Talk:Steele dossier/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Conspiracy theory template

The article was already in Category:Conspiracy theories so I have added the template related to that subject to this article. The completely unproven claim that the Russian government is secretly controlling the American president through "sex tapes" would appear to fit well within the boundaries of conspiracy theory Claíomh Solais (talk) 00:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Spies have ‘considerable intelligence’ of collusion....

Spies have ‘considerable intelligence’ of collusion between Russian officials and Donald Trump team, Chloe Farand, The Independent, March 6, 2017

<ref name="Farand_3/6/2017">{{cite web | last=Farand | first=Chloe | title=Spies have ‘considerable intelligence’ of collusion between Russian officials and Donald Trump team | website=The Independent | date=March 6, 2017 | url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-russia-collusion-campaign-us-spies-nsa-agent-considerable-intelligence-a7613266.html | accessdate=March 7, 2017}}</ref>

BullRangifer (talk) 04:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

It's only been a few days, but so far this claim seems to have been rather widely ignored by RS's. Factchecker_atyourservice 06:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Not true Factchecker_atyourservice, see for example: Washington monthly The Steele Dossier Is Increasingly Being Corroborated Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

You're simply mistaken. Read carefully. That's an entirely different story that doesn't even discuss the claims made in the source Bull posted—those claims have been ignored as you can see from Google news even though they purport to be explosive.

In any event the sourcing is awful. WP requires high quality sourcing for claims like this and speculation in a brief blog post in a marginal monthly political journal by a woman whose credentials identify her as a social worker just doesn't rise to that level. (The only commentator or analyst named in the piece is Rachel Maddow. Lolz.) Factchecker_atyourservice 13:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Too soon. More and more is coming out about this, but the mainstream press hasn't picked it up yet. --MelanieN (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

P.S. To clarify my comment: What we are talking about here is "collusion" - that is, willing cooperation and encouragement of the Russian activities by Trump and/or his campaign. While there is a lot of evidence about meetings, connections, etc., there is not yet sufficient evidence to support actual collusion. --MelanieN (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's actually true about this whole dossier, which hasn't been taken very seriously by high quality sources, even on the opinion pages. For example a recent piece in The New York Times refers to "the idea, contained in a dossier compiled by private investigators, that Russia has compromising material on Trump. Unless real evidence emerges, I’d encourage you to ignore this theory..

Yet Wikipedians seem to want a long juicy article about these sensational claims much more than they want to adhere faithfully to pre-existing sourcing policies, so here we are having supposedly serious discussions about laughable sources like a lefty social worker's analysis of intelligence materials. Because real sources just aren't touching this. A more responsible and introspective community might take such warning signs to heart. Factchecker_atyourservice 15:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I always enjoy the, see, this one source is crappy so this is just all POV pushing.. bleh, bleh, bleh.. The fact is, it was the New Yorker that reported that "“They are continuing to chase down stuff from the dossier, and, at its core, a lot of it is bearing out,” The NYT, WSJ, WP, CNN, and others are continuing to report linkages between Trump and Russia. We should look at sources, but one source not being used does not dismiss widely used sources.Casprings (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Nope and nope. First, I'm not complaining about POV pushing because of one crappy source, I'm complaining about POV pushing because people want to ignore high quality source coverage that doesn't make sensational claims, in favor of low-quality source coverage that does. That flies in the face of WP:WEIGHT.

Second, the New Yorker does not report what you claim. The language you quote is from an unnamed intelligence official. Rather, what the New Yorker actually reports, in its own editorial voice, is this: "According to current and former government officials, prurient details in the dossier generated skepticism among some members of the intelligence community, who, as one put it, regarded it as a 'nutty' product to present to a President. But, in the weeks that followed, they confirmed some of its less explosive claims, relating to conversations with foreign nationals."

We've already got that reflected in a lengthy CNN quote and all they say about it is that the new analysis "corroborates some aspects" of the dossier. Do you want the lead to say that some of the less explosive aspects of the dossier have been corroborated? Of course, I have no problem with that. If you wanted to say something more, I would demand high-quality sourcing actually supporting the claim. Cheers. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

It worries me when editors seem to willfully misrepresent what a WP:RS says. What the paragraph you refer to says in full:

According to current and former government officials, prurient details in the dossier generated skepticism among some members of the intelligence community, who, as one put it, regarded it as a “nutty” product to present to a President. But, in the weeks that followed, they confirmed some of its less explosive claims, relating to conversations with foreign nationals. “They are continuing to chase down stuff from the dossier, and, at its core, a lot of it is bearing out,” an intelligence official said. Some officials believe that one reason the Russians compiled information on Trump during his 2013 trip was that he was meeting with Russian oligarchs who might be stashing money abroad—a sign of disloyalty, in Putin’s eyes.

Casprings (talk) 16:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Exactly what do you think I "willfully misrepresented"? Explain clearly, or else redact your silly claim and apologize. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

What the story was stating. It was clearly stating that officials dismissed the dossier early, but were finding that many of the details checked out as they investigated. It was in the same paragraph and you made a decision to quote the first sentence. That is willfully misrepresentation and appears to be done so to push a POV. moreover, given I provided the full paragraph, it should be clear to the point I was making and did not require you to inquire about what I was suggesting you were misrepresenting. Should be clear to you and any reader.Casprings (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Go back and re-read. I didn't say that that quote didn't appear in the article, actually I very clearly and explicitly acknowledged it. ("The language you quote is from an unnamed intelligence official.")

We report what RS's say, we don't just blindly quote the author's source material in order to present different conclusions than what the source presents, because that would be source misrepresentation. In this case, the source's analysis is exactly what I quoted, and we can't go beyond RS analysis. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

That is not what you said. You said, ", in its own editorial voice, is this: "According to current and former government officials, prurient details in the dossier generated skepticism among some members of the intelligence community, who, as one put it, regarded it as a 'nutty' product to present to a President. But, in the weeks that followed, they confirmed some of its less explosive claims, relating to conversations with foreign nationals." That is in fact not what the article was saying and you are misrepresenting that fact. I do not wish to argue with you anymore so this will be my last statement on this.Casprings (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

No, I was correctly stating what New Yorker said in its own editorial voice. I don't think you understand the distinction between what a source says in its own voice and what it quotes others as saying. A newspaper or other journalistic entity will quote what somebody says, even as it provides its own separate assessment. For example, the verbatim statement of an interview subject will be quoted in full because that is the essence of fair journalism, letting the person be heard—but then the quotation marks end and the author of the news article says something else encapsulating, contextualizing, qualifying, or explaining what the quoted person just said. That latter thing is being said in the publication's "editorial voice", please see the WP:WikiVoice subsection of WP:NPOV, and that is what the source is asserting. The quote you suggested, "a lot of it is bearing out", is asserted only by the unnamed official. In an ordinary case we'd just attribute the view, but that is tricky with anonymous sources, I don't believe it is common in WP articles, and in this case it'd be questionable reliance on what is in effect primary source material from which the secondary source drew the separate conclusions that were in my quote. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I hate this disingenuous crap. Things are being corroborated and a simple search Google News "Dossier" is enough to show this without any doubt. No-one here has even suggested a specific addition and you're already opposing MelanieN & Factchecker_atyourservice — that is as close as one can come to the very definition of WP:DISRUPTIVE. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 18:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

What high-quality sources actually say is that a few details have been corroborated, and that is all. If it were otherwise you could point to source language clearly making the claim you're asserting. But it's not there; I've looked. I too am sick of all this disingenuous crap. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

