's server was communicating with a Trump email server so that a FISA warrant could be issued. None of this is mentioned in the article but will become part of the lede as more evidence emerges, which will happen soon.Phmoreno (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

When it does I am sure we can include it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

OK as your comment (after I had replied) was altered, what evidence is there at this time (remember it has to be from RS)? Also (remember) this is evidence we are looking for, not accusations. Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Everyone is now aware of the FBI spy or spies in the Trump campaign. Regardless of who they were, the circumstantial evidence surrounding some of the contacts of various people with the Trump campaign are more suspicious than any meetings that Trump associates had with Russians.Phmoreno (talk) 13:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

So accusations, not proof.Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

And how is that different from anything else in this article? All accusations, no proof.Phmoreno (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Nothing, but then I have no said that what there is is proof of anything. So which of your sources say that this was a Democratic plot to trick the Trump campaign into making contracts with Russians?.Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

RS commentary is not putting it as sensationally as Trump's people, but it's on the radar, e.g. this law prof op-ed in The Hill:

In response to the New York Times report, Trump declared that the FBI planted “at least one” spy in his campaign to frame him. Trump counsel Rudy Giuliani ratcheted up the rhetoric and said, if the story is true, that former FBI Director James Comey should be prosecuted.

The record does not currently support such a criminal conspiracy. However, if Trump and his counsel can be accused of overplaying the known facts, the media can be equally accused of ignoring the implications of the known facts. It should be a serious concern that the Obama administration used secret counterintelligence powers to target officials in the campaign of the opposing party. That is a practice we have widely criticized in other countries from Turkey to Russia to Iran.

Worse yet, the New York Times wrote that the decision was made to use the secret FISA court and counterintelligence personnel to conceal the operation for political purposes. According to the report, FBI officials consciously decided not to seek conventional criminal warrants or pursue a criminal investigation because it might be discovered and raised by Trump during the campaign. Thus, as Trump campaigned against the “deep state,” FBI officials hid their investigation deeper inside the state. FISA was not designed as a convenient alternative for the FBI and the Justice Department to avoid political costs or scrutiny.

Factchecker_atyourservice 15:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

What has this got to do with the dossier?Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

You asked "So which of your sources say that this was a Democratic plot to trick the Trump campaign into making contracts with Russians?", and my comment was a reply to that. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I should have added "in the context of what this talk page is about". Read wp:talkSlatersteven (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Why are you telling me to "read WP:TALK"? You asked a question and I answered it. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

This just confuses the discussion. The question was directed to Phmoreno (so let them answer), who used the Daily Caller, a very unreliable source. That one can find mention by partisan writers, who echo such unreliable sources and conspiracy theories, in mainstream sources like the NYT is just a fact. We still should not lend them more weight than they deserve because they were allowed to spout their nonsense there. It's still fringe POV pushing by those authors. They are unreliable no matter where they write. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Slater asked a very specific question requesting better sourcing, and that is what I provided. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

"None of this is mentioned in the article" because it's nonsense and conspiracy theories from extreme right-wing unreliable sources. It's part of the cover-up and Trump/Putin/GOP pushback against the evidence published in mainstream RS. Most of those things mentioned have logical and better explanations which these extreme sources ignore.

Phmoreno, you have used such sources before. Please stop it. Here's a list of unreliable sources we should not use. Study it and then stop using them at all, in real life, and never use them here again. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Just trying to keep everyone informed. Will all break soon.Phmoreno (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk pages are for disusing how to improve articles, not as live news feeds.Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Back on topic -- Bull, could you explain why you want to use a quote from a 16-month-old blog post to refer to "a great deal of public evidence of ties between the Trump campaign and Russian actors" right in the article lead—but you think it would be misleading to say "A year and a half later, no public evidence has surfaced connecting Mr. Trump’s advisers to the hacking or linking Mr. Trump himself to the Russian government’s disruptive efforts", anywhere in the article, based on timely news reports from the top newspaper in the United States (and other recent high quality news reports)? Factchecker_atyourservice 15:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Please put down your WP:BLUDGEON. O3000 (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The question of the state of "public evidence" is a moving target and only part of the story. I assume that is a large part of why there are objections from so many as to how that content should be framed. There are no real objections to the sourcing, but the framing, and it's difficult to frame a specific statement about a dynamically moving target. Such a statement must necessarily be quite vague/general, and not very specific. (I note that you're using the exact quote from the NYT, and not the more general wording you originally proposed, so that's a separate discussion I'm not going to get into here. I'll let others discuss that with you, although you might want to drop the stick...just sayin')

