Talk:Christopher Steele

Out of the Shadows: The Man Behind the Steele Dossier, ABC documentary with George Stephanopoulos & Christopher Steele

On October 18, 2021, this ABC News documentary will air on Hulu. I suspect it will contain content that is usable here and at the Steele dossier article.

• ABC News, full trailer
• On Hulu

Valjean (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

ABOUTSELF content removed, leaving a misleading claim

Why is Steele's own clarification now deleted? This is his article and his comment is important to include.

This is covered by WP:ABOUTSELF, subject matter expert, and BLP's PUBLICFIGURE, which requires denials are included. This is an important clarification rather than a full denial, which makes it even more allowable. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Wrong policy, kind of. Steele is not a subject matter expert of anything, unless you mean expert on Steele, but that is also irrelevant, due the exception "without the self-published source requirement that they are published experts in the field" in ABOUTSELF.

I cited WP:BLPSELFPUB and criterions #1, #2, and #4. I left "Steele has disputed this description." in the article even though it strictly speaking touches third parties. PUBLICFIGURE policy does not "require" a denial, it says "should" – and we have a denial. The current version of PUBLICFIGURE includes a disputed fragment "while also adhering to appropriate due weight of all sources covering the subject and avoiding false balance" due to edit-warring attempts. Even though that part is not valid part of policy, it doesn't mean that Steele's comment should be given undue weight. If a denial takes more words than actual content, and the denial is self-sourced, something is off. Politrukki (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Valjean. Steele is a subject matter expert in the field of intelligence analysis, but I think that's beside the point. The rationale for removing his tweet, that it was unduly self-serving, is inaccurate. He was simply offering his relevant opinion on what he was offered by the FBI. I'm not sure what the doubt is about authenticity. As to whether it concerns 3rd parties, the FBI is not a living person, so if Steele is an expert and he's also making claims about himself, this appears to me to be able to come in. However, I also think the claim that he was offered $1m should be attributed to "a senior FBI analyst testified"[1] Andre🚐 17:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Not a reliable expert, but this is irrelevant, as I explained. Auten, Durham, Danchenko, Trump, "we" (who's "we"), and "sources". That's a lot of third parties. If there's no doubt about authenticity, where's the proof that Steele is correct and Auten? Sources, please. Politrukki (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Steele didn't make any claims about Durham, Danchenko, or Trump, which is kind of ridiculous to even mention, nor did he name Auten by name. He talked about what the FBI offered him. "Authenticity" is whether the tweet is real and really came from him - not "correctness." Verifiability, not truth. The claim does not need to be true to be attributed, and your ask for proof is misplaced. We don't deal with proof here, but attributed claims. The fact that Steele denies a claim that was made about him MUSTshould be included per BLP. Or do you not think Steele is entitled to BLP protection as well? Andre🚐 19:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Also agree with Valjean and Andrevan. After reading past discussions on the issue of denials (most recently here; also relevant essay WP:MANDY, and counter-(draft)essay), I think it's appropriate to say the following, ranked in order of importance:

1. Denials do not NEED to be included on Wikipedia articles, nor do they NEED to be excluded.
2. Denials are RECOMMENDED to be included, per WP:BLPPUBLIC: "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too, while also adhering to appropriate due weight of all sources covering the subject and avoiding false balance."
3. Allegations against BLPs should usually be included in articles ONLY if there are multiple sources for them, per WP:BLPPUBLIC: "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."
4. Denials DO NOT have to come from reliable sources; however, if a non-RS is used, the denial should be given less WP:WEIGHT than accusations coming from multiple RS. WP:DUE shouldn't be an argument to NOT include it; just to include it in a lesser way.

