Talk:Steele dossier

Excessive length of article

This article is currently 443,920 bytes long; this is extremely long for an article, and guidelines would seem to strongly suggest it be split or edited down. Most articles this big are lists or timeline articles that require inclusion of a large number of items; this doesn't seem to be one. I must admit I am somewhat puzzled by its size, given that (according to the article itself) it was not a crucially important document and much of the stuff in it was false ("Many allegations in the dossier have been dismissed by authorities or remain unverified", "The Mueller Report contained passing references to some of the dossier's allegations but little mention of its more sensational claims", "it did not play any role in the intelligence community's assessment about Russian actions in the 2016 election").

Given, then, that this seems to have been partially (or mostly?) nonsense that doesn't seem to have had much effect on anything, it seems strange that our article on it goes through a detailed, apparently line-by-line recounting of every individual claim that was made in it. I think some of this could simply be removed, or at the very least edited down.

Looking at {{Section sizes}}, it seems that the "Veracity and corroboration status of specific allegations" section is extremely long (over 100 kilobytes) and could easily be its own article -- in fact, if it were its own article, it would itself be near the upper bounds of reasonable article size! The same is true for "History" (96 kilobytes). On one hand, it might be good to split these out, but on the other hand, since the document itself doesn't seem like it was that pivotal in the course of history, it may be unreasonable for us to have not one but three separate articles on it.

Thoughts? jp×g 23:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

This has been a concern for some, but for others like myself, it's no problem. There are many other larger articles on less contentious topics, so it is what it is.

Splitting is an option (see end of this comment), but what part can be split off without creating a forbidden POV fork? It seems like the controversiality and conspiracy theories related to it have guaranteed that there are lots of important details and a huge amount of RS coverage, largely the fault of the constant attacks from the GOP, Trump, and fringe right-wing media. Political journalist David Corn of the progressive magazine Mother Jones described the dossier as "a convenient foil, their false flag" for the "Trump gang". It has been used as a convenient distraction to divert attention from things that were really important, like the Trump campaigns cooperation with the Russians and aid to them. They have given it more importance than it really merited.

It is the amount of coverage that has driven the size. Nearly every detail explains and contradicts crucial claims made by opposition politicians and conspiracy theorists.

Don't confuse "false" for "unproven". Don't buy Trump's claims, that some RS have carelessly repeated. Very little has ever been shown to be false, a lot is proven true (the most important allegations), and even more is unproven (many of little importance). The actual facts about that have gotten lost in the conspiracy-mongering, while disputes over it do account for much of the RS coverage, and there has been a lot of such disputing and smoke. Smoke gets attention. Most of the allegations of "false" have been opinions without facts.

We can't leave out any details or allegations that have been covered by RS, so that leaves us with maybe finding some duplication. There might be some, but that won't make much of a dent. I'm happy to leave it as is. As we get further from it timewise and it gets less attention, then it just remains as a great resource for historians, and that's one of the great purposes served by our articles.

The two sections that could be split off and really make a difference are the History and Authorship and sources sections. Using summary style, we could do that and it would be an immediate huge effect. The section that could be most easily split off without creating a problem is the litigation section, but it isn't very large. What do you think about splitting off those two sections? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree that this article is excessively and unreasonably long and is overdue for drastic cuts. Most of the contemporaneous speculation by political news articles should be removed. There are also too many non-encyclopedic opinions. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Rather than splitting off sections as has been done, I strongly recommend cuts and trims. The article is a shapeless, unfocused mess that is barely understandable to someone who doesn't know about the details of the case already. Splitting it doesn't address these problems at all, and just creates potential POV fork issues. I agree that there's not the scholarship to demonstrate that this is such a pivotal document that it needs the spinoff articles. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Why is this labeled controversial and not discredited?

Most RS's consider this to be discredited, not merely controversial.

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A jury on Tuesday acquitted on all counts a think tank analyst accused of lying to the FBI about his role in the creation of a discredited dossier about former President Donald Trump.

A Russian analyst who worked on a discredited dossier linking Donald Trump to Russia has been found not guilty of lying to the FBI.

For Bill Grueskin, a professor at Columbia University’s journalism school, the discredited dossier is an example of the complexity journalists deal with when deciding whether to publish.

But the dossier has been largely discredited since its publication, with core aspects of the material exposed as unsupported and unproven rumors.

The lead should reflect this. DarrellWinkler (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The article is badly outdated, stuck in 2017, and way too long. Improvement attempts are almost immediately reverted. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

That's because this has been perennially discussed and there isn't a consensus that in fact discredited should be uncritically used as a description, since much of the dossier was confirmed or was not disproven. Andre🚐 23:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree and that is more so true in 2023. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

"discredited" is weaselspeak for "lots of people have criticized it, but none of it has been publicly disproven, so we just don't have a better word for it" soibangla (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Soibangla, that's a good way to put it. We're dealing with a word that is purely opinion and not only unrelated to facts, but not based on facts. It started with Trump, and even RS have repeated it. We document both facts and opinions here, so of course this article documents the fact that the dossier has been characterized as "discredited", even though it's a vague slur of uncertain meaning, but meant to imply that it has been debunked or proven untrue. An examination of the allegations and what RS say about each one shows a very different picture.

