![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Continued from #Criminal referrals connected to dossier
Phmoreno added a paragraph cited only to desantis.house.gov, a primary source, here: [1]. I removed it here as lacking independent third-party citation. Phmoreno re-added it here: [2], and I removed it I again here [3] reminding him to get talkpage consensus for challenged material. He re-added it a third time here [4], with an edit summary of "Already agreed upon in Talk". Can someone show me where this material cited only to desantis.house.gov is agreed up on this page? GreyGoose ( talk) 03:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Phmoreno Please, revert. I also do not agree with your edit. Casprings ( talk) 04:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
An April 18, 2018 letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions signed by several House Republicans referred James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Sally Yates, Dana Boente for criminal investigation related to use of the unverified information in the dossier in a FISA warrant on Carter Page. Hillary Clinton was named for failing to properly disclose payments to Fusion GPS in violation of Federal Election Commission law. [4]
Okay, here are four solid RS:
BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 14:42, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
"Haven't you noticed that punditry and news reporting are clearly separated on those other sites? There is no real separation on Fox News, with the exception of Shep Smith."
"Study the history of Fox News and why Roger Ailes created it."Has nothing to do with today, sorry. Look at the history of CNN and why Ted Turner created it. It's a far, sorry cry from the original vision and intent. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
BR, please use the sources-talk template following the last of your cited sources. It's much neater and doesn't follow us all over the TP. I also want to mention that reverting the material added by
Phmoreno was unnecessary. We can use primary sources when including specific facts: Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred.
I did not detect any OR in the added material. Regardless, if there is an issue with the use of a primary source, we don't automatically revert the material - we use an inline tag such as the primary source-inline or better source templates. Also keep in mind that
Winkelvi is correct in that FoxNews is an acceptable RS for citing that material, so please stop referring to the
leading news network as unreliable. Granted, some of the things the network's political pundits say are questionable but that applies to all political pundits regardless of the network. Let's not conflate it with news.
Atsme
📞
📧
15:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
I added the following:
Within the first year of publishing the dossier, BuzzFeed was sued on three separate occassions for defamation related to dissemination of the dossier. The first lawsuit was filed in February 2017 by Aleksej Gubarev, a Russian internet businessman, the second was filed in late May 2017 by Russian bank, Alfa-Bank, [1] and the third was filed in early January 2018 by Michael Cohen, Trump's personal attorney who also sued Fusion GPS in a separate lawsuit. [2] Cohen dropped both of his lawsuits in late April 2018 [3] after he became the subject of a criminal investigation for his business dealings. [4]
Sources
- ^ Beavers, Olivia (2017-05-26). "Russian bank owners sue BuzzFeed over publishing dossier". TheHill. Retrieved 2018-04-29.
- ^ Brito, Christopher (2018-01-10). ""Enough is enough": Trump lawyer files lawsuit against BuzzFeed over Russia dossier". CBS News. Retrieved 2018-04-29.
- ^ Polantz, Katelyn (2018-04-19). "Cohen drops defamation suits over infamous dossier". CNN. Retrieved 2018-04-29.
- ^ Polantz, Katelyn; Scannell, Kara; Jones, Julia (2018-04-13). "DOJ: Michael Cohen 'under criminal investigation'". CNN. Retrieved 2018-04-29.