We need to make a distinction between the "prurient details", which are treated with skepticism by most sources and which we do not even mention in this article, and the evidence of meetings and connections between the Trump campaign and various Russian officials, about which more and more of the claims in the dossier are being corroborated by additional sources. This article is about the connections asserted in the dossier - not the stupid and poorly sourced (and widely dismissed) sensationalism - and we misrepresent our sources if we claim "skepticism" about the entire dossier when the "skepticism" is actually about the tabloid stuff. --MelanieN (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

This is precisely right. Just because *some* of the claims (ones we don't even mention) are "treated with skepticism" by sources, does not mean that *all* claims are treated with skepticism. Yet, our article goes to great lengths to pretend otherwise.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Respectfully, MelanieN, I think the high-quality sourcing shows you are mistaken—there is skepticism about the other aspects as well. Let's look at what Nicholas D. Kristof of The New York Times said about the dossier just yesterday:

A well-regarded Russia expert formerly with MI6, Christopher Steele, produced a now-famous dossier alleging that Russia made compromising videos of Trump in 2013, and that members of the Trump team colluded with the Kremlin to interfere with the U.S. election. The dossier quoted a Russian as saying that a deal had been arranged “with the full knowledge and support of Trump” and that in exchange for Russian help, “the Trump team agreed to sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine as a campaign issue.” James Clapper, the American former national intelligence director, says he saw no evidence of such collusion but favors an investigation to get to the bottom of it.

That is our lead for us right there. You can see that he's emphasizing the same details as other major newspapers, CNN, etc.—Steele is well-regarded, the dossier alleges compromising videos and collusion with the Kremlin. The only analyst he quotes assessing the credibility of the dossier says there is no evidence of collusion but favors investigation. Kristof himself only describes the dossier as "famous", not credible, revealing, important, etc.; Kristof himself is obviously treating it with caution, and he's no Trump shill.

Part of what I think we're seeing is that the things lower-quality sources are saying on these issues are more noticeable precisely because the top outlets, in their journalistic hesitance to report anything short of fact, are hardly saying anything at all because there is nothing to report on—all of the best access to evidence & most credible analysis is in the hands of security services and is rightly being kept secret. But that doesn't affect the way the WP article is supposed to be written—just a reminder, an analytical claim that the dossier is being treated with anything other than the previously solidly reported skepticism will require similarly strong sourcing per WP:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources—in other words "multiple high-quality sources".

I'd also add that these investigations are going to yield official reports as well as additional coverage from top sources; any conclusions will be reported in all the top sources; and if Trump interferes, that is impeachment material. Factchecker_atyourservice 01:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not following you. "That is our lead for us right there." Weren't you arguing that we should emphasize skepticism - even though Kristoff doesn't, in the section you quote? You said "there is skepticism about other aspects as well", and then you quote a passage that seems to focus only on the allegations of collusion and quotes Clapper as saying he hasn't seen any. That's not skepticism, that's a statement of what he has found - and it's a statement that we already include in the paragraph. Sorry, I was thinking of the paragraph at Donald Trump; I'm working on too many of these things. What exactly are you proposing to say, and where in the article? (And I'm not sure what you mean by "high quality sourcing" - an op-ed, even by a distinguished journalist, is not usually what we would choose as a major source.) What exactly are you saying here? --MelanieN (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Melanie I don't think we disagree very sharply as I don't perceive serious problems with the text you suggest above. As for my comments on Kristof, IMO that column is just an example of how a reputable journalist summarizes the affair. The column is dedicated to marshalling evidence against Trump, and yet Kristof is unwilling to say that the dossier is credible or confirmed, or even mention the tangential details of the dossier that have actually been corroborated. Even the various reports of some details being corroborated also stress that no conclusions can be drawn. But as I said, I'm hopeful that any disagreement may be moot. Factchecker_atyourservice 15:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion in one place - the thread above called "proposed rewrite". Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry this doesn't make sense

[1]

Whether it's gossip or not, it makes no sense to first have "reaction" to something and only then describe what that something is. Come on, that's like English Comp 101.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure it does, because the reactions have been widely published in reputable media, while the contents have been deliberately ignored by those same media. And the trivial organizational concern is debatable. The first paragraph already explains what the document is, and outlines its contents. Factchecker_atyourservice 18:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

No, that's actually not true, though I'm willing to be convinced - got evidence for your claim?

The first paragraph does not really adequately describe or outline it, it just tells you who wrote it. Furthermore, we are in fact "ignoring" most of the content and bending over backwards not to describe it. That itself is a problem but it's understandable in the lede.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

What are you saying isn't true? And what is it you think I need to convince you of?

There is simply no organizational reason why we have to describe the document in summary and then go into detail before mentioning that it's viewed as suspect nonsense.Factchecker_atyourservice 19:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

You claimed that "contents have been deliberately ignored by those same media" - show evidence. Pretty much every source describes the content of the dossier at some level of detail. Now, sure, there are stories out there about the publication of the report that first discuss its veracity. But this article isn't titled Publication of the Donald Trump-Russia dossier. It's titled the Donald Trump-Russia dossier.

And honestly, explaining what something IS should always come before explaining how one FEELS about that something. This is just elementary writing and composition. I see no reason to throw the "suspect nonsense" (sic) right in front except POV (your wording suggests the same).

There's also other problems in the article. Most of the "Public release" section isn't actually about the "Public release". Rather it's just crammed full of negative commentary about the dossier. There's blogs and such in there. Most of this material is clearly undue. All the more "positive", for a lack of better word, reactions or descriptions of the content are shuffled off into the Veracity section. Which makes the article a bit schizophrenic. First we have a bunch of people saying "this is suspect nonsense" in one section and then "no, intelligence agencies believe there's something to it" in another.

Indeed, the current lede only summarizes the negative reactions to the dossier but completely fails to mention anything from the Veracity section.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

These comments don't merit response. If you have suggested revisions to the text, post them in the section where we're talking about the lead. I'm also not going to edit war with you over this unilateral change, but it's silly and you don't have consensus for it. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes they do, and I will for the record support having content before response for clarity! Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 18:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, indeed, the very sincere clarity concerns are quite compelling! Actually I think the lead would flow better if we completely removed the material about it all being unconfirmed smears assembled by a paid political operative for the express purpose of damaging Trump's reputation. The reader doesn't need to be confused with such unencyclopedic details. Factchecker_atyourservice 15:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

But that is out of the question, because it is a clear violation of nearly all of Wikipedia's 5 central pillars! There is no consensus whatsoever for your change!Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

F@YS is being snarky. Though it is a strawman argument, since in this instance improving clarity does not come at the expense of including information like F@YS is pretending here. Which makes it a good example of why you shouldn't try being snarky if you're not good at it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Your comment is silly, since clarity was not improved by your edit in the first place. Derp. Factchecker_atyourservice 20:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

NYT/WaPo opinion quotes "pretty undue"?

An editor has removed additions I made which were based on commentary published in The New York Times and The Washington Post as being "pretty undue". The edit summary doesn't make clear whether he just doesn't like the wording I added, or actually objects to quoting the matter at all. But this commentary was DUE, and it was needed to address POV/WEIGHT problems in the text as it currently exists.

Buzzfeed's decision to publish the memos prompted an avalanche of criticism, but this is essentially ignored in the "Public Release" section. Instead, that section has a series of lengthy quotes from Buzzfeed's argument that they were justified in publishing, and all of the criticism is given in a short, soft-pedaled summary at the end: "Others, such as Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan, criticized the decision to post the text, viewing it as falling short of journalistic standards."