A judge has even weighed in on the use of the term. On January 4, 2018, U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta ruled on Trump's repeated tweets describing the dossier as "fake" or "discredited":

"None of the tweets inescapably lead to the inference that the President's statements about the Dossier are rooted in information he received from the law enforcement and intelligence communities. ... The President's statements may very well be based on media reports or his own personal knowledge, or could simply be viewed as political statements intended to counter media accounts about the Russia investigation, rather than assertions of pure fact."

Let's not confuse facts with opinions. We are not allowed to do that. We already document the facts and also document that it has been characterized as "discredited". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

"Discredited" is how many high quality reliable sources are characterizing this document. DarrellWinkler (talk) 13:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• At this point it is widely described as discredited by most RS. Discredited means it lost respect or credibility, not I don't like it.
  • CNN - The largely discredited dossier was a collection of unverified and salacious allegations compiled by retired British spy Christopher Steele, whose dirt-digging was indirectly funded by Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2016.
  • PBS - well as the reliance by the FBI on a dossier of uncorroborated or discredited information compiled by an British ex-spy, Christopher Steele.
  • Politico - The dossier contains now-discredited rumors and salacious claims about Trump’s cooperation with the Russian government and was provided to the FBI
  • Columbia Journalism Rreview - where he recounted the most salacious allegation in the now discredited dossier
  • NPR - the creation of a discredited dossier about former President Donald Trump.
  • Wall Stree Journal - The material in the dossier has since been largely discredited.
  • The Intercept - at the heart of the now discredited Steele dossier
  • Newsweek - the Steele Dossier, a now-largely discredited document

So yeah, I think its safe to call it what it is, and bring it in line with all those respected highly reliable sources. I agree we should change controversial in the lead to discredited or a variation of that. PackMecEng (talk) 02:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Problem is it has not been wholly discredited. Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

RS say that its discredited enougn to use it as a qualifier when discussing it. As also, as Valjean points out, talk about why it's described that way a lot in the body. This is not an all or nothing situation either. Just the lead summarizing the body. PackMecEng (talk) 14:28, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

No they say "partially discredited" enough for us to say that. Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Most of the sources I gave above just use discredited but I could see a case for largely discredited which a couple of them use like CNN, WSJ, and Newsweek. Would that work? PackMecEng (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

This has a lot to do with how much due weight we give opinions not based on facts, especially in the lead. "Controversial" is pretty factual and says nothing about the reliability/truthfulness of the dossier, but is about how it's been discussed and the roles it has played. No one would deny it's been very controversial.

Trump's attacks, as the judge noted, are not based on facts (a principle that applies to much of what he says), so we should not give Trump's words more weight than they deserve, which isn't much. Yet, because he's so notable and RS have documented what he says, we do the same. We do document that he has attacked the dossier using many terms that are disconnected from reality. The lead says this:

"Trump denounced as fake news."

So should we add more to that in the lead? That source says this:

"Trump immediately labeled the dossier a “witch hunt” and has since repeatedly decried it as “discredited,” “debunked,” “fictitious” and “fake news.”

As usual with Trump, most of that is a lie. "Discredited" is the closest we come to an opinion that might have some relation to reality (it has been a big disappointment with many possibly true allegations still unconfirmed), so we're back to the question of whether we should include it. We could add it to the lead at that spot:

"Trump denounced it as "fake news" and "discredited", and many sources have repeated those opinions."

How does that sound? (We'd add a couple RS that mention those words.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

The consensus view from mainstream reliable sources is this is discredited. They dont qualify that with "totally" or "in part". Thats the language which should be in the article. DarrellWinkler (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

No, RS do not say that, as demonstrated by all the sources above. That is your personal opinion on the matter, they are not quoting Trump or anything silly like that. They are saying that in their voice, which is covered by editorial oversight. We go by RS here and that is how RS describe it. PackMecEng (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this dossier seems to have been discredited. Saying anything less, or playing with words and citations to make it appear viable, lessens up-to-date encyclopedic information. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

??? PackMecEng, the RS do say that. They do express that opinion. Are you denying it's an opinion voiced by your sources? Are you denying they are repeating the opinion first voiced by Trump, but in their own voice? I am not denying that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I am saying that according to RS the reasons you are listing for why it is called discredited is not the mainstream RS view. Saying that it is mainly discredited because Trump said so is a fringe viewpoint not supported by the majority of reliable sources. PackMecEng (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

The word is usually just thrown about without any context or indication of what is meant. It is used as a slur. If it is being used to imply that the dossier's allegations are mostly debunked or shown to be false, and no doubt many sources use it in that way, then they are not being factual, as an examination of each allegation, and what RS say about it, shows that very few allegations are even close to being false, just unproven.