My edit was reverted with the following edit summary: (this does not belong in this key paragraph of the lede, which remains under discussion for consensus, and the edit is highly disruptive to reaching that consensus, and it certainly doesn't deserve this degree of detail here). I disagree with Soibangla's argument, or that it is in any way disruptive, or that is has anything to do with any consensus discussion that may be taking place. The material I added can stand on it's own. Will it be necessary for me to call an RfC? Atsme 📞 📧 00:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
"The material I added can stand on it's own" Yet you appended it to a completely unrelated graf that is being actively debated for consensus, thus complicating the debate. At most it deserves a one-sentence graf, but even then, the topic does not warrant being in the lede, it's a minor item soibangla ( talk) 02:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Not in lead One, the Cohn lawsuit was dropped. Second, they aren't noteworthy. People can sue in America. Nothing noteworthy has come from these lawsuits. WP:UNDUE, especially for the lead. Casprings ( talk) 03:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't belong in the lead for the reasons others have stated. There's no independent significance to a private party filing a civil lawsuit—it literally takes submitting a complaint and the filing fee to the court—so I don't see how the material is important enough to belong in the lead, nor how it could be argued to provide balance. Dyrnych ( talk) 16:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
I see two different discussions going on here, and they are getting mixed up. Some people (including Atsme's initial proposal) are talking about the lede; some are talking about the lawsuit section in the body of the article. Please let's make it clear, when we make a comment, which we are talking about. 1) What, if anything, should be in the lede about the lawsuits? Should there be a detailed description of each lawsuit as Atsme proposed, or a single sentence summarizing the fact that there have been civil lawsuits filed, or no mention at all in the lede? My preference: no mention. 2) Should the existing four five paragraph "Litigation" section in the article text be retained, or should the section be made shorter because "lawsuits resulted in nothing"? My preference: retain, and update as new developments occur. --
MelanieN (
talk) 16:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC) P.S. Re updating: Somebody please add the fact that Cohen dropped his lawsuits.
[5]
[6] I don't have time to do it myself. --
MelanieN (
talk)
17:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Everybody seems to sue everyone these days. If suits don’t result in some action that is notable, they aren’t notable. Nothing in the lede and one sentence each max in the body. O3000 ( talk) 17:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Agree. My rule of thumb is that if something is notable enough for its own section, it most likely should be mentioned in the lead. See WP:CREATELEAD. A sentence should do the job. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 22:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
I have removed the following paragraph:
Contrary to assertions by Trump and his supporters that the FBI investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections was triggered by the dossier, the Nunes memo confirmed the investigation began with a tip from Australian diplomat Alexander Downer regarding a conversation he had with Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos in a London bar in May 2016. [1] [2]
The first source, NY Times, does not address the Republicans' allegation and the second (NPR) is not faithfully represented. My understanding is that the Republicans allege the dossier was used to support the FISA warrant on Page, which the NPR source confirms: "The document alleges that the FBI and Justice Department relied on the unverified Russia dossier [...] to obtain court approval for surveillance on [...] Carter Page." This is distinct from the claim that the dossier triggered any and all investigation by the FBI into Russian interference.
I believe the Republican allegations and relevant circumstances and contradictions should be included so my removal is temporary pending accurate and consensus wording. James J. Lambden ( talk) 20:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Off topic misunderstanding by an editor
|
---|
::
Factchecker_atyourservice, ummm....try reading the article: #Subject of Nunes memo. The Gowdy/Face the Nation content has been there a very long time. --
BullRangifer (
talk) PingMe
06:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
|
References
LaFraniere_Mazzetti_Apuzzo_12/30/2017
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).This has been in the article for a long time and should stay. Why this matters: because there is a Republican meme, often referred to by Trump and others such as Hannity, that the Democrat-funded dossier was the whole reason why the investigation was launched. In other words it was a setup from the beginning, a witch hunt, a Democratic plot against Trump. The NYT reference does refer to this claim, saying the memo confirms that the origin of the investigation "was not, as Mr. Trump and other politicians have alleged, a dossier compiled by a former British spy hired by a rival campaign". The New Yorker also spells it out: "The right-wing argument goes that Clinton operatives cooked up a scandalous piece of fiction, got Steele to pass it along to some Trump-haters in the F.B.I., who then persuaded their bosses at the Justice Department to open an investigation, and here we are, eighteen months later, with Robert Mueller and his investigators hounding an innocent President." [7] That’s why it’s important that a Republican-issued memo specifically pointed out that the dossier was NOT the reason for launching the investigation. I suggest readding the material to the article, with the addition of the New Yorker reference after the first clause. In other words,
Contrary to assertions by Trump and some of his supporters that the FBI investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections was triggered by the dossier, [1] the Nunes memo confirmed that the investigation actually began with a tip from Australian diplomat Alexander Downer regarding a conversation he had with Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos in a London bar in May 2016. [2] [3]
References
- ^ Cassidy, John (February 2, 2018). "The Nunes memo undermines the Right's Trump-Russia conspiracy theory". The New Yorker. Retrieved 28 April 2018.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
LaFraniere_Mazzetti_Apuzzo_12/30/2017
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).- ^ Lucas, Ryan (February 2, 2018). "Nunes Memo: What's In It And What's Not". NPR. Retrieved April 23, 2018.