Giving so much space to Buzzfeed's defense, with a tiny bit of muted criticism, completely mischaracterizes the published discussion that took place. It is correct that the release prompted a debate, as WaPo's Sullivan indicates, but if published comments are any guide, that debate was dominated by the view that Buzzfeed had acted irresponsibly. The criticism was voluminous and harsh. The word "excoriated" was used more than once in press reporting.

• For example, if we look at Sullivan's article we'll see she actually said the publication was irresponsible because the so-called dossier was "just a bunch of scurrilous allegations dressed up as an intelligence report meant to damage Donald Trump"; she said Buzzfeed should have followed the same tack as reputable journalistic outlets, instead of publishing "unverified smears"; and she concluded, "It’s never been acceptable to publish rumor and innuendo." Softpedaling this as "falling short of journalistic standards" is not encyclopedic, it looks more like a euphemism.

• Jake Tapper at CNN, the outlet that reported on these events in January, similarly called the publication "irresponsible."

• The New York Times, meanwhile, criticized Buzzfeed's decision to publish unsubstantiated information from anonymous sources—the Times specifically noted that this practice had fueled some of the fake news reports that proliferated during the election. Dean Baquet, executive editor of the Times, referred to the allegations as "totally unsubstantiated", and explained the paper's decision not to report on the dossier: "We, like others, investigated the allegations and haven’t corroborated them, and we felt we’re not in the business of publishing things we can’t stand by." The Guardian, in reporting these comments by Baquet, noted that the motto of The New York Times is "all the news that's fit to print".

• Erik Wemple of the Washington Post called Buzzfeed's rationale "ridiculous" and wrote in his blog that although "let readers decide for themselves" was a common journalistic trope, it was usually used in reference to policy debates and investigations involving well-established facts.

• Mother Jones, the outlet that first broke the story in October, wrote: "Even Donald Trump deserves journalistic fairness."

• Wolfgang Blau, chief digital officer of the Condé Nast media conglomerate and a former Guardian executive, tweeted: "Rare that a story stinks from every possible angle: the source, the content, the consequence, the messenger, the target" [Note, this and other Tweets described below were actually reported in RS commentary, mainly the Guardian article.]

• Brad Heath, an investigative reporter for USA Today, tweeted, "Not how journalism works: Here’s a thing that might or might not be true, without supporting evidence; decide for yourself if it’s legit"

• Heidi Moore of the Wall Street Journal tweeted, "Listen, it stinks to high heaven. No sourcing, no details, misspellings and geographical mistakes. No one would trust this. "

• Adam Goldman of the New York Times issued a Tweet implying that both Buzzfeed and CNN's reasons for reporting on the story were contrived ("Sequence of events: @CNN finds way to talk about report and @buzzfeed uses that as reason to publish. Media critics are gonna be busy").

• Journalistic ethics professor and Guardian columnist Roy Greenslade wrote: "I'm all for disclosure, but news outlets must act responsibly and should also beware of doing anything that undermines their credibility. On both counts, Buzzfeed's decision to publish the material was an error. It is disingenuous to publish the document on the grounds that 'Americans can make up their own minds'. Adopting that criterion would allow for the publication of anything irrespective of its authenticity."

• Glenn Greenwald tweeted, "My broader concern is this tendency now to treat every leaked, anonymous IC claim as Truth, with a secondary democracy concern. . . . An anonymous person, claiming to be an ex-British intel agent & working as a Dem oppo researcher, said anonymous people told him things. . . . This, ironically, itself has a strong whiff of blackmail."

• The above comments are mostly gleaned from the existing sourcing for that section. Note, there were supportive comments, such as Tweets from Richard Tofel of the news organization ProPublica; comments on the Lawfare blog; the pro-publication side of an unusual NYT "debate" feature by former Gawker and now Gizmodo editor Tom Scocca; and the most substantial defense I have found, a post on Fortune.com—but these views seem to be a clear minority.

I'm not posting these as if we need to quote them all, but we can't just extensively quote Buzzfeed's own disputed rationale while downplaying the harsh criticism to a short, dubious paraphrase. Factchecker_atyourservice 23:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. The Margaret Sullivan piece in the article is sufficiently representative, and "falling short of journalistic standards" is completely accurate; Sullivan spoke directly on journalistic standards. As to the rest, the point is to fairly represent the spectrum of opinion, not to catalog who said what in every possible way. Tweets, which make up at least 5 of the entries on your list, are almost always not worth including, especially when ample better sources exist as to the same point. Look: if someone wanted to add "and Roy Greenslade" after Sullivan, with the appropriate cite, then I wouldn't object. But anything more doesn't add value. Neutrality^talk 00:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand, @Neutrality: As I said, I don't propose to include these quotes. The problem is this: criticisms were prominent and widespread, defenses were limited, yet the article presents the opposite: lengthy quotations of the defenses, with a misleading and short summary of the criticism. That's a gross WEIGHT violation. Instead, the article should begin with a better paraphrase of the criticism, and only then give Buzzfeed's counter-arguments. That's just fairly reflecting the well-sourced commentary, which is required. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

We don't include "lengthy quotations" of the defenses, nor is the criticism "misleading" or excessively short. And the order of sentences makes perfect sense: We state: "Buzzfeed's decision to post the full text of the dossier sparked a debate," give the Buzzfeed editor-in-chief's stated rationale, then note that some criticized it as a breach of journalistic standards. That's perfectly proper. Neutrality^talk 19:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Your suggestions are belied by the actual text.

Currently, the niche view that not a lot of people have taken seriously is given about 100 words—with 74 words of direct quotes from Buzzfeed claiming they were justified. The mainstream view is reflected with about 24 words and no direct quotes, and the sentence structure and wording wrongly suggest it is a minority view. Moreover, the summary of the criticism is misleading because it does not fairly reflect the severity of the criticism. All of that is the opposite of what WP policy commands.

So besides giving more space to criticism while probably also giving less space to Buzzfeed's largely discredited rationale, we also need to come up with a summary that actually reflects that the criticism was harsh, or else if you're not comfortable with that we'll need to provide a couple of direct sample quotes such as the ones that have been removed. One way or the other, the mainstream coverage needs to be fairly reflected. Factchecker_atyourservice 15:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The coverage is reflected. Look, this is not very productive because you haven't brought a specific proposed change on the table. (I.e., "change X to Y"). If you have specific proposed language, my suggestion is to (1) write it up and (2) post it here, and possibly take it to an RfC and ask people what version they prefer. Neutrality^talk 02:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

There's a proposed change in the first line of my post. As I noted, it was reverted. Your comment is meaningless, as usual. Factchecker_atyourservice 15:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Please don't be rude. Neutrality^talk 16:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Please don't make me wait half a day for a response that willfully misinterprets clearly posted comments. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

— This is bizarre. These are some of the most credible sources around, you're not going to get any traction claiming they are undue. Stop wasting time! It is WP:DISRUPTIVE. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not the one trying to exclude top quality sourcing on claims of weight, Carl Fredrik; do you wish to say you agree with me? Factchecker_atyourservice 22:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Woops, actually I didn't read you massive blob of text on account of looking at your edits and your comments in the section above. No, what you are doing is pushing criticism and trying to remove any indication that the claims could be true. That is undue. What is due is pretty much everything you've been removing, which is properly sourced. The criticism directed towards the publication here is well-worth mentioning, but that this should impact the veracity of the claims is just not true. Nor is it true that stating they "did not live up to journalistic standards" is a euphemism, it is a pretty harsh statement. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 00:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

So you're saying, in a nutshell, Factchecker bad and wrong and evil, emphasizing discredited niche views good, emphasizing well-sourced mainstream views bad. Pardon my LOLz.