So the term is an unspecific slur, and we don't give such opinions much due weight. In this case, we should, and do, mention it in the body because RS do. Right now we're discussing whether the lead should also mention it, and I'm not averse to doing so. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

The article should reflect the sources, not add any additional context or indication of what these sources write. DarrellWinkler (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

An interesting article by experts in oppo research: "Much of the Steele dossier hasn’t been disproved to date, but rather has gained greater credence based on Trump’s turbulent presidency."[1] -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I gave a list of high quality RS that state in various ways their view. I give far less weight to the opinion article covered in disclaimers that you gave. It has no value for this discussion. PackMecEng (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Thats an opinion piece and is notable only for the opinion of its author. DarrellWinkler (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Valjean. And I don't think that we're going to come to a consensus quickly, so maybe an RFC is in order. Andre🚐 18:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

References

This has been proven, by the FBI, to be fake.

Why is this not shown to be a fake dossier created by Hillary Cliton, illegally, to discredit Donald Trump? The FBI admits they made it up and it has been proven to be completely fake. Why is this protected from these edits, unless Wikipedia is pushing fake news? Wikipedia should probably make not and allowe the correct information to be published before they get sued for defamation. 134.132.40.221 (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced and incorrect text in the article

There is a subsection in this section that has major issues.
First it's titled False claim it was "a significant portion" of FISA application which is unsourced and OR text.
Second, the first line of the section contradicts the heading, reading information from the dossier had been used as part of the basis for getting the October 2016 FISA warrant to monitor Page.
There's also a link to the IG Report that says the Dossier played a central and essential part in the FISA process.
There's then this line The role of evidence from the dossier in seeking FISA warrants soon became the subject of much debate. How much of the evidence was based on the dossier? Was it a "significant portion" or only a "smart part" of the FISA application? which is unsourced and likely an editor editorializing.
There's then the Nunes Memo piece that makes the claim that the dossier play a significant part.
Then comes this line The following sources and the historical timeline show the Republicans' claims are false which again reads like someone editorializing. It's completely unsourced and OR itself.
Then there's McCabe comment which in part contains his quote Was the dossier material important to the [FISA] package? Of course, it was. As was every fact included in that package.
Then we get Ken Dilanian's opinion (who his wiki article notes routinely submits his stories to the CIA for approval) that the dossier played a small part. That's the only text from a RS that is cited that makes any sense, and is undue by itself. The IG Report is the authoritative source here so we should assign more weight to the description of central and essential. There's no source that says the claim was false.

The section is a mess and should probably just be deleted. Do we really need 9 paragraphs devoted to this? Mr Ernie (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:PRESERVE. Oppose deletion or any major change based on this. You don't assign more weight to WP:PRIMARY, the opposite. Andre🚐 20:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Support deletion based on this. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Let's start an RFC, then. I'm sure @Valjean, @Objective3000, @Slatersteven and @Soibangla would also agree with me that an excessive trim is not desirable. Pinging @PackMecEng and @David Fuchs for balance. Andre🚐 21:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Blatant canvassing is inappropriate. We don’t preserve unsourced text or original research. I do think an RFC would be the most useful way to bring fresh eyes to this article, but let’s see how this goes as a first step. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Before removing any good faith content, you should check to see if any of the existing sources support the material or tag it with citation needed tags and give others a chance to cite the content. Per WP:CANVASS my public, balanced ping of participants in the similar discussions is acceptable. Andre🚐 23:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Kill it, we don't cite preserve to keep unsourced WP:OR. Also don't canvass people, it's not a good look. Regardless if you think it was balanced, you just don't do it. PackMecEng (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  I really don't see any OR in the article. I see some inadequate summarizing, perhaps, or a need for more specific sourcing. That's why I pinged a bunch of users who had worked on the article - and you, for balance, per the above-linked guideline on what is acceptable notification and publicization of the discussion. Andre🚐 00:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  If it is inadequate summarizing, perhaps, or a need for more specific sourcing then what is there is original research since it is not in the source. I don't get this for balance thing you mention either. So you ping 4 people and then 2 others "for balance"? PackMecEng (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  The guideline on canvassing, nor that on consensus, does not prescribe exact numbers. I pinged a cross-section of people. Regardless, you've done me one better by opening a proper RFC so that will certainly do a better job of publicizing the discussion and getting some fresh eyes on the article as Mr. Ernie said. Andre🚐 00:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Sigh. As usual, Mr Ernie's reading comprehension is miserable, leading to his false claims.. It's all very carefully sourced, including the parts in quotes. The basis for this complaint suffers from severe CIR issues. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  Please provide the sources to the two claims cited as OR above. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  Mr Ernie:

  "First it's titled False claim it was "a significant portion" of FISA application which is unsourced and OR text."