By contrast, the proven, and indisputable, fact of myriad secret and suspicious contacts and meetings between Trump campaign officials and Russians is what it is. The only thing changing about that is more being discovered, more being indicted, more confessing, and more turning state's witness. The statement is simple, short, sufficiently vague/general, and indisputable fact. That shouldn't be controversial. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't explain why you think we should mention a single extremely old assessment of "evidence" implying Trump guilt, from one source, and feature it very prominently in the lead in WP voice—but we can't have timely, higher quality assessments that there is no known evidence of Trump guilt, anywhere in the article, even though the latter are widely reported? For someone who spends so much time fretting about "misleading" readers, you seem to be trying real hard to do precisely that. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Back off. You've just violated your iBan. You've just falsely claimed it was in "WP voice" (it's in quotes), assumed some things I do not believe, and then attacked me. I'm not going to get drawn more into this seemingly endless discussion. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Now you've deleted my addition with a dubious edit summary which again attacks me. You are the only one who has complained about that content. It should be uncontroversial. You, of all people, should know better than to touch my edits and make snide comments and edit summaries about me. It's wiser to keep some distance. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

(ec)Bull, what the source by Wittes says is:

"They take place amidst the background of a great deal of public evidence of ties between the Trump campaign and Russian actors."

The sentence you added to Wikipedia was:

There is "a great deal of public evidence of ties between the Trump campaign and Russian actors."

You've changed the sentence around to make it a direct declarative statement about "public evidence", and didn't attribute it. I'm not saying this misrepresents the source, it just gives it a flat-out factual presentation in WP voice that is pretty different than if you had said "Susan Hennesy-Wittes wrote in Lawfare that . . ."

And, I don't know why you think something going right to the heart of a content dispute that has been ongoing for 6+ weeks "should be uncontroversial". Factchecker_atyourservice 16:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, then fix it. Normally uncontroversial statements of fact don't need attribution, but if you think it's necessary, fix it, don't delete it. It's also not directly about Trump, which is a slightly different topic, the one you have been discussing. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Normally uncontroversial statements of fact don't need attribution That is laughable since we've been debating for nearly 2 months about uncontroversial statements of fact that you and others don't want added to the article at all, much less featured prominently in the lead, much less stated as outright fact—as you have done with this quote from 16+ months ago. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Sources

I find the following rather ironic - particularly the argument Slatersteven made above - for censoring 2018 updates suggested by Factchecker who is citing high quality media sources that state there is no evidence of collusion, whereas the argument to exclude has been quite simply that it is not saying "there is none"; making that the reason to exclude the material. Yet, when Phmoreno suggested above that there is evidence of an undercover FBI plant in the Trump campaign, one the NYTimes stated they know the identity of but won't share, is not being allowed because of arguments put forth by some editors, including the one Slatersteven's stated above "So accusations, not proof. I'd say that describes STONEWALLING to the "T", which takes it out of the realm of being a content issue into being a behavioral issue. We have hit rock bottom when the omission (censorship) of important material is based on an argument wherein editors contradict themselves in juxtaposed statements, like what just happened above to Factchecker and Phmoreno. BullRangifer, I agree with you that the sources you named are not to be considered RS for inclusion of this material - no problem - but there are RS that have reported this story including the NYTimes, WSJ, FoxNews, and The Hill, to name a few. It doesn't matter if we agree with what's written in the source, we are only responsible for making sure the material meets the requirements for V and NPOV. I think it is in the best interest of peaceful collaboration that we reach a compromise and proper consensus and stop the STONEWALLING. The disruptive behavior has raised my concerns that there may be a COI involved based on party affiliations and that some editors need to try harder to leave their biases at check-in. I would not be saying any of this if the evidence was not staring us in the face as it is right now. It is impeding our ability to edit in a productive collaborative fashion, and it needs to stop. I am open to suggestions regarding the proposed material, and how best to move forward to find resolution. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Errr, Does the source say this is linked to the dossier? What has this FBI spy got to do with the dossier?Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I recommend reading the article published by WaPo titled Who is the Trump-linked source who led the FBI to treat the dossier seriously?. Considering you are editing in a highly controversial area, perhaps a quick refresher of WP:CIR is in order. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you posted that WaPo link, but it's about Papadopoulos as that "human source". The FBI had been informed by the Australians about his drunken admission that the Trump campaign knew of stolen emails possessed by the Russians, long before they should have known. A number of other RS also make that connection. The FBI agents who met with Steele in Rome informed him that what he was telling them (some of the early allegations in the dossier) was already known to them from another source: the FBI "believed Chris’s information [the dossier] might be credible because they had other intelligence that indicated the same thing and one of those pieces of intelligence was a human source from inside the Trump organization."

At this time, Papadopoulos was still "inside the Trump organization" as one of Trump's advisors, and had been encouraged by the campaign leadership to make contacts with Russians, and he had done it multiple times. That included quite a bit of travel to Russia, Greece (where Putin then arrived at the same time....), and other European cities. This was all done to aid the campaign. When he got exposed he had trouble even getting them to cover his travel expenses.

The current brouhaha about some secret agent infiltrator is just a right-wing revival of that same FBI claim about a "human source" within the Trump campaign, but now clothed in conspiratorial clothing. They refuse to just admit that Papadopoulos was that person, because that clearly implies the Trump campaign was knowingly colluding with Russians, so they instead manufacture this conspiracy theory.