All you've really demonstrated is that you came here wanting to argue with me due to a grudge; you accidentally sided with me because you weren't paying attention and instead just picked the position you thought I was espousing and came out against it; and now you're making silly claims trying to walk it back.

The silly claims demonstrate that you haven't actually read the "blob" of text, as evidenced by you insisting that we emphasize a minority view while de-emphasizing the majority view, and as evidenced by you nonsensically and quite falsely claiming that I am "trying to remove any indication that the claims could be true".

That said, if you really feel that "falling short of journalistic standards" is "harsh", and since you say "The criticism directed towards the publication here is well-worth mentioning", then I assume you have no objections to using direct quotes that similarly show the harshness of the criticism. Restored! Factchecker_atyourservice 15:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

You were completely out of line to restore this material. Myself, Volunteer Marek, and CFCF has expressly objected to it, and you are apparently the only user to champion it. Given this, it was totally improper to restore the material. Neutrality^talk 16:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Carl Fredrik just posted "The criticism directed towards the publication here is well-worth mentioning" after admitting "These are some of the most credible sources around", so I'm not sure what you are claiming.

Why do you think a discredited niche view should be given 4x as much attention as mainstream views widely sourced to top quality outlets? Factchecker_atyourservice 16:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Carl said the criticism is well-worth mentioning. I agree—I'm the one who added the criticism in the first place! Again, the criticism is mentioned in the article already, perfectly adequately. I've started an RfC, below — which, frankly, is what you should have done. Neutrality^talk 16:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Despite repeating this assertion numerous times you still haven't explained why you think giving the mainstream view 1/4th the attention of the niche view is "adequate". Or what is wrong with a couple of journo quotes in the face of a series of Buzzfeed quotes. Or why Buzzfeed must be quoted while the real sources must not.

And, it hardly needs be said that An RFC premised on a straw man is spurious and unhelpful. As is attempting to force an RFC for an innocuous edit, without having a valid basis to object to the edit. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• That was good removal in original edit. It removes "rebuttal to rebuttal". A lot of disputes were published recently. Not everything belongs to WP. My very best wishes (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Public release text

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

---

Under the "Public release" section, which version should be used? Neutrality^talk 16:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Shorter Version (status quo):

Many news organizations knew about the document in the fall of 2016, before the presidential election, but refused to publish it because they could not independently verify the information. After CNN revealed the existence of the dossier, BuzzFeed chose to publish it in full; although it acknowledged that the document was "unconfirmed" and "includes some clear errors," BuzzFeed stated that it was "publishing the full document so that Americans can make up their own minds about allegations about the president-elect that have circulated at the highest levels of the US government." Buzzfeed's decision to post the full text of the dossier sparked a debate. Buzzfeed's editor-in-chief, Ben Smith, defended the decision, writing: "Our presumption is to be transparent in our journalism and to share what we have with our readers. We have always erred on the side of publishing. In this case, the document was in wide circulation at the highest levels of American government and media." Others, such as New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet, Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan, Washington Post media critic Erik Wemple, and journalism ethicist Roy Greenslade, criticized the decision to post the text, viewing it as falling short of journalistic standards.

References

Longer Version (proposed):

Many news organizations knew about the document in the Fall of 2016, before the presidential election, but refused to publish it because they could not independently verify the information. After CNN revealed the existence of the dossier, BuzzFeed chose to publish it in full; although it acknowledged that the document was "unconfirmed" and "includes some clear errors," BuzzFeed stated that it was "publishing the full document so that Americans can make up their own minds about allegations about the president-elect that have circulated at the highest levels of the US government." Buzzfeed's decision to post the full text of the dossier sparked a debate, with the Times writing that Buzzfeed had deviated from typical journalistic practice with its decision to publish unsubstantiated information from anonymous sources—a practice which had fueled some of the fake news reports that proliferated during the election. Dean Baquet, executive editor of the Times, referred to the allegations as "totally unsubstantiated", and explained the paper's decision not to report on the dossier: "We, like others, investigated the allegations and haven’t corroborated them, and we felt we’re not in the business of publishing things we can’t stand by." Buzzfeed's editor-in-chief, Ben Smith, defended the decision, writing: "Our presumption is to be transparent in our journalism and to share what we have with our readers. We have always erred on the side of publishing. In this case, the document was in wide circulation at the highest levels of American government and media." Erik Wemple of the Washington Post called Buzzfeed's rationale "ridiculous" and wrote in his blog that although "let readers decided for themselves" was a common journalistic trope, it was usually used in reference to policy debates and investigations involving well-established facts. Others, such as Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan, said the dossier was "actually just a bunch of scurrilous allegations dressed up as an intelligence report meant to damage Donald Trump" and said Buzzfeed should have followed along with reputable news outlets, which decided not to publish the "unverified smears".

References

Survey

• Shorter version. Far superior and gets the same point across with far less verbiage. The longer version has too many unnecessary quotes and is also factually inaccurate: The New York Times did not make a "decision not to report on the dossier" (it did, in fact report on it extensively, see here, here); it made a decision not to re-publish the dossier in full, which a completely different thing. Neutrality^talk 16:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

(Tagging the users who have participated (irrespective of view) in a prior recent RfC on this article dealing with an undue-weight question: Sławomir Biały, Staszek Lem, BullRangifer, Zero0000, Jytdog, Mr Ernie, Markbassett, MjolnirPants, Homunq, Pincrete, CFCF, MrX, James J. Lambden, Only in death, FeralOink, PackMecEng, My very best wishes, Vanamonde93, Chrisvls. Also tagging Volunteer Marek, who edited on the subject of this RfC). Neutrality^talk 16:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The fact that you spend most of your comment pointing out a trivial and easily corrected issue of word usage helps illustrate the underlying problem with this RFC, which is that neither text is solid and the real issue is whether to give heavy weight to what Buzzfeed said while diminishing the avalanche of criticism that resulted. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• Shorter version per clear rational and per the extensive comments in the 3 threads above. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 18:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
• Shorter version, Unless it becomes as issue with people demanding attribution.Slatersteven (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
• Shorter version. WP is not newspaper. Countless rebuttals and disputes should not be included, unless they are really important for the page. This is well poisoning. My very best wishes (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
• Even shorter version, I would have thought that the longer quotes could be paraphrased or pruned with no loss of meaning or nuance. Two quibbles, 1) Why " refused to publish"? Surely they simply' chose not to publish'? … 2) Why is Greenslade descibed as "journalism ethicist Roy Greenslade", I'm not even sure what a "journalism ethicist" is (a journalist who has views about what is/is not ethical journalism?). AFAIK, Greenslade is a journalist and journalism academic. Pincrete (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
• Shorter version but reword. Remove the extensive quote from Ben Smith justifying Buzzfeed's decision; their voice is already adequately represented. Expand the criticism sentence slightly, keeping it as one or possibly two sentences, but with a little more detail (maybe with brief/snippet quotes for flavor) about what they actually said. --MelanieN (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
• shorter version The first version presents the same information and allows user to access those primary sources. It also summarizes the claims adequately without. WP:WEIGHT offers some help here - the repetition of the claims that have already been adequately summarized give some undue weight to claims. Its also an issue of style covered in WP:STICKTOSOURCE: "Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words." That's been adequately done here and an expansion of the summary is not necessary. RYPJack (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
• Shorter version - It provides a balanced summary of the topic, without the unnecessary quote-laden detail.- MrX 13:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
• Even shorter version – Too much weight on BuzzFeed's justifications; their decision was lambasted by most other journalists, and the solution is not to quote these critical views at length (the "longer version" approach), but rather to reduce the importance of BuzzFeed's statements here, and make it clear that the mainstream view was that BuzzFeed had engaged in shoddy journalism, not merely that their decision to publish the dossier "sparked a debate". — JFG ^talk 16:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
• Shorter version Nice and concise. If attribution is deemed necessary, it can be added and references too, but this text does the job well. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
• Proposed text Per User:JFG suggestion to reduce rather than enlarge and to use WP editorial voice to summarize & characterize the criticism as harsh (or some other adjective). Also per User:MelanieN suggestion, included a single snippet of quote for flavor and to illustrate that the adjective "harsh" is accurate. Sources are the ones seen in this diff:

Buzzfeed was harshly criticized for publishing what Washington Post columnist Margaret Sullivan called "scurrilous allegations dressed up as an intelligence report meant to damage Donald Trump". The New York Times noted that the publication sparked a debate centering around the use of unsubstantiated information from anonymous sources, a practice that had fueled some of the fake news that proliferated during the election. Buzzfeed's executive staff argued that the materials were newsworthy because they were "in wide circulation at the highest levels of American government and media".

Personally, I favor a much more inclusive/expansive writing style than this, but IMO this version explains what the debate was, uses the best sourcing to do so, fairly weights how well each view was received, and uses the Buzzfeed quote that does the best job of justifying Buzzfeed's decision. Yes a lot of text describing Buzzfeed's view is removed, but that's necessary weighting given the decision to limit criticism. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Clarification: you would preface this with the existing two-sentence intro, right? Namely "Many news organizations knew about the document in the fall of 2016, before the presidential election, but refused to publish it because they could not independently verify the information.[1] After CNN revealed the existence of the dossier, BuzzFeed chose to publish it in full."

Comment about this proposal: I don't see any need to drag in the NYT comment about "fake news"; that's not what most commentators were talking about. I'd leave that sentence out. I like the Sullivan quote, it seems to sum up the objections well. Of course this proposal needs citations and wikilinks, but I realize it is just for discussion right now. --MelanieN (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, that is what I had in mind, and I don't object to your additional comments. Factchecker_atyourservice 20:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• Even shorter too - I'll suggest WP:PATRAPHRASE to make a readable summary of the situation, which neither of these really do. If it's going into justifications and criticisms by quotes seems a bit much, and that approach gets into a need for WP:NPOV to capture the other views on that and need to have care for attribution to reflect WP:OPINION and possible WP:BIASED for any inclusion, and all this seems both unnecessary and confusing. For encyclopedia article purposes I really don't see much value to the exact wording of BuzzFeed justification and think it not as much reported verbatim so maybe not WP:DUE quoting -- just have paraphrase with cite that includes the quote. The back and forth and exact names and quotes is a bit too much he-said/then-he-said/and so forth, I think those should be stated as "criticized" with multiple cites to the quote sources rather than repeated verbatim. Markbassett (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
• Even shorter too - The overquoting and overciting everyone and his brother about this is getting ridiculous. The paragraph, and much of the article, is nearly unreadable because of these so-and-so said. Quoting what so-and-so said, then including four or five references is absurd. The net effect is to obfuscate and confuse rather than explain. Explaining is the entire point of writing the article to begin with.--FeralOink (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Abort. This RFC is totally invalid, and it's an attempt to avoid the discussion above, which establishes via top-quality sourcing that Buzzfeed was widely criticized for its decision to publish.

Moreover, both versions of the text you list have problems, you've already changed the section so it doesn't match what you posted, and you haven't posed the real issue, which is

'Whether a discredited niche view should be given vastly more attention than the impeccably sourced views of mainstream journalists.

WP policy requires that the mainstream view be given equal or greater attention. Is there disagreement that the mainstream view was one of harsh criticisml? Let's hear it. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

(1) There was a substantial discussion above. You refuse to change your position (which is your right), but we are at an impasse, and editors have started to repeat themselves. An RfC will bring more people into the conversation and allow us to have a resolution. That's the very purpose of an RfC. Claims of "invalidity," to be frank, are not only incorrect (and have absolutely no basis in policy) but seem like an attempt to filibuster the issue.

(2) It's strange that you say "well, both versions have problems" — when one of the two options presented is the same text that you inserted into the article on March 12 and then again today and which you made clear that you adhere to. It seems strange to say that "that's not the real issue" when that is, in fact, obviously the issue. Now, if you have some specific other wording to propose as an alternative, feel free to come forward with it.

(3) The article as it stands (Shorter Version) mentions criticism. Per WP:WEIGHT, we should note this but should not allow the publication controversy - one issue among many - to dominate the article. This article is about the dossier. It is not called publication of Donald Trump–Russia dossier, nor is it the article on journalistic ethics and standards. If you want to go into more detail, then perhaps the Buzzfeed News article may be a spot for it.

Neutrality^talk 17:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

1. Filibuster an issue. It's funny that you suggest that when nobody has offered any rationale whatsoever why we need to give vastly more emphasis to a discredited niche view than to the avalanche of RS commentary that discredited it.

2. Both versions do have problems and there's nothing strange about that. I don't know why you think that a text that resulted from edit warring at an article under 1RR is somehow special. And your opening an RfC framing the issues as "short version or long version" was obviously an effort to mislead by utterly ignoring the issue (WEIGHT of Buzzfeed rationale vs criticism of it) that was being discussed in above sections, while the only argument you presented in the RFC was, itself, based on a trivial and easily resolved objection about word usage. This is rank abuse of process.

3. AS MENTIONED IT GIVES THE DISCREDITED NICHE VIEW FOUR TIMES AS MUCH ATTENTION AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM, which you neither acknowledge nor dispute; your efforts to suggest that fairly reflecting how the issue has been presented in mainstream sources would somehow violate WEIGHT, when it is exactly what WEIGHT commands, are silly. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

1. Yes they have. Because it is WP:DUE upon analyzing the sources and weighing the commentary.
2. Sometime you have to go for the lesser evil.
3. This is where we disagree, and you are very much in the minority — which is why your insistence and repeated walls of texts are being called filibustering. (What you are doing is pretty much the definition of WP:FILIBUSTER)
Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

(1) That is a conclusory non-statement. No rationale has been provided. (2) A false dilemma. Neither "revision" is important. (3) As stated it would be nice if you explain why you disagree, i.e. why minority view needs to be given majority weight. It's the refusal to do so that is filibustering. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

1 — Yes it has, repeatedly. That you ignore others' rationale is your problem. 2 — In lieu of other better suggestions it is a very true dilemma. Wikipedia is not perfect and does not have to be. If something better comes along we can change that later. 3 — It has been explained, WP:DROPTHESTICK. Carl Fredrik^talk 17:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

(1) Then what was the explanation?? Point me to any diff explaining why the minority view should be given majority weight and the majority view given minority weight; (2) nonsense; it is a false dilemma, please go read what the concept means—there is no need to choose between the two "alternatives" because there are countless others that are better; (3) see #1 Factchecker_atyourservice 18:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

(1) If you want the executive summary my going rate is ~$300/h, a little higher if I'm not interested in the project (so say 450). If not, just read this page and all the comments to your text. It may be helpful the remove your own responses as they make out at least 75 %. That you do not agree with the reasons and rationale of others is not the same as there not being any. (2) The premise of a false dichotomy requires the existence of meaningful alternate choices. Nothing has been suggested, and if for no other reason, something is needed until a better solution is suggested — hence no false dichotomy, just a very real choice between two alterantives. Feel free to suggest something else, however, keep in mind your first suggestion was rejected. Carl Fredrik^talk 08:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

(1) You're just trying to antagonize me, illustrating that you can't point to any argument why the minority view should be given majority weight, because nobody has offered such an argument, because there is no basis for such an argument and thus it would be difficult to put into words. (2) There are endless alternative choices and thus no need to "choose" between the two bad options that were presented. Pretending otherwise doesn't change the fact it's a false dilemma. In any event the whole discussion of it as a false dilemma began when you said "Sometimes you have to pick the lesser of two evils"; but even with this dubious framing it's clear you have chosen the greater of two "evils"—i.e. giving too much weight to the discredited minority view and too little to the majority view. Further, there's also not point in presenting suggested text when a number of disruptive editors, such as yourself, are refusing to even acknowledge that the majority view is supposed to be given greater weight. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

"Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects."