  Article:

  "In February 2018, the Nunes memo alleged FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe's testimony backed Republican claims that the "dossier formed 'a significant portion' of the Carter Page FISA application". McCabe pushed back and said his testimony had been "selectively quoted" and "mischaracterized". He also "denied having ever told Congress that the [FISA] warrant would not have been sought without information from the dossier"."

  Why do we always have to do your homework for you? It's all sourced, and you dare to even claim that text in quote marks is unsourced. Sheesh! Please stop wasting our time here. Every single time you come here, that's what you do. It's tendentious and disruptive. You are clueless about the subject because your sources are terrible and you don't read RS, so you don't understand the issues that are known by those who read RS. Please stop displaying your ignorance.

  The dossier was not a significant portion (amount) of the application. It was a minuscule, likely 1% part, but that was a significant part (played a "central role"). The significance was in the fact that it confirmed what the FBI had learned from their own sources. That's what gave the FBI confidence in the dossier, and the dossier reconfirmed their confidence in their own sources. Some of the dossier was confirmed to be accurate, according to what their own sources had independently discovered. Nunes and the GOP have been lying about this fact for years, and since RS discuss it, it belongs here. When lies and conspiracy theories about the dossier flourish, and RS debunk them, then that is perfectly legitimate content. It is very due. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  You’ve confirmed that the sourcing doesn’t match the wording. Please avoid personal comments and attacks and stick to the content. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• PackMecEng, you wrote: "Kill it, we don't cite preserve to keep unsourced WP:OR." Stop and think about what you did there. You blindly accepted something/anything said by Mr Ernie, of all people. You should know by now that he can't be trusted. What he said is false. It's all carefully sourced. He is just clueless. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  Copying from the advisory notice posted at the top - Only content verified by subject experts and other reliable sources may be included, and uncited material may be removed without notice. Since no reliable cited source says the claim is “false,” it must be removed. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  That is the Edit Request advisory for non-auto-confirmed edit requests on this partially locked page. It's to reduce the number of trivial requests and rejections. The basic talk page notice for this article is Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. SPECIFICO talk 14:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  Clearly no consensus for this removal. Please stop. Andre🚐 18:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Andrevan Since you've reinstated the content, the onus is now on you to provide a source for the "false" claim. Please do so or I will again remove the text. Please provide a source that says the claim that the dossier was significant to Page's FISA warrant is "false." Mr Ernie (talk) 13:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  Mr Ernie, your reading comprehension again prevents you from making sense. "Significance" is not in question. It is the "amount" that is in question. Nunes falsely claimed "the "dossier formed 'a significant portion' of the Carter Page FISA application". He implied it was the "majority" of the application. It was not, as explained by McCabe (below) That cannot be the case as the FBI was already at "the line", and "the Steele reporting 'pushed [the FISA proposal] over the line' in terms of establishing probable cause." The FBI could have filed the FISA application without the dossier, but when it came along, it was just enough (thus "significant") to make them decide to do it right away. FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe mentioned the dossier's role in the start of the investigation and the FISA warrant:

  'We started the investigations without the dossier. We were proceeding with the investigations before we ever received that information,' McCabe told CNN. 'Was the dossier material important to the [FISA] package? Of course, it was. As was every fact included in that package. Was it the majority of what was in the package? Absolutely not.'[420]

  Stop muddying the waters with your ignorance and false claims. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  Where is the source that says the claim is false? It's in a section you've titled "false claims about dossier" and subtitled "False claim it was "a significant portion" of FISA application." You've linked a source with McCabe's testimony, but you've also got sources saying the IG report said it was "central and essential" and a CNN source saying "information from the dossier had been used as part of the basis for getting the October 2016 FISA warrant to monitor Page." An editor analyzing these 3 sources and then writing something is "false" in wikivoice is original research and must be removed until you can cite a source that makes the claim. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  You're mixing different things together. Reread my last comment. The significance is not in question. McCabe had to strongly dispute the Nunes/GOP false claim. They tried to put the blame on the dossier for the Carter Page FISA warrant when it's part was very small. There is no RS mention that the dossier added any allegation to the application. The FBI already had enough without it. RS do say that when the CH team got the first 6 reports, they discovered it was nothing new to them. The reports showed that Steele's sources had discovered, long before the FBI did, central facts about the Russian interference and Trump campaign's knowledge and cooperation with it. The FBI learned these things from their own sources, so the dossier reinforced their confidence in their own findings, apparently enough to push them "over the line" to make the decision to file the FISA application. It is in that sense it was so significant. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  We don't seem to be communicating, but I'll try one last time. Where is the source that uses the word "false?" Otherwise you'd have to attribute the section title to McCabe and say it was his opinion after the memo came out since you don't have the testimony the Nunes memo used and he didn't go on record before then. But even then you couldn't use the word "false" because McCabe's refuting something Nunes doesn't allege. "Was the dossier material important to the package? Of course, it was." But what you wrote was "The following sources and the historical timeline show the Republicans' claims are false." What "claims" are you talking about? Nunes said McCabe testified that no warrant would have been sought without the dossier. McCabe's later statements seem to support that, he just disputes it wasn't the majority of the information in the package.