For other reasons already discussed, the tweet seems like a fine source for the denial. In this case, the denial source is up against CNN as the allegation source; BUT CNN is not repeating the content of the allegation in their own published voice, only that Auten made the allegation in testimony. In which case, it doesn't seem wrong to me to pit Twitter against CNN in a "battle for due weight" in this minor section of this article. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Good point, the wording is "should" and not "need"/"must" be included. It's recommended though. Andre🚐 21:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Of course he's an expert. He's a career spook. SPECIFICO talk 18:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

If a denial takes more words than actual content, and the denial is self-sourced, something is off. This is just blatantly wrong. Many simplistic claims must be refuted with more wordy refutations. This one is a case in point. The text should not have been removed. There is no valid policy reason not to have this here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

It's especially important to include Steele's clarification because Auten's claim could be seen as borderline libelous leaves a misleading and false impression. Steele very calmly explains the nuances. Auten had apparently (or we would have known this a long time ago) withheld this knowledge from Mueller and Inspector General Horowitz when they interviewed him. They described, in painful detail, the information from interviews with Auten, Strzok, and others, and this was never mentioned. Not once. In fact, other amounts were mentioned. Now $1 million effing dollars!!! pops up as a totally new bit of information that is written with no explanation, leaving Steele in a very bad light that is unjustified. Now Steele clarifies the actual nature of the matter with no accusations against Auten. Good for Steele taking the high road. It's only fair to him and to our readers to include it. It's malicious to not do so. BLP protections also apply to Steele. BTW, Auten isn't clean and seems to be antagonistically trying to dump on Steele to divert attention from his own problems, as he's been in trouble for the way he handled things. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

There's a bit of leeway on the talk page, but don't make assertions that aren't supported by RS. I removed a BLP violation from your comment. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

So you're either accusing Auten of libel or perjury, as his claim was made under oath. I'd advise you to refactor, as this is a clear BLP violation. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Now reworded. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

This is exactly what I wished to avoid. Now you are adding wild speculation about living persons, without any proof, and we must suffer this soapboxing. How do you that Auten's claim leaves a "false impression"? Do always automatically assume that Steele is 100% truthful about everything? Auten could be facing suspension (per Politico, etc.), but it's improper to insinuate that they would lie under oath. Don't you care that Steele's comment could potentially besmirch third parties? BTW, are you going to mention MANDY with regards to Steele? I sure won't be using that argument. Politrukki (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

We don't need to accept the veracity of either claim, just attribute both when there is a contradiction. Andre🚐 19:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

A "data protection" lawsuit from Trump

The suit was first filed in November 2022.

Saving these RS here:

• Trump suing ex-MI6 officer who alleged he was 'compromised' by Russian security service
• Donald Trump Sues Former British Spy in London Data Lawsuit
  • "Trump is bringing a data collection claim against ex-MI6 agent Christopher Steele and his Orbis business intelligence firm, according to a court filing. The suit was first filed in November last year and the first court hearing is set for next month. No other details of the claim are available."
• Trump sues former British spy behind controversial Russia dossier
  • "... the former president’s UK legal team is asking that the 'inaccurate data contained within the Steele Dossier be erased or rectified together with the payment of damages,' Tim Lowles, a lawyer for Trump in the UK, told CNN last month."
• ‘Damage and Distress’: Trump Sues Over Russia Dossier in London
  • "Former President Donald J. Trump is arguing that the document known as the Steele dossier was calculated to embarrass him and that it breached data protection laws."
• Trump seeks 'vindication' in UK courts over ex-spy's dossier on alleged Russian sex bribes
  • "Any reputational damage, and any resulting distress, allegedly suffered will have been caused by the BuzzFeed publication, for which the claimant accepts Orbis is not liable."
• Trump sues ex-British spy over dossier containing 'shocking and scandalous claims'
  • "Orbis wants the lawsuit thrown out because it said the report was never meant to be made public and was published by BuzzFeed without the permission of Steele or Orbis. It also said the claim was filed too late.... In two previous High Court cases, a judge ruled Orbis and Steele were not legally liable for the consequences of the dossier's publication."