Thoughts? -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Just a few comments. First and foremost, as a strictly factual matter and not getting lost in all the different things people have argued, we need to separate at least 6 arguments among what the sources say, not that we necessarily talk about them all but just so we're not mixing them up: (1) that the Russia investigation would not have occurred at all without the dossier, (2) that there was political influence on the conduct of the Mueller investigation, (3) that the dossier had significant influence on the Mueller investigation, (4) that Carter page would not have been investigated at all without the dossier, (5) that the Page FISA warrant would not have issued without the dossier, (6) that the Page FISA warrant would not have issued if the Clinton connection had been fully disclosed.
All of these arguments are out there in sources, some are pretty roundly refuted, e.g. #1 is denied even by Trey Gowdy and #4 is at least undermined, if not necessarily contradicted, by reporting that Page was on intelligence agency radars before the dossier. For reference, those are the claims that no investigation would have occurred at all claims and those are the ones that are clearly refuted.
That said, there's a big difference between an investigation existing and it blossoming into what it has blossomed into, and it's various forms of this latter blossoming that most critics are talking about when they complain about political influence and use of the dossier. So, that still leaves the other claims which, roughly speaking, all amount to the dossier being used to intensify the existing investigations, e.g. by allowing a wiretap of Carter page which, again according to Gowdy the House Intel Committee guy, would not have occurred without the dossier.
In order to fully understand why these claims are being made, first, a word about legal analysis of factual causation. This is just so we can understand it as editors, mind you, in a topic where a good chunk of the commentators are prosecutors or other government attorneys (once upon a time, most FBI Agents had law degrees). In the law, in analyzing the question of whether one thing caused another, if X would not have happened unless Y occurred, then Y caused X, even if Y was not the only factor that caused X. That is what people mean when they say the FISA warrant was caused by the dossier—as Gowdy said on the CBS interview program, the warrant wouldn't have been issued without the dossier. That's a paraphrasing of baseline legal logic known as "but-for" causation, i.e. no warrant "but for" the dossier. That means, if Gowdy is correct, then without the dossier, the Page investigation might have never amounted to anything more than a collection of files on a DOJ share drive rather than a federal wiretap on a campaign operative of the political opponent of the person who (at the time, secretly) paid for the dossier, during campaign season—something that can fairly be regarded as an intrusion into the political process if there is some sign of influence in the process by which the intrusion was authorized.
Anyway the point of all this is that not all these claims are refuted and some are being made by prominent figures. For example positions 2 and 3 have been espoused by, e.g., the nat'l security expert and USA Today board of contributors member James S. Robbins whose opinion I reflected in the opinion section of the prose I added. Likewise from my prose, Richard A. Epstein, a well credentialed senior think tank fellow, argues in Newsweek, essentially rebuts the Democratic argument that the Clinton association was duly disclosed: "To be sure, the FISA application that relied on the Steele dossier did say that some political sources were involved in the case, without naming the Clinton campaign. Unfortunately, that partial disclosure only makes matters worse. A half-truth in a setting that requires full disclosure is deliberately deceptive and akin to a complete lie."