  In short, what "claims" are "false," and where is the source that says that? Mr Ernie (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  This is just a logical error. Where are the RS that use the words "Nunes" and "true" in the same sentence? SPECIFICO talk 18:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  Irrelevant since that's not in the article. There's not a source that says the IG report is "true" either. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, you ask what claims I am referring to. It's the partisan Nunes/GOP claim that the dossier was "a significant portion" of the FISA application. We do not have to have a source that uses the word false when there is such a stark difference between the claim and its refutation by several people who understand the issue. They pushed back and explained how it was only a small part. The difference is one of a fact and a false claim about that fact. It's a difference between truth and partisan lies.

Oddly, while you misrepresent what McCabe said, you still state the fact, that "he just disputes it wasn't the majority of the information in the package." That's partly true (it wasn't the majority) and supports the point of the section under discussion.

More seriously, you blithely glide over the fact that Nunes was not speaking the truth when he, in your words "said McCabe testified that no warrant would have been sought without the dossier. McCabe's later statements seem to support that,.." No, his later statements do NOT support that: "McCabe pushed back and said his testimony had been "selectively quoted" and "mischaracterized" by Nunes. McCabe did NOT say "no warrant would have been sought without the dossier". Congressman Quigly backs him.[2] McCabe is not the only one who has said that they could have applied for the FISA warrant without the dossier, but then it came along and caused them to move from their state of indecision. It pushed them "over the line" to file for the FISA warrant. It was the 1% more (on top of the FBI's 99%) needed to go ahead and do it. Nunes and the GOP would have us believe the dossier was a majority of the evidence when it wasn't. It was the drop that made the glass overflow. The glass was already full with evidence from the FBI's own sources.

McCabe: "Was it the majority of what was in the package? Absolutely not." Yet... FBI Would’ve Been Derelict Not to Use Steele Dossier for the Carter Page FISA Warrant -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

We do not have to have a source that uses the word false is simply incorrect. I've removed the section until this can be appropriately sourced. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

References

RFC on lead

Should the first sentence of the lead refer to the document as controversial or discredited? PackMecEng (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

---

• Discredited - That is the most common way that reliable sources refer to the document.
  • CNN - The largely discredited dossier was a collection of unverified and salacious allegations compiled by retired British spy Christopher Steele, whose dirt-digging was indirectly funded by Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2016.
  • PBS - well as the reliance by the FBI on a dossier of uncorroborated or discredited information compiled by an British ex-spy, Christopher Steele.
  • Politico - The dossier contains now-discredited rumors and salacious claims about Trump’s cooperation with the Russian government and was provided to the FBI
  • Columbia Journalism Rreview - where he recounted the most salacious allegation in the now discredited dossier
  • NPR - the creation of a discredited dossier about former President Donald Trump.
  • Wall Stree Journal - The material in the dossier has since been largely discredited.
  • The Intercept - at the heart of the now discredited Steele dossier
  • Newsweek - the Steele Dossier, a now-largely discredited document