Hatting unproductive squabbling. Please follow talk page guidelines, assume good faith, and discuss the issues rather than other editors.--MelanieN (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Question: should WP:WEIGHT apply to material in this article? Factchecker_atyourservice 20:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC) This is a stupid question and you know that. If you continue being disruptive and pointy like this you may well see some editor taking action, and I don't think anyone wants topic-bans being dished out. If nothing else AN/I is a waste of time. I'm archiving this now, because it is unlikely to lead to anything positive to keep it here. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC) And what pray tell would you say at ANI? "This person's crusade to follow WP:WEIGHT is really getting in the way of the WP:TRUTH"? Look, deleting another user's recently-posted comments using an "archiving" tool is not going to advance the discussion. This policy language is very clear. Buzzfeed's discredited rationale should "not be given as much of or as detailed a description" as the journalistic outlets that widely scolded it, but all of you are demanding that we give the minority view a much longer, more detailed description than the avalanche of criticism from reputable journalistic outlets repudiating and even mocking the view. You won't even allow a quote from the majority view but insist on extensively quoting the minority view. That is bizarre. All this without even a whiff of justification, without the barest whimper of an argument that the journalistic criticism does not reflect a majority view on the question of the appropiateness of a journalistic entity publishing these materials. You guys aren't even pretending it's the right thing to do, you just want to do it. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC) NO, that you are being disruptive and wasting people's time: asking WP:POINTY questions and ruining articles. Carl Fredriktalk 17:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC) Why are you talking about it here, then? Factchecker_atyourservice 18:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC) Good point. We should follow that idea and ignore whatever you write in your endless, one-man-obstruction campaign. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC) What exactly do you think I'm "obstructing" by trying to include a couple quotes from Washington Post and NY Times? Oh right THE TRUTH, we need to prevent that pesky RS commentary from getting in the way! Factchecker_atyourservice 00:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Shortened the text further, per RfC outcome. — JFG ^talk 22:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Reports of possible Trump campaign coordination with Russians

Probably worth mentioning although maybe wait for a major newspaper to pick it up. Factchecker_atyourservice 04:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

RS's starting to pile up, it all seems to be language about investigations, accusations, and claims by anon sources, but it's being widely reported by top outlets. Better outlets such as NBC and NY Times are using more carefully hedged language, it seems. Factchecker_atyourservice 15:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• Schiff: ‘More Than Circumstantial Evidence’ Trump Associates Colluded With Russia

• Roger Stone, the ‘Trickster’ on Trump’s Side, Is Under F.B.I. Scrutiny

• US Officials: Info suggests Trump associates may have coordinated with Russians

References

Suggested text to be placed in the "Responses" section (for now, at least), after the March 2 tidbit:

"Later in March, it was reported that ongoing investigations were focusing on Trump loyalist Roger Stone, with top House Intelligence Committee Democrat Adam Schiff claiming that he had seen "more than circumstantial evidence" that Trump associates had colluded with Russia at the same time as the Kremlin was attempting to interfere with the U.S. election, and CNN reporting that unnamed officials indicated the FBI had information that Trump associates had possibly communicated with suspected Russian operatives to coordinate the release of information damaging to Hillary Clinton."

I think it makes sense to let this narrative crystallize a bit in RS reports before adding to lead. I'm also not sure whether it belongs in the "veracity" section, since the RS's don't seem to be drawing that connection. The only mention I see is on CNN, which explicitly states "US officials said the information was not drawn from the leaked dossier of unverified information compiled by a former British intelligence official compiled for Trump's political opponents, though the dossier also suggested coordination between Trump campaign associates and Russian operatives." So there's that. Factchecker_atyourservice 15:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Some of the wording could be misleading, and that is the way Stone is mentioned, and then the following wording. It could lead readers to think the rest is about him, when it may be (is) about others (the whole transition team), including him. There needs to be a break in thought there. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

What if it read "investigations were especially focusing on"? I was trying to reflect that the new claims are about Roger Stone . Also what are you basing your comments about "the whole transition team" and Trump himself? I don't see that in the sources thus far, although there has been stuff about Manafort too (although I thought that was old news). Factchecker_atyourservice 15:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Roger Stone is only one player who is being investigated, and he has placed himself out there very much by repeated and very public statements on Twitter, Facebook, and other media. It's as if he's trying to get everyone to look at him and ignore others, creating a distraction. Yes, some investigations are obviously going to look at him because of his public statements, but he's far from the only one. Unless a RS mentions him specifically, it should be assumed that it's talking about a much larger group of implicated people. We need to avoid a synthesis violation by starting with a RS mentioning him and then using other RS which don't mention him, as if they are only dealing with him.

There have been many mentions of others, and Devin Nunes has mentioned the transition team, including Trump himself, as the object of these investigations. Stone is only one small player who has inflated himself, rather like a groupie bragging and exaggerating their importance. Other, much bigger fish, are offering to testify, people like Manafort and Carter Page. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

"Unless a RS mentions him specifically," — for example look at the NYT article posted just above, and its headline. My impression is that the "new" material that has generated articles in the past few days is about Roger Stone—who, interestingly enough, claims Congress won't let him testify on the subject. However our article should definitely mention the others. I'm not sure why Manafort is not mentioned, although it may be simply related to the fact that this material is probably covered in about 5 different articles right now and people just forget to add the material to every one.

We should avoid any language improperly conflating events or personalities and I'm trying to understand any instances that you identify. It's not my intention to mislead. Do you have suggestions for the text?