Yes, these guys are Republicans and Republicans are "right wing", but it is important not to characterize people like this along with Hannity, or to conflate refuted arguments with reasonable ones. I think it would also be nice if we could avoid characterize any of them as "ignorant" or dumb, as has been commonplace on articles such as these, and worse, making assumptions about who believes what, which is just pointless. Factchecker_atyourservice 01:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Reminder: Consensus-required also applies to removing long-standing material. While the definition of long-standing can vary from admin to admin, I take it to be more than four to six weeks on highly-edited, highly-watched articles like this. -- NeilN talk to me 01:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Keep: well sourced and relavent to the article. This page seems to be under attack from editors pushing a pro Trump narrative. Casprings ( talk) 02:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Keep - this is longstanding material, and I do not see any reason for deletion. Also agree with NeilN. Hence restored. My very best wishes ( talk) 04:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
"John Cassidy....is unreliable.Politrukki ( talk) 12:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
[responding to MelanieN (14:09, 29 April 2018)]
Melanie - what should be included is the fact that there was
no official investigation whatsoever that started the Russia investigation. Nunes said it was "based on a review of “electronic communication” from the FBI and the Justice Department"
which does belong in this article. The role of the Steele dossier appears to be headed in an entirely different direction. Let it incubate.
Atsme
📞
📧
17:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
"based on a review of “electronic communication” from the FBI and the Justice Department"? Atsme 📞 📧 21:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Atsme, you wrote: "...there was no official investigation whatsoever that started the Russia investigation,.." (I believe you are summarizing there.)
There were myriad pieces of information which raised suspicions and led to the investigation: The multiple, Trump campaign encouraged, Russian-related communications and contacts involving Papadopoulos and Carter Page (Page made a five-day trip to Moscow in early July), the hacking of the DNC, the June 9, 2016, Trump Tower meeting, other secret contacts between Trump campaign members and Russians, together with intercepted conversation between Russian nationals discussing their contacts with Trump campaign members, and other information shared by friendly foreign intelligence sources, all these were factors in the start of the investigation before the dossier even mentioned Carter Page, and it never mentioned Papadopoulos.
This is from this section: Trump–Russia dossier#FBI's Russia investigation:
This is an especially good source. Well worth reading. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 05:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
whether he had seen evidence of collusion, he stressed that the CIA’s business was intelligence rather than evidence and he could not make that judgment.There was no "official" intelligence conducted specifically to prove Trump colluded with Russia (and zero evidence to this day) which is why the FBI used the unsubstantiated Steele dossier to obtain FISA warrants. That fact is substantiated without the need to piecemeal sources using SYNTH. Atsme 📞 📧 21:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Frida Ghitis, writing in Foreign Policy magazine, commented: "The most important question the dossier raises is whether Trump colluded with Russia in its interference in the U.S. presidential election. That is crucial not just because it might constitute treason, but because if it did occur, that alone would amount to kompromat. Forget the prostitutes. If Trump and the Kremlin worked together, that fact alone gives Putin something with which to pressure Trump to act in Russia's interest." [1]
Sources
- ^ Ghitis, Frida (July 10, 2017). "Donald Trump's Russia Scandal Is Just Getting Started". Foreign Policy. Retrieved February 11, 2018.
BullRangifer - Hanh???? per request to talk, well did you maybe goofed or duped or are in flux edits since you reverted two edits in a row with the same tagline ???
My edit was not on a longstanding content, but I'm here per request.
My change was removing the bottom most section of Reactions, on basis of appears as a later speculation not a reaction for the dossier, and also seemed a photobomb or quotefarm or maybe remnant of recent edits.
That content is not present and there is a major difference of section the end of January 2018 (or similar for at least 8 months before ...)
The section gets a lot more content/edits and this specific subsection gets appended by the end of February
After what looks like lots of BullRangifer edits in a couple months ... The Reactions section is much much larger and different by 28 April 2018
But seeing the 2 May version, I see the Reactions subsection "Reactions to specific allegations" has only the subsubsection "Allegation of collusion with Russia" with only one paragraph of a Frida Ghitis quote, one where she seems saying forget the dossier content we have a bigger topic now.
To me that's a remnant bit and now thin content to have two levels of section, so maybe a remnant. In any case, it seems not a reaction to any specific allegation of the dossier so does not match the section titles, and does not seem a significant part for the dossier article -- seemed just a stray quote of nto large note.