This is a place where Occam's razor applies; the simplest explanation is the right one. Papadopoulos is the guy. One can speculate if Papadopoulos carried a wire while he stayed close to Trump and other campaign members for some time after the FBI had privately confronted him and flipped him. That's entirely possible and fits one of their very legitimate methods for getting evidence about suspects. If that happened, then he could be considered "an FBI spy in the campaign". The timeline fits. Oddly, and not very patriotically, the GOP and Fox News would rather be more concerned about, and attack, the FBI and someone gathering evidence about possibly treasonous crimes, than about stopping the potential criminal(s), because they had already cast their full weight behind the Trump campaign. McConnell already knew that Trump might be compromised by Russians, and commanded the Gang of Eight to remain silent. Unfortunately McConnell has that kind of power.

All this information is from RS we already use in our various Trump-related articles and the Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections‎. The exception is Phmoreno's and the right-wing's conspiracy theories. They are not documented here because they come from unreliable sources. Also the speculation about Papadopoulos maybe wearing a wire. We don't know that for sure, but we know they did flip him, and flipped suspects typically carry wires and report back about conversations. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

On this theory, aren't you saying that Papadopoulos's arrest in July 2017 and criminal charges and guilty plea in October 2017 were all a ruse intended to cover up his Summer 2016 involvement in setting Trump up with a wiretap, and he's not really awaiting sentencing right now because once everything in the Mueller investigation comes out in the open, it will be revealed the whole prosecution was fake? Not out of the question but I'm not so sure that is the "simplest" way of reading the crystal ball. Factchecker_atyourservice 03:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

OK I will re-word it, which of the sources raised (until your one) discus the dossier?Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

oOhh and his original claim (then one I challenged him for a source for) was "There is evidence that Democrat operatives set up members of the Trump campaign", not that there was an FBI mole. So do any of these sources say the FBI was working for the Democrats (or this spy was)? That was the claim he said he had proof of, as I pointed out this is not proof it is a (I did not say it then I will now) vague (vague as in nudge nudge wink wink) allegation.Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Lets make this easy, if you think an edd has issues report them, do not discus their actions here.Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Stop goading, Slatersteven. Just stick to content and we'll all be much happier. Following are more sources you can read: Politico, The Hill, The Independent - just Google dossier tied to FBI plant in Trump campaign and knock yourself out with all the info that comes up. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I am the one sticking to the content, a claim was made of evidence that the democrats set Trump up. All that has happened is the goal posts have been changed.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

In fact what we have here is (I am not going to count them just list them) more then one topic in this thread, none of which I started).

There is "a great deal of public evidence of ties between the Trump campaign and Russian actors

There is evidence that Democrat operatives set up members of the Trump campaign to create suspicious situations involving Russians

FBI spy or spies in the Trump campaign

there is no known evidence of Trump guilt

Did I miss any? So what is the content I should be sticking to?Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

You're doing it again, Slatersteven. Please read the beginning of the discussion wherein the explanation clearly indicates this entire discussion has been about the censoring of important (notable) material cited to quality RS, beginning with the justified removal of the 1st item in your list, and inclusion of the 2nd, 3rd & 4th items, all of which are RS. My recommendation is to afford Factchecker_atyourservice the opportunity to compose something compliant with DUE & BALANCE, and post it here in a

Talk quote box like this one so we can review it.

It is what we should all consider productive collaboration and a positive attempt to build an encyclopedia. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

So it is about the same thing we already have (what 2?) threads on already? Sorry but if this is just "There is no evidence trump did it" just rehashed again this serves no purpose and should be closed, we do not discus the same thing over and over again just re-worded. That is not how "productive collaboration and a positive attempt"s work, by just banging on about the same thing till you get your way.

So I am saying this now, I am only going to now comment in the thread above this one on this topic, anything suggested here I oppose on procedural grounds.Slatersteven (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

National Review article

This article, from the right-leaning National Review, is quite interesting. Goldberg manages to walk the tightrope between two sides of the same facts:

• Separating Conspiracy from Reality in the Trump–Russia Investigation, By Jonah Goldberg, May 23, 2018

Enjoy! -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

James Clapper in introduction and potential conflict of interest?

At the moment, we quote James Clapper in the introduction of the article. I think there are two potential problems with this that needs to be raised.

(1) article introductions are supposed to be simply a summary of the article content itself. As far as I can see Clapper is not mentioned in the body of the article. If his views are not notable enough to form a central part of the article, then why is it in the intro?

(2) Clapper is a member of the Episcopal Church (United States) and has recent family members who are Episcopal ministers. Given that this dossier was authored by an MI6 operative, can an Episcopalian be considered a disinterested party on the topic? Is there a dog in the fight, so to speak? The Episcopal Church, is part of the Anglican Communion, a political pseudo-religion which is directly ran by the British establishment. Claíomh Solais (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

(1) The body does mention Clapper, do a "CTRL+F" search. (2) There's nothing to be concerned about there. His relevant affiliation is the U.S. intelligence community. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• This is a borderline trollish post since it misrepresents the article and puts forward an outlandish conspiracy theory.--I am One of Many (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)