How about: "Later in March, new developments were reported regarding ongoing investigations of Trump loyalist Roger Stone..."  ?? Factchecker_atyourservice 15:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Does anybody else object to this addition and does anybody have any suggested changes? Factchecker_atyourservice 15:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The Moscow Project

WP:SOAPBOX for political activism
The following discussion has been closed by JFG. Please do not modify it.
This project is worth watching as it may become a good source of information. Users there may post RS we can use. The Center for American Progress, a progressive organization, has started a crowd sourcing project to get the dossier annotated using reliable sources: Center for American Progress launches 'Moscow Project,' wants you to 'annotate' the Buzzfeed Trump dossier. ...CAP Action is encouraging amateur internet sleuths to literally annotate the infamous "dossier" published by Buzzfeed in January with evidence regarding Donald Trump's connections to Russia. "By scouring the internet for credible, publicly available information," the project's website says, "you can help us dig deeper and create a central repository for supporting or disproving the allegations in the dossier." Users simply "create an account, highlight a portion of the dossier's text, and add a comment that includes corroborating evidence." -- SOURCE: Center for American Progress launches 'Moscow Project,' wants you to 'annotate' the Buzzfeed Trump dossier, Emily Jashinsky, The Washington Examiner, March 23, 2017 At present the only source I have found reporting this is the conservative The Washington Examiner. No other major news services have picked this up. That may change at any time, so keep your eyes open. Here is what The Moscow Project site says: Uncovering the Truth About Trump and Russia Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election was an unprecedented attack on American democracy and a deliberate attempt to place Donald Trump in the White House. Given Trump’s obedience to Vladimir Putin and the deep ties between his advisers and the Kremlin, Russia’s actions are a significant and ongoing cause for concern. The Moscow Project is dedicated to investigating the extent, nature, and purpose of Trump’s ties to the Kremlin—but we need your help. By scouring the internet to investigate allegations, donating to fund our research, or sharing our findings on Twitter and Facebook, you can help uncover the truth about Trump and Russia. SOURCE: The Moscow Project Their page about the dossier itself contains instructions and the requirement for only using reliable sources. We are experts at finding and vetting sources, and our work may help this project along. This will also put us into a position to use RS findings there to benefit the article here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC) Holy NOTFORUM, Batman. You're using WP article talk to advertise a political activism cause, quoting nonsense from their non-RS website—and any resulting "crowdsourced" analysis obviously can't be used as WP sourcing. WTF? Factchecker_atyourservice 15:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC) AGF and read what I wrote VERY carefully. I have clearly mentioned why, what (only RS), and how this could benefit this article. If this could not benefit our work, I would not have posted it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC) I'm not questioning your GF Bull. It's possible to be wrong yet not dastardly. But we already know how to look for RS's. We Google them, use HeinOnline, JSTOR, etc. Going over to another website isn't going to help WP editors do that, and in a contest to see who can come up with reliable source commentary, my money's on WP editors and not the rando's at this activism site (which again, you're advertising as a place for off-Wiki discussion). Factchecker_atyourservice 15:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC) I would like the following sentence removed from the above section written by BullRangifer, where the project he is referring is an external website unaffiliated with Wikimedia: "I suggest that editors sign up and help this project." It is fine to mention that themoscowproject.org might be suitable for inclusion in the article, if it should receive media coverage in the future. It is not acceptable to use Wikipedia talk pages to recommend contributing to political activism projects. (themoscowproject.org is clearly a political activism website, see BullRangifer's quote above, "Given Trump’s obedience to Vladimir Putin...") This falls under "What Wikipedia is not" guideline the policy on soapboxing. Also, as User:Factchecker_atyourservice said, Wikipedia talk pages shouldn't be used for suggesting venues for off-Wiki discussion, as detailed in the Wikipedia talk pages guidelines.--FeralOink (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC) I removed the offending sentence. BTW, I still see no evidence that anyone has followed my instructions and carefully read exactly what I wrote. The initial assumption of bad faith against me is still motivating what's happened later. I did not recommend adding The Moscow Project to this article. I assume that other sources will comment on their work. Time will tell, but as a crowdsourced project it can NEVER be considered a RS, just as Wikipedia can NEVER be considered a RS. That's how it works. I only recommend it as a potential source of RS we may not have discovered yet. Just as someone writing a college term paper should not cite Wikipedia, but could use the RS found at the end of an article here, we should not cite The Moscow Project, but we could cite RS which are used there. Somehow an assumption of bad faith against me (a blockable offense) turned my attempt to help into some type of nefarious violation of policy. Please AGF. Regardless, I have shown my good faith by removing the offending sentence. I trust that some goodwill will now be shown by removing the hatting. That will show that the assumption of bad faith has been dropped. Until then, the blockable offense still stands, is enhanced by the hatting, and poisons the well against me. It's this type of attack, and subsequent piling on, which makes editing here so distasteful. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC) @BullRangifer: I hatted the discussion while assuming good faith from you and other participants here. No poisoning intended; I will defend you if somebody ever decides to criticize your behaviour based on this thread. But it's time to move on. Peace! — JFG talk 13:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

BBC article by Paul Wood

Paul Wood has added more details to the story here:

• Trump Russia dossier key claim 'verified'

BullRangifer (talk) 05:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

References

A significant development that should be appropriately mentioned in the article. Neutrality^talk 06:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

FBI now using dossier as "roadmap" for further investigations

The FBI is now using the dossier as their "roadmap" for further investigations. That's how much they trust it as an accurate source. Its track record is promising, with more and more details in its timeline being confirmed.

Let's brainstorm and come up with some wording, and then find a good spot for adding some version of this information. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

At the end of the existing paragraph about Paul Wood. Add: "Wood later reported that the FBI was using the dossier as a roadmap for its investigation." Seems pretty cut and dry. Factchecker_atyourservice 20:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Source Misrepresentation

BullRangifer has completely distorted a source to the point that it is unrecognizable to push his fringe conspiracy theories. Here is BullRangifer's edit:

• "In February 2017, CNN reported that the intelligence community is now regarding the dossier as more credible because of how certain major events in its timeline have been shown to be accurate, especially claims 'that the Trump campaign agreed to minimize US opposition to Russia's incursions into Ukraine in exchange for the Kremlin releasing negative information about Trump's opponent, Hillary Clinton. The timing of events supporting this allegation also lines up.' The intelligence was gathered by 'intercepting conversations between some senior Russian officials and other Russians.' This seems to confirm allegations of 'serious misconduct and conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia's government.'"

There is already a previous paragraph devoted to a CNN report that some aspects of the dossier had been verified:

• "On February 10, 2017, CNN reported that some of the claims made within the dossier, specifically related 'to conversations between foreign nationals,' had been corroborated by 'multiple current and former US law enforcement and intelligence officials.'"

BullRangifer's edit does not cite CNN, but Business Insider. More importantly, the Business Insider source does not make any of the claims BullRangifer attributed to it. Here is what Business Insider actually says:

• "The dossier alleges serious misconduct and conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia's government. The White House has dismissed the dossier as fiction, and some of the facts and assertions it includes have indeed been proven wrong. Other allegations in the dossier, however, are still being investigated. According to a recent CNN report, moreover, US intelligence officials have now corroborated some of the dossier's material. And this corroboration has reportedly led US intelligence officials to regard other information in the dossier as more credible. Importantly, the timeline of known events fits with some of the more serious alleged Trump-Russia misconduct described in the dossier."

In fact, there's nothing new here. BullRangifer wants to ignore the stuff that has indeed been proven wrong and focus on the conversations between foreign nations that have been corroborated, but there is already a separate paragraph on that topic. It's also worth noting how selective the (largely redundant) blockquote from CNN truly is:

• "[T]he intercepts do confirm that some of the conversations described in the dossier took place between the same individuals on the same days and from the same locations as detailed in the dossier ... The corroboration, based on intercepted communications, has given US intelligence and law enforcement 'greater confidence' in the credibility of some aspects of the dossier ..."

CNN's many caveats have been edited out:

• "US intelligence officials emphasize the conversations were solely between foreign nationals, including those in or tied to the Russian government, intercepted during routine intelligence gathering. ... Officials did not comment on or confirm any alleged conversations or meetings between Russian officials and US citizens, including associates of then-candidate Trump. One of the officials stressed to CNN they have not corroborated 'the more salacious things' alleged in the dossier."