So ... delete ? Still oppose ? RSVP. Markbassett ( talk) 05:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
My very best wishes and SPECIFICO, the only reason I haven't restored it is respect for 1RR since I've already done it once. Anyone else can do it since the deletion is a DS violation. Go for it. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 14:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
BullRangifer - please, no requesting help to get around 1RR -- just wait the day out and meanwhile TALK. This is about you did two deletions in a row with the same tagline so I asked why mine (the second) that removed the final section and para since the tagline about NeilN was not making a lot of sense, so I came to TALK as the tag said, to ask about what is going on.
Basically we have a section "Reactions to specific allegations" that has been edited down to almost nothing left, just has a subsection "Allegation of collusion with Russia" that has only one paragraph. And that paragraph seems not particularly substantial or prominent or even responding to any of the dossier allegations. 'Collusion' seems a dogwhistle that came later and not presented in the article as said in the dossier. (Though mostly the article is all about he-said she-said gossip rather than dossier content.) So BullRangifer, please clarify why this revert, and I'd suggest maybe just letting it go? Markbassett ( talk) 02:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
FYI: I added the content where it belongs:
However, in a May 4, 2018 court hearing, Federal District Court judge T.S. Ellis — who is set to preside over Manafort's trial — excoriated the special counsel, challenging whether the charges against Manafort arose from the Mueller investigation exceeding the scope of its investigative authority. Ellis issued no ruling, but demanded the Justice Department provide him with an unredacted version of the August 2016 Rosenstein memo authorizing the special counsel to pursue lines of investigation and prosecution relating to Manafort's payments from Ukrainian officials. Despite the judge's sharp rebuke, Politico reported, "At times, the judge suggested he may conclude that Mueller's initial jurisdiction when he was appointed last May was effectively expanded at a later point to cover the case he brought against Manafort in Virginia in February." soibangla ( talk) 21:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I added this to the Manafort denials subsection.
The federal judge hearing the charges against Manafort expressed skepticism about the scope of the Mueller investigation, [1] suggesting that the charges against Manafort were unrelated to Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign or possible collusion with Russia [2] and that the goal of the charges was to oust Trump from office. [3] [additional suggestion] The judge said Mueller's office might still have the authority to bring the charges even without such a connection, but questioned why the charges had been kept with the special counsel's office when other unrelated charges involving Stormy Daniels had been referred to an outside prosecutor. [4]
References
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
None of the charges relate, however, to Trump's 2016 presidential campaign or possible collusion with Russia. Trump has denied any collusion.
A federal judge expressed deep skepticism Friday in the bank fraud case brought by special counsel Robert Mueller's office against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, at one point saying he believes that Mueller's motivation is to oust President Donald Trump from office.
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
He said even without such a connection the special counsel, which is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election, may well still have the authority to bring the charges. "I'm not saying it's illegitimate," Ellis said. But the judge did question why an investigation into Trump attorney Michael Cohen was handed over to federal prosecutors in New York, while the Manafort case was kept with the special counsel.
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
Thoughts? Factchecker_atyourservice 17:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Ah, OK. I was adding some text about the goal being to get Manafort to "sing" against Trump, but I guess it's irrelevant anyway because this is apparently
UNDUE.
Marek, no, I wasn't complaining about recentism, I was talking about the shaky and explicitly uncorroborated nature of the other report which Mueller's office seems to have almost specifically called false, not the fact that it was recent. I was also complaining about the failure to represent an entire year's worth of fact coverage saying there's no public evidence of collusion, but again—not a NOTNEWS complaint, more like a WP:FAILURETOREFLECTREALITY complaint. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
The judge's skepticism about Mueller's scope is not relevant to Manafort's specific denials soibangla ( talk) 17:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
This is not a NEWSPAPER and there is no need to rush thing to print. Let the story develop and gather in all the facts, not just opinions, and then think about changing the article. C. W. Gilmore ( talk) 18:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Seems relevant to the manifold section already in the article and well sourced. But I would give it a few days to see if anything develops and then pop it in. PackMecEng ( talk) 18:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok, but I think the diffs show that the single explicitly unconfirmed report from one news agency alleging evidence of a criminal conspiracy was added to the article less than two hours after it first broke? Factchecker_atyourservice 18:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh lord, "weasel" out of this? Again, the "Key roles of Manafort, Cohen, and Page" section says: "That then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort had 'managed' the 'conspiracy of co-operation'".