Let's see what "data protection" or "data collection" claim means before adding content. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Book coming

Steele has written a book:

• “Unredacted: Russia, Trump, and the Fight for Democracy”

FIRST IN PLAYBOOK — Christopher Steele, the British intelligence officer of “Steele dossier” fame, is publishing a new book on Oct. 8, “Unredacted: Russia, Trump, and the Fight for Democracy.” Published by Mariner Books, “Unredacted” talks about Steele’s sources behind the dossier — and adds new information/intelligence about Russia that he has since collected. Russian President Vladimir Putin “is now desperate to have Donald Trump back in the White House,” he writes. “If Putin succeeds in helping Trump get reelected, I am convinced that the global political order will be utterly changed.”[2]

The reactions will be interesting and maybe worthy of inclusion. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Reverts of my detailed updates

Earlier in December 2024, I updated this BLP article in light of:

1. subsequent lack of importance of the so called Steele dossier due to it being largely disproven and discounted;
2. findings about Steele being less credible than thought initially.

I also consolidated duplicate refs and made other word changes that were a combination of minor corrections and slight improvements. Valjean reverted all my work summarily, instead of rewording the part about Bruce and Nellie Ohr, about which he had a reasonable point. Valjean didn't leave any note on the talk page to discuss prior. This makes me feel discouraged and as though my contributions to Wikipedia are unwanted.--FeralOink (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The reason I reverted back to the previous stable version was because you made so many changes in one edit. That's usually a bad idea. Try making small edits and saving each one, with a good edit summary, as you move along.

Rather than do the same this time, I'll try to deal with some issues which are related to your comment above. Nothing in the dossier has been disproven. Initial reports in early 2017 are really bad to use as judgments of the dossier. Later analyses take into account much more information and are more accurate. The subject matter experts (lawyers and intelligence experts) at Lawfare have analyzed the dossier quite thoroughly. Here are a two excerpts (numbered) from the dossier article:

(1) In a December 2018 Lawfare report titled "The Steele Dossier: A Retrospective", the authors described how, after two years, they "wondered whether information made public as a result of the Mueller investigation—and the passage of two years—has tended to buttress or diminish the crux of Steele's original reporting." To make their judgments, they analyzed a number of "trustworthy and official government sources" and found that "These materials buttress some of Steele's reporting, both specifically and thematically. The dossier holds up well over time, and none of it, to our knowledge, has been disproven." They concluded with:

The Mueller investigation has clearly produced public records that confirm pieces of the dossier. And even where the details are not exact, the general thrust of Steele's reporting seems credible in light of what we now know about extensive contacts between numerous individuals associated with the Trump campaign and Russian government officials.

(2) This lack of "thoroughness and rigor" leaves many allegations with an uncorroborated status. Lawfare wrote: "There is also a good deal in the dossier that has not been corroborated in the official record and perhaps never will be—whether because it's untrue, unimportant or too sensitive".

"Unproven/uncorroborated" does not equal "disproven". "Discounted" is a disputed POV. "Discredited" is an unfortunate word that some RS have used, and because it is so confusing and easy to misunderstand, there is a consensus at the dossier article to document that the word is used in RS, but to not use it in our description because it gives the totally false impression of "disproven". Therefore I'll delete use of that word. This article is, after all, about Steele, not the dossier.

BTW, what do you mean by "Steele being less credible than thought initially"? (I'm aware of some less-than-flattering words from some FBI agents, as his lack of cooperation with them didn't help and was part of what led to his termination. He had good reason to not trust them. I just want to know what you mean.)

His sources (among them Danchenko's network) have turned out to be very good. After the dossier was published, Danchenko was employed by the FBI for several years and received the highest praise. During his trial, two FBI officials revealed that Danchenko was "an uncommonly valuable" CHS for several years whose role went far beyond the Steele dossier:

Helson testified that Danchenko's reports as a confidential informant were used by the FBI in 25 investigations and 40 intelligence reports during a nearly four-year period from March 2017 to October 2020. ... Danchenko, the FBI agent said, was considered 'a model' informant and 'reshaped the way the U.S. even perceives threats.' Helson said that none of his previous informants had ever had as many sub-sources as Danchenko and that others at the FBI have continued to ask in recent months for Danchenko's assistance amid Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Your contributions are wanted, but make smaller edits, especially on such controversial topics. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)