Jump to content

Talk:Steele dossier

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Split

[edit]

How do we split this 500,000-byte article? RodRabelo7 (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RodRabelo7:, while I don't have any problem with the size (our size guideline lacks nuance for different types of articles and is also hopelessly outdated and no longer in step with current technology that would allow much larger articles), the History section is +106,323 and could be split off. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Christopher Steele section could be split off to his own article. When we have an existing separate article, it makes it easier to use for such splitting off. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to keep this alive, so I undid the autoarchiving. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing issues with "some allegations have been publicly confirmed" claim

[edit]

I've reviewed all six sources cited under Notes C to support the statement that "some allegations have been publicly confirmed" in the Trump-Russia dossier article. The sources do not support this claim and in some cases directly contradict it:

Intelligence Community Assessment - Doesn't mention Steele or dossier at all

CNN article #1 - Explicitly said NO allegations confirmed, only that some conversations mentioned occurred

ABC News article - About "broad implications" being confirmed, not specific allegations

Der Spiegel article - About things seeming "plausible," not confirmed

WSJ article - Inaccessible, but headline says Mueller "dismissed" dossier claims

CNN article #2 - Just reports that Mueller's team met with Steele, doesn't confirm anything

So yes, six sources, and not a single one actually supports Wikipedia's claim that "some allegations have been publicly confirmed."

Every source either explicitly contradicts the claim, doesn't mention the dossier, talks about broad themes rather than specific allegations, is inaccessible, or is completely unrelated to confirmation.

This is a comprehensive failure of sourcing. Wikipedia's statement is not just unsupported - it's directly contradicted by its own sources.

Perhaps most absurdly, Wikipedia cites contradictory assessments as evidence of confirmation: the ABC News source quotes an FBI official saying the dossier is "probably 90 percent baloney," while the Der Spiegel source claims Steele's friends say Steele himself believes it's "80 to 90 percent" accurate. Using directly opposing evaluations to support the same claim exemplifies the fundamental sourcing problems throughout this article.

This represents a violation of Wikipedia's verifiability and neutral point of view policies. The statement should be removed or significantly modified to accurately reflect what the sources actually say. 2001:7D0:87C0:8C80:70A5:FBA:53DD:EFCE (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP2001, thanks for addressing this matter. I am going to examine it and get back to you, as you deserve an explanation, and if anything is not right, then of course we will fix it.
In the meantime, you can peruse this content from the lead that is related to the subject:

U.S. intelligence agencies have reported that Putin personally ordered the whole Russian election interference operation, codenamed Project Lakhta.[1][2][3][4] These agencies, the January 2017 ODNI report,[5] and the Mueller report have corroborated the following June 2016[6] dossier allegations: "that the Russian government was working to get Mr. Trump elected";[a] that Russia sought "to cultivate people in Trump's orbit";[a] that Trump campaign officials and associates had secretive contacts with Russian officials and agents;[8][9][10] that Putin favored Trump over Hillary Clinton;[5][11] that Putin personally ordered an "influence campaign" to harm Clinton's campaign and to "undermine public faith in the US democratic process";[5] and that he ordered cyberattacks on both parties.[5]

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:20, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To initially deal with these complaints (without addressing or affirming them) and start the beginnings of a solution, I have simply removed the footnote attached to "publicly confirmed" from the lead and moved language up to the allegations that are confirmed. I will deal with the sourcing issues for that footnote later. That will take more work.

The basic fact that many allegations have been confirmed still stands, and there are good sources for that. The question remains as to which sources are the best ones to use in that footnote, as there are others that do document these facts. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:39, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have not gotten around to examining each of those sources yet, but out of an abundance of caution, I have removed the footnote for now and substituted it with the content from the lead. That content must be duplicated in the body anyway, so that's okay. Now I'll get around to examining those sources in the next few days. They are not use for that purpose anymore, so there is no problem. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:45, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP2001, I have now read all those sources again (after many years) and extracted key citations from each one. I have collected the abundant evidence for using those sources that you overlooked. Look here: User:Valjean/Publicly confirmed One could certainly discuss whether they are all the best sources to use, but in one way or another, they address the fact that quite a few allegations have been confirmed. Other sources do that job even better.