There is nothing in CNN or Business Insider that would suggest that any of these conversations between foreign nationals had anything to do with the GOP platform change on Ukraine or confirmed allegations of serious misconduct and conspiracy; BullRangifer quite literally made that all up. Business Insider is not even discussing the findings of U.S. intelligence: It is simply laying out a timeline based on public reporting. In a nutshell, Business Insider says that the GOP platform change on Ukraine occurred shortly before WikiLeaks began releasing the DNC emails, and that this could indicate a quid pro quo. Note that dropping the "lethal weapons" provision actually brought the GOP closer to the Obama administration's stance on Ukraine (do the Ruskies have a "dossier" on Obama? cf. Obama's Syrian "red line," which Trump recently enforced) and that the DNC emails were released shortly before the Democratic convention for maximum impact (considering that both conventions happened back-to-back in the summer, there may well be less to to this coincidental timing than meets the eye).

BullRangifer's massively misleading, caveat-free paragraphs need to be cut down—in part because it would be very easy to clearly say the same things with far fewer words. The Business Insider paragraph should either be dropped, or rephrased as follows:

• "In Business Insider, Natasha Bertrand wrote that 'Importantly, the timeline of known events fits with some of the more serious alleged Trump-Russia misconduct described in the dossier.'"

To reiterate, by the timeline of known events Bertrand is not referring (as BullRangifer falsely asserts) to intelligence gleaned by spies, but to public reporting, known for many months, about things like the Ukraine platform change (which those of us less prone to hysteria should understand is very far from a smoking gun).

For your attention, you might also want to add the following to "Veracity":

• "Former Acting CIA Director Michael Morell, who endorsed Hillary Clinton and called Donald Trump a dupe of Russia, cast doubt Wednesday night on allegations that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. Morell, who was in line to become CIA director if Clinton won, said he had seen no evidence that Trump associates cooperated with Russians. He also raised questions about the dossier written by a former British intelligence officer, which alleged a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. ... 'On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here, there is smoke, but there is no fire, at all,' Morell said at an event sponsored by the Cipher Brief, an intelligence web site. 'There's no little campfire, there's no little candle, there's no spark. And there's a lot of people looking for it.' ... About the dossier, Morell said, 'Unless you know the sources, and unless you know how a particular source acquired a particular piece of information, you can't judge the information — you just can't.' The dossier 'doesn't take you anywhere, I don't think,' he said. He continued: 'I had two questions when I first read it. One was, How did Chris talk to these sources? I have subsequently learned that he used intermediaries. And then I asked myself, why did these guys provide this information, what was their motivation? And I subsequently learned that he paid them. That the intermediaries paid the sources and the intermediaries got the money from Chris. And that kind of worries me a little bit because if you're paying somebody, particularly former FSB officers, they are going to tell you truth and innuendo and rumor, and they're going to call you up and say, "hey, let's have another meeting, I have more information for you," because they want to get paid some more.'"2601:243:603:4940:F591:F094:685:4A77 (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I made some changes (that I had hatched quite some time) to CNN paragraph, which made The intelligence was gathered by "intercepting conversations between some senior Russian officials and other Russians." sentence redundant, and reworded/added content related to GOP platform change. I hope this addressed at least some of your concerns. Any constructive feedback is appreciated.

Re: Morell – yes, I have seen that story and found the interview interesting. Maybe I'll try to write something about Morell later. Don't hold your breath, though. Politrukki (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Wow! I recognize some of what I added, but a lot of what's described above must have been added previously by others. I don't recognize a lot of what's written above. It must be from other sources. I primarily used the Business Insider source, which is considered a very neutral and RS here at Wikipedia. I see that some changes have been made and I consider them improvements. Good work by Politrukki! Keep it up. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I too have read the Morell story. His observations have some merit...in a general sense, but when dealing with someone as experienced and knowledgeable as Steele, those types of objections have limited merit. Steele is perfectly aware of this danger, and he knows, as does any experienced operative, that not all the information is necessarily 100% true. That's why Steele and others of his caliber try to use sources which are more trustworthy. The sources know they will never be used again if they give inaccurate information. Giving bad info can also have deadly consequences. Revenge can be nasty.

So yes, it's possible some minor details aren't completely accurate, but more and more details are proving to be true. The people were indeed in those places, at those times, talking to those people. The unnamed sources (it can't be any other way) tell what really went down in relative privacy. We would call those their "claims", while they might say "I was there, and it happened." Those who are trying to determine the accuracy of those claims have to look at actual events, and I can imagine their thinking must work something like this: "The source claims this was planned and agreed, and then it happened. Even RT reported it. Let's check that claim as being accurate. Another source made this other claim. So far we haven't been able to see that happening. We'll have to wait. This other claim is contradicted by following events. That's bad info, so scratch that claim."

Let's face it, Morell is speculating, but the American and foreign intelligence agencies know more than Morell does. In spite of what Morell says (and the intelligence agencies understand his thinking), they are giving the dossier more and more credence, not less. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Early use of dossier by FBI

New report from CNN:

• FBI used dossier allegations to bolster Trump-Russia investigation

References

This is somewhat related to what's in a section above: FBI now using dossier as "roadmap" for further investigations. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it should be noted that the dossier by itself wasn't used, but also corroborated information from the dossier. ^Falling_Gravity 06:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Good point. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

See also section

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

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

Note: I've reverted my own edit, per good faith attempt at discussion about it. [2] Sagecandor (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Done. Added. Written about and linked in the body of the article. [3]. Sagecandor (talk) 01:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

error-ridden, based on Google and cut and pasted from Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Veracity

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I updated the article lead

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

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

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

I object to including this anywhere in the article. The sentence, currently in the Reactions section, says In July 2017, Lee Smith of Tablet considered the dossier a part of a "Kremlin information operation," which was "to defame both candidates, and sow chaos, and thereby to discredit the American system of government."[83]. This is one person's opinion, from one questionably reliable source (we have no idea if Tablet has "a reputation for fact checking and accuracy" or not). The item is written in sensational tabloid style rather than a neutral news-report style. ("The scandal has also lifted the lid off a sewer of corporate information warfare and opposition research that the flailing institutions of the mainstream press now regularly re-package as news, without ever saying where it came from—or who paid for it.") I don't see any reason to give this report any credence. Earlier there was also a citation, now removed, to Thor Halvorssen's testimony before Congress, but that was a primary source, and his testimony does not seem to have been picked up by secondary sources (except non-RSs like the Washington Times), so it should not be here either. We already have an extensive paragraph about the doubts about Fusion GPS's motivation sown by Chuck Grassley, who is at least a player and entitled to have an opinion. I am going to remove this sentence and then let's talk about it. --MelanieN (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

HANNITY: Bingo.

That makes no sense, because the leaks placed the DNC and Clinton in a bad light, with zero benefit for the DNC or Hillary Clinton, not even a hope. It ONLY could help Trump, and ALL agree that it did. This is a desperate tactic to avoid admitting that Russia was behind the hacks (confirmed by all foreign and domestic intelligence agencies (except the FSB) and RS, and known ahead of time by GOP operatives like Roger Stone) which made the DNC look bad and made Trump look good, ultimately helping him win. Neither Trump nor the GOP will admit that. Now they are fighting back with this theory, and it's found only on fringe conservative websites like The Daily Caller and Townhall, and above mentioned by Fox. The conservative NewsBusters confirms that pretty much only conservative sources deal with this: "The Times gave Trump headlined treatment only because he retweeted a Thursday morning Townhall.com tweet about the press's failure to cover Awan's arrest:..." They then describe how the Daily Caller and Townhall did cover the story.[4]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Possible source

An interesting article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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