It's time to bring this article up to date with modern viewpoints and with how it is treated in the body. I would also support largely discredited. PackMecEng (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Pinging those from the original discussion above: User:DarrellWinkler, User:Mr Ernie, User:Andrevan, User:Objective3000, User:Soibangla, User:Valjean, User:Slatersteven, and User:Randy Kryn. PackMecEng (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• Discredited per the cited top tier contemporary sourcing. Recent sourcing is much more informed and comprehensive than most of the contemporaneous political news and opinion articles currently used for sourcing much of the article. I would also support “largely discredited.” Mr Ernie (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• My natural inclination, of course, is to go with what the sources say, and they say discredited, so we go with that. But as I've said before, discredited is a journalistic weaselword meaning "lots of people have trashed it for a long time, but we really just don't know, so we're going to lean negative on it in an ambiguous way." Journalists don't have the same resources as intel agencies have to determine the dossier's veracity. Discredit means "harm the good reputation of," not refute its veracity, but I suspect many readers will interpret it to mean the latter, as disproven. Sure, its reputation has been tarnished, if for no other reason than a relentless messaging effort was conducted to do just that. The peetape allegation was particularly scandalous and had to be snuffed out, and the best way to do that was to insist the entire dossier was 100% fiction. Maybe we should keep controversial in the first sentence, since that is indisputable; but since the second sentence shows things that were corroborated, follow the second sentence with "Other aspects of the dossier were discredited." soibangla (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
• Both, with a preference to controversial. It's true that it was widely described as discredited, but also parts have been confirmed, and parts remain neither discredited nor confirmed. False dichotomy. Andre🚐 01:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
• Both. Agree with Andrevan, and with Soibangla's points about the narrower meaning of "discredited".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Both - We have a problem in how we document this. There are a large number of nonsense sites, like Fox, that say this is all lies with some sort of Hilary Clinton conspiracy. We also know that large parts of this conspiratorial nonsense is nonsense and that significant parts of the dossier are true. As an encyclopedia, we should not take sides. We go with RS. How can we claim "discredited" when many of the claims have can demonstrated as true by RS? O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you point out what text is cited to Fox? We should remove that immediately. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Controversial, as that is a fact. Possibly "discredited", but only as a slur by Trump without evidence (undermined byu a judge), an opinion contrary to facts, if "discredited" is understood to mean the allegations are disproven. That would be a false claim as many of them are true. The word "discredited" is already documented as a claim. As a dubious slur, it doesn't have much weight, even though many RS have carelessly repeated Trump's claim, which a judge undermined. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  On January 4, 2018, U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta ruled on Trump's repeated tweets describing the dossier as "fake" or "discredited":

None of the tweets inescapably lead to the inference that the President's statements about the Dossier are rooted in information he received from the law enforcement and intelligence communities. ... The President's statements may very well be based on media reports or his own personal knowledge, or could simply be viewed as political statements intended to counter media accounts about the Russia investigation, rather than assertions of pure fact.[3]

Trump's lawyer's reaction is rather ironic, because ALL RS and history have shown that Trump's statements are usually false, like a "carnival barker"!!

"We are disappointed in the Court’s ruling and are evaluating the possibility of an appeal. Of far more concerning significance is the legal implication of this ruling, in so much as it reduces official statements by the President of the United States into little more than random musings by a proverbial carnival barker who just happens to also serve as the Chief Executive," Moss said. "It is difficult to envision a scenario in which it is in the national interest of this country for the President’s statements to be so cavalierly disregarded in this manner.”

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

See this is a big part of the issue with this article, it relies on outdated information from opinion sources instead of actual strong reliable sources. It is not helpful that you are siting an old blog post to support your fringe claims. PackMecEng (talk) 14:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Citing U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta is perfectly appropriate. No later evidence has undermined her evaluation of that slur. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• I doubt that there would be disagreement that it is controversial, so that would be OK. It also seems to be at least partially discredited and partially disproven, so should be OK to say those too. Whether it is largely discredited seems more controversial. Are there reliable sources addressing what proportion has been "discredited" and since "discredited" is largely a matter of published opinion, by whom it has been discredited?. So: Controversial, partly disproven, and discredited by some to an unknown extent. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  Hey Peter, nice to see you in this part of the woods. I'm curious about "partially disproven". What part is that? Is it anything significant, or are you referring to the typos? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  Hi Valjean I was summoned by bot. My comments basically refer to the use of language to convey accurate information as opposed to weaselling. I am not well informed or up to date on the details of the topic, so I may have misinterpreted whether there is any disproven information (some of the claims have been described as inaccurate). If so, then it it is partially disproven. If not, or if it is trivially unimportant, that part of my suggestions should be disregarded. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  The only part I am aware of that is "disproven" is that Cohen was in Prague, per Mueller Report, but even that was from Cohen's testimony and apparently Mueller didn't run it down. Cohen's passport didn't have a Czechia stamp, but he was earlier in Italy and could've entered another Schengen Area country, like Czechia, without presenting his passport. It's like interstate travel. Intel intercepts picked up Russians talking about Cohen being "near" Prague. Has anything else been disproven? soibangla (talk) 05:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  Most of the issue is the dossier itself is a series of vague accusations with no really substance or proof behind most of the claims. It's basically just a fringe conspiracy theory at this point. Also I will note, the language under discussion here is discredited, not disproven. For example the NY Times has this to say about it No corroborating evidence has emerged in intervening years to support many of the specific claims in the dossier, and government investigators determined that one key allegation — that Mr. Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, had met with Russian officials in Prague during the campaign — was false.[4] PackMecEng (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I understand the operative word we're discussing is discredited. But presumably people would have something other than a cacophony of partisans persistently bellowing that it's all fake to conclude it's discredited. They would have evidence that something in the dossier is provably false. Page 139 of the Mueller Report says "Cohen had never traveled to Prague and was not concerned about those allegations, which he believed were provably false." But the source for that? His own testimony, cited in footnote #955. That's it.[5] The dossier is raw intel, and IC folks say they're lucky if they can verify 50% of raw intel, but failure to verify does not mean it's disproven or a fringe conspiracy theory. soibangla (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  Like the pee tape allegation, the Cohen/Prague one is unproven, not disproven. Both Trump and Cohen lied about them, and those actions are described by RS as consciousness of guilt. In both cases there are unrefuted pieces of evidence from RS they are true or likely true. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  That is mostly because you are asking for something that RS agree didn't happy to be disproven. Not how that works, that is what conspiracy theorist do. We go by main stream RS here, not personal opinion, original research, or random blogs that support our own POV. PackMecEng (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'm going by RS content in this article. The allegation remains unproven, but Cohen's lies about it makes one wonder. Why lie if it didn't happen? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  Let's just stipulate that Cohen in Prague is false. Is there anything else in the dossier that has been disproven and so would warrant discarding the whole thing as a fringe conspiracy theory, as opposed to unverified raw intel? Anything at all? Must it be 100% true or else it's 100% false? soibangla (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  Soibangla, call me a stickler for detail and evidence, but my conscience won't allow me to claim either "true/proven" or "false/disproven". I of course do stand behind the content I have added documenting that several RS have stated it is false or not true. That does not make it so, especially since those statements are made without evidence. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." (Sagan) The allegation remains unproven, neither definitely false nor true.