There's only one conspiracy of cooperation discussed in the article, it's the Trump/Russia conspiracy, and it's just been claimed in the previous paragraph to be "a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership"; the dossier is literally saying that Manafort was in charge of running it; and our article repeats things in considerable detail.
Regarding the BBC source it specifically had an "ANALYSIS" section that said the partisan bickering over whether the House investigation had gone far enough showed that no clear evidence had emerged: "That these are the key questions is good news for the Trump administration - an admission that no clear-cut evidence of 'collusion' has been unearthed." Yet you accused me here here and here of making "straight up misrepresentation" of the source. Regarding the separate quibble about the one Reuters source, it was a simple and inconsequential mistake about the date of the source, which made no difference because there was plenty of fresh 2018 sourcing, and I never accused you of "misrepresenting" anything. Factchecker_atyourservice 00:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
@ Volunteer Marek: Strike this as an ignorant personal attack. You have no clue what you are talking about.
I haven't been making mistakes other than the one inconsequential April 2017/April 2018 date mix up that was inconsequential. You know what inconsequential means, right? It had no impact on any of the article content we were discussing.
The dossier quotes in the article clearly claim that Manafort managed Trump's alleged Russian conspiracy, and they clearly claim he received kickback payments from the Ukraine pres. I have already both pointed this out and explicitly quoted it.
Your repeated and debunked accusations of dishonesty are a waste of time and they are uncivil and unproductive. Factchecker_atyourservice 14:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the mistake was inconsequential. As I've explained repeatedly, the only reason I included sources from 2017 was to show that TOP RS FACT SOURCES started saying waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in 2017 (over one WP:RECENT year ago!) that there was NO PUBLIC EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION. The fact sourcing from 2018 includes NYT, WaPo, BBC. These are top outlets.
Saying "news outlets have reported that" is just attributing things because I rarely put anything in WP editorial voice. Heavy attribution is a good and responsible method of writing articles and news reports about controversial matters should rarely be unattributed.
Anti-Trump article material is copy-pasted from a single weaker straight into WP editorial voice to to satisfy editors' desires to represent Trump in the most negative possible light, would you prefer we do that here? E.g.
In February 2017, some details related to conversations "solely between foreign nationals" were independently verified. Some of those individuals were known to be "heavily involved" in efforts to damage Clinton and help Trump. The conversations "took place between the same individuals on the same days and from the same locations as detailed in the dossier", giving US intelligence and law enforcement "greater confidence" in the credibility of parts of the document.
That's almost 75 words about "corroboration" from one CNN source not even attributed to the source, and it's just stated as a straight fact in the lead even though it's citing unnamed sources talking about the "confidence" of unnamed investigators. So if there were additional sources backing that up and an editor wrote "news agencies reported that", you'd call it "misrepresentation", but with just one source straight copied into WP voice that's OK?
So shall we just say "No clear-cut evidence of 'collusion' has been unearthed" (BBC, March 13) or "there is no public evidence at this time that Trump campaign staff directly sought to aid Russian interference efforts" (WaPo, Feb 23) or "as yet there is still no public evidence of a direct link between President Trump himself and the Kremlin" (NYT Jan 9) and just state it in straight up WP voice? These are all better sources than CNN. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I'm totally trying hide that sentence from the New York Times, and that's why I added a sentence to this freaking WP article that said The Times also reported that despite extensive evidence of links between Trump associates and Russian intelligence operatives, there is no known evidence of a direct link between Trump and the Kremlin. And also posted it on the talk page in my proposed content. It's the third freaking sentence. Jesus, you're dense.