So it is still true that some allegations have been confirmed, some others that are likely true are still unproven, and none are proven false. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:08, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is very detailed, and while I have not exhaustively re-checked all of it, it looks correct to me. I am sure if any IPs or other editors want to quibble they can now do so thanks to Valjean's exceedingly well-researched source checking. Andre🚐 04:16, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have access to the WSJ article. It indeed says "Some portions of the dossier have been validated." But a bit later it says "But many of the validated assertions were already percolating in the press and Western intelligence agencies by the time Mr. Steele began compiling the dossier", says that the Mueller investigation "lacks the lurid tales compiled by Mr. Steele", says that "the report undermined a crucial tale in the dossier", etc. WSJ could more appropriately have been used to support an opposite statement. The IP is right. I haven't looked at the subsequent changes of the Wikipedia page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that still supports what the article says, and doesn't mean the IP is overall right. Wikipedia's statements are supported. Andre🚐 17:00, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DO we say "all of them"? Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't. (The following is understood by you Steven, so it's addressed to others.) We make it clear that there are at least three classes of verification status for allegations: corroborated, uncorroborated (and likely never will be proven), and proven false. There are a number of important ones in the first class that are proven in spades, quite a few in the second, and, strictly speaking, none in the last. The two often placed in the last are the "Cohen in Prague" one and the "pee tape rumor". Both were defended with provably fake alibis, with no real evidence against, and the last one rated as "possibly" true by FIB Director James Comey and "plausibly" true by Trump's own lawyer Michael Cohen, who did not believe Trump's denials and carried out a hunt-and-suppress operation for the alleged tapes until they were finally "stopped" in October 2016. So that one is more likely true than false. So it's in the "uncorroborated" class.
We also document the criticisms and even absurd claims made, such as poor methodology (if judging an unfinished rough draft released without permission by the standards of more formal and fully verified documents, that's true, even though it's an illegitimate analysis), a totally fake hoax filled with Russian disinformation (no evidence for any of that), discredited (well, that can mean anything, so...), etc. even though some of those are ridiculously false claims.
So it's rather pointless to point out, in a discussion of whether there are any allegations that ARE corroborated, that there are claims that there are NOT corroborated. We know that, and the article says that.
The basic issue is the recurring claims that there are NO allegations that are true, in spite of abundant evidence to the contrary. We need to put that absurdity to bed. Some people won't even allow that there are "some allegations" that have been publicly confirmed. Not even "some"!! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:30, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When it's validated because it was known already, it's insignificant. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What? Slatersteven (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Some claims in the dossier were validated. That is rather significant given others are trying to claim the dossier had been invalidated. So far, nothing in the dossier has been specifically invalidated, many things were validated, and other things are open questions. That is what the sources and the article say. Andre🚐 19:10, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait and see how many disagree. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:15, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, I understand your point, but there are several aspects to that issue:

  1. No one claims that all allegations were somehow original or not referring to publicly known information. A few allegations are in that class. Steele's sources sometimes provided unknown background information that explained known events.
  2. There are a number of allegations that were later confirmed, and Steele had no way of knowing that would happen at the time the sources provided the information.
  3. Some of the most important allegations that were proven true were rated "prescient" because Steele's sources provided the information before anyone, including U.S. intellgence, had the information at the time, but later they, and the ODNI report, confirmed the allegations were true. Those include several of the ones listed in the lead.

The Wall Street Journal wrote: "And some of its views proved prescient, including that Russia saw his election as an opportunity to seed discord between the U.S. and its Western allies."[12]

The New York Times wrote:

Parts of the dossier have proved prescient. Its main assertion – that the Russian government was working to get Mr. Trump elected – was hardly an established fact when it was first laid out by Mr. Steele in June 2016. But it has since been backed up by the United States' own intelligence agencies – and Mr. Mueller's investigation. The dossier's talk of Russian efforts to cultivate some people in Mr. Trump's orbit was similarly unknown when first detailed in one of Mr. Steele's reports, but it has proved broadly accurate as well.[7]

John Sipher wrote (bold original):

The most obvious occurrence that could not have been known to Orbis in June 2016, but shines bright in retrospect is the fact that Russia undertook a coordinated and massive effort to disrupt the 2016 U.S. election to help Donald Trump, as the U.S. intelligence community itself later concluded. Well before any public knowledge of these events, the Orbis report identified multiple elements of the Russian operation including a cyber campaign, leaked documents related to Hillary Clinton, and meetings with Paul Manafort and other Trump affiliates to discuss the receipt of stolen documents. Mr. Steele could not have known that the Russians stole information on Hillary Clinton, or that they were considering means to weaponize them in the U.S. election, all of which turned out to be stunningly accurate. The U.S. government only published its conclusions in January 2017, with an assessment of some elements in October 2016. It was also apparently news to investigators when the New York Times in July 2017 published Don Jr’s emails arranging for the receipt of information held by the Russians about Hillary Clinton. How could Steele and Orbis know in June 2016 that the Russians were working actively to elect Donald Trump and damage Hillary Clinton? How could Steele and Orbis have known about the Russian overtures to the Trump Team involving derogatory information on Clinton?[13]

One must avoid moving the goalposts in desperate efforts to somehow find fault with the dossier and undermine the fact that a number of its allegations were proven true. I am not accusing you of doing that, but we see it happen all the time. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:33, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Schick_2020 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Lakhta_member_charged was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference officialsmasterspy was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Hosenball_8/19/2020 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference ODNI_1/6/2017 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference Wood_8/12/2020 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ a b Rosenberg, Matthew (March 14, 2019). "Tech Firm in Steele Dossier May Have Been Used by Russian Spies". The New York Times. Retrieved March 15, 2019.
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference Yourish_Buchanan_1/26/2019 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference Leonnig_Helderman_5/17/2019 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ Cite error: The named reference Sciutto_Perez_2/10/2017 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  11. ^ Cite error: The named reference Levine_1/12/2018 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  12. ^ Cullison, Alan; Volz, Dustin (April 19, 2019). "Mueller Report Dismisses Many Steele Dossier Claims". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on January 2, 2020. Retrieved August 7, 2019.
  13. ^ Sipher, John (September 6, 2017). "A Second Look at the Steele Dossier". Just Security. Retrieved January 4, 2024.


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steele_dossier&oldid=1300582657"