  Soibangla's other points remain: "Is there anything else in the dossier that has been disproven...?" -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• Discredited per sources. Not both. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
• Controversial all sources say this (in some form), not all sources (even the ones provided to support it) do not say discredited. Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
• Neither Per MOS:CONTROVERSIAL. Labels aren't helpful. Just state what's validated and what's invalidated. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
• Discredited per sources here and in the above section. DoubleCross (‡) 14:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
• Discredited or largely-discredited per the near-universal consensus of mainstream journalistic RS in 2023, as demonstrated by the examples listed above, reflecting the fact that none of Steele et al.'s allegations about Trump or any American citizen have been proven true after six years of investigation by law enforcement, intelligence agencies, and journalists. That said, fighting over a label in the lede summary will only go so far when the article as a whole needs to be rewritten to reflect the findings of more recent (i.e., post-2019) reliable sources... And for that to happen, Valjean, the primary author of this article, contributing 78.8% of all text, who has stridently expressed complete certainty in the veracity of the dossier since at least 3 February 2017 (when he declared that "I follow what the Dossier and RS indicate, that Trump is compromised and vulnerable to blackmail. That's not OR. That's what the RS say."), and who just reiterated that the pee tape is "true or likely true," would probably have to step back and allow other contributors to make substantive changes, rather than policing the article in a way that reflects ownership.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with some of this soibangla (talk) 02:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

TAAC, if you're going to try to apply "discredited" to the status of the allegations (proven vs unproven), as your statement implies, then you're way off base because your statement is false: "reflecting the fact that none of Steele et al.'s allegations about Trump or any American citizen have been proven true after six years..." That is a clearly false statement. The 2017 ODNI report confirmed the central allegations were true. Also, when the Crossfire Hurricane team first got six reports from Steele on September 19, 2016, they discovered that their own sources had discovered some of the same things Steele's sources had reported earlier to Steele. The Justice Department had this info from the FBI. This gave the FBI confidence in the dossier:

"Ranking Member Schiff describes the FBI's wholly independent basis for investigating Page's long-established connections to Russia, aside from the Steele dossier, and emphasizes that the Justice Department possessed information 'obtained through multiple independent sources that corroborated Steele's reporting' with respect to Page."[6]

So on at least these two occasions, we have confirmation that some of the allegations were confirmed as accurate. There are other allegations that are unconfirmed, but none strictly disproven. So don't connect "discredited" with the confirmation status of the allegations. Connect it with the dossier's reputation and unpopularity as the target of Trump's ire. It became his foil to distract attention from his other misdeeds. He rained false claims and conspiracy theories on it, all of them thoroughly debunked, but they did "discredit" it and careless journalists have repeated his use of that word, creating the confusion he hoped to create. You have fallen into the trap that "discredited" means none of the allegations have been proven true, but that interpretation is false. Many are proven true. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

"The 2017 ODNI report confirmed the central allegations were true"

There were actually four central allegation made in the dossier.

1. Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting Trump for at least 5 years.

The ODNI report did not confirm (or even address) this

2. However he and his inner circle have accepted a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin, including on his Democratic and other political rivals.

The ODNI report did not confirm (or even address) this

3. Former top Russian intelligence officer claims FSB has compromised TRUMP through his activities in Moscow sufficiently to be able to blackmail him.