The relevance of the block quote is obvious despite your playing dumb. It's a 70+ word series of quotes and paraphrasing from a single CNN article from early 2017, unattributed, right in the lead. So if your only problem is the wording of my attribution ("news agencies have reported that")—then we can just cite those fact sources as straight WP editorial voice, which apparently is not an problem for other content in the article.
So we can just say No clear-cut evidence of 'collusion' has been unearthed (BBC, March 13) or there is no public evidence at this time that Trump campaign staff directly sought to aid Russian interference efforts" (WaPo, Feb 23) or "despite extensive evidence linking Mr. Trump’s associates to Russian government and intelligence operatives, as yet there is still no public evidence of a direct link between President Trump himself and the Kremlin" (NYT Jan 9).
Oh no, wait, I'm sure those paraphrases misrepresent the sources in some crucial way, right? And then we'll have to have alllllllll kinds of blather about my evil intent . So to avoid all that important chatter about me we could just quote those sources verbatim. Factchecker_atyourservice 02:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
I get that people don't like RS fact coverage summarizing the lack of public evidence, but at least don't use SYNTH stringing crap together to show "possible confirmations of collusion" when there is plenty of top quality sourcing that says what the Mueller questions mean regarding the collusion claims. User:Soibangla please immediately revert this badly written prose that is not supported by consensus. Factchecker_atyourservice 20:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Despite my edit summary, "possible confirmations of collusion" does not appear in the edit. What appears in the edit are three indications of investigators suspecting coordination, soliciting assistance and outreach by Trump associates. soibangla ( talk) 21:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
The problems are clear. There is no reason to stitch together two CNN sources from 12 and 7 months ago alongside a NYT piece that came out 2 days ago. As I said, there is plenty of coverage where a single source will summarize the significance of these questions and the new collusion evidence they possibly point to. Thus no need for SYNTH using the 2 old CNN sources to explain the significance of the NYT source. Factchecker_atyourservice 22:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
All of you - WP:NOTAFORUM. Another useless section. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 22:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
I just goofed and restored a deletion of a large amount of content. The total number of bytes fooled me. I now see it was a combination of two of Soibangla's additions added a few hours ago, in fact the subject of this thread. My bad. I have therefore self-reverted. Carry on, as consensus is needed to restore this content. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 04:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree with User:My very best wishes that "no reasonable rationale for excluding it was provided above." Would others like to provide reasonable rationale or should the edit be restored? soibangla ( talk) 19:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello? *tap tap* — Is this thing on?
PROPOSAL: Prepend two sentences and restore this edit:
The New York Times reported on February 14, 2017, that phone records and communications intercepts showed that Trump associates — including members of the Trump campaign — had "repeated contacts" with senior Russian intelligence officials during the 2016 campaign. Paul Manafort was the only Trump associate who was specifically identified as participating in these communications. CNN reported on March 23, 2017 that the FBI was examining "human intelligence, travel, business and phone records and accounts of in-person meetings" indicating that Trump associates may have coordinated with "suspected Russian operatives" to release damaging information about the Hillary Clinton campaign. CNN reported on September 19, 2017 that Manafort had been a target of a FISA wiretap both before and after the 2016 election, extending into early 2017. Some of the intercepted communications raised concerns among investigators that Manafort had solicited assistance from Russians for the campaign, although the evidence was reportedly inconclusive. On April 30, 2018 The New York Times published a list of interview questions for Trump that the Mueller investigation had provided to the president's attorneys. Among the questions was, "What knowledge did you have of any outreach by your campaign, including by Paul Manafort, to Russia about potential assistance to the campaign?"
soibangla ( talk) 17:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
"The officials interviewed in recent weeks said that, so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation."and
"The F.B.I. has spent several months investigating the leads in the dossier, but has yet to confirm any of its most explosive claims."BTW, wasn't this the piece Comey commented in public testimony, saying the report is not accurate?
"though officials cautioned that the information was not conclusive and that the investigation is ongoing ... One law enforcement official said ... But other U.S. officials who spoke to CNN say it's premature to draw that inference from the information gathered so far since it's largely circumstantial."It is somewhat suspicious that CNN