The ODNI report did not confirm (or even address) this

4. A dossier of compromising material on Hillary CLINTON has been collated by the Russian Intelligence Services over many years and mainly comprises bugged conversations she had on various visits to Russia and intercepted phone calls rather than any embarrassing conduct.

The ODNI report did talk about the Guuccifer 2.0 leaks, but is this "dossier" mentioned in Steele? I dont know and not RS makes that case.

I think your case is far weaker than you are presenting. DarrellWinkler (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

We have different definitions of "central". There are many more allegations, and there are probably as many different interpretations of central as there are people. We have at least one RS that says "central", but we don't use that wording in the article for a group of allegations (but search for "central claim" and you'll find a few statements about how Steele's "central claim" was proven true. In the lead we prefer the vague "several key allegations", a wording that most would agree on because we stick to exactly the ones mentioned in the ODNI report:

Several key allegations made in June 2016 were later corroborated by the January 2017 report by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence,[3][4] namely that Vladimir Putin favored Trump over Hillary Clinton;[3][5] that he personally ordered an "influence campaign" to harm Clinton's campaign and to "undermine public faith in the US democratic process"; that he ordered cyberattacks on both parties;[3] and that many Trump campaign officials and associates had numerous secretive contacts with Russian agents.[6][7] While Steele's documents played a significant role in initially highlighting the general friendliness between Trump and the Putin administration, the veracity of specific allegations is highly variable. Some have been publicly confirmed,[4][8][3][5] others are plausible but not specifically confirmed,[9][10] and some are dubious in retrospect but not strictly disproven.[11][12][13]

What we need to avoid is the "either it's all true or it's all false" GOP party line. They think that if some allegations are shaky or seem false, that all of the dossier is false. Not so. That's an absurd line of thought, especially for an unfinished collection of raw intelligence. Steele was prepared for some of it being false, as this article explains. So far, our wording in the lead, which is based on sourced content in the body, is still true. No significant allegation has been proven false, even if it might well be false. A number of allegations have been proven true. Many will never be proven true because the sources cannot be interviewed.

Even the sensational pee tape allegation has zero lines of thought or evidence against it being true (we even know that Trump likes the sight of girls peeing on each other), but a number of unrefuted pieces of evidence and witness statements that tend toward it being true. They just aren't conclusive enough for a court of law (although that is not the standard of evidence with this type of thing.) I have no idea if the allegation is true, so I place it in the "unproven" group and leave the door open, and anyone who implies I believe it is true is lying to you, and there are people here who constantly slander me in that way. It's tiring. It's just intellectually dishonest to say it isn't true. It's wrong to close the door to the possibility it's true since there is zero evidence against that line of thought, and some evidence that favors it. As a medical professional and scientific skeptic, I look at all the evidence and hold that we don't know if it's true or false. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I believe you've hit the nail on the head here. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• Discredited That's how reliable sources describe it. Judge Mehta's 2018 decision is irrelevant. It was a decision on whether or not a reporter could pursue a Freedom of Information Act request based on what Trump tweeted. All the judge said is that a tweet by Trump that the dossier had been discredited was not an official statement of the U.S. government. He did not rule on whether or not the dossier was discredited. TFD (talk) 03:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  The opinion of a duly authorized jurist is an official statement of the US Government, so that refutation doesn't quite wash. SPECIFICO talk 13:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• Discredited- This description is the most widely used at this point and the CJR article explains why that is in more detail than any other source. DarrellWinkler (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  It's discredited relative to the initial mainstream acceptance of everything it contains, but no source says that it's discredited in the sense that it's all garbage -- as RS do, for example characterize the Comer committee, Jim Jordan handwaving, etc. So the editorial problem is that we not try to use a single word to label the content when the appropriate detailed evaluation is given in the article text. SPECIFICO talk 21:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  We do not provide "detailed evaluations" .... that's original research. We summarize reliable sources in proportion to their relevance to the topic. DarrellWinkler (talk) 13:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• Dictionary time. Let's look at synonyms. It is discredited in the sense it is vilified, libeled, smeared, humiliated, defamed, maligned, slandered, and disgraced. Those are all synonyms for an opinion, which is not a fact. NPOV says we are not allowed to treat opinions as facts, but we do document such opinions, and we are required to attribute the opinions.

"Donald Trump and many sources have described the dossier as 'discredited'." That is an encyclopedic sentence describing an attributed opinion of low weight as it's a libelous smear, an opinion, not a fact. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we can just take it on your word that CNN/PBS/Politico/NPR/... are merely carelessly repeat[ing] Trump's claim and attribute what the weight of reliable sources say (primarily) to Trump. Endwise (talk) 10:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• No. i.e. Neither The detail appears in the article text and it's way too complex and undetermined to label it with a single word that has been and will be used to reject everything in the dossier and more. SPECIFICO talk 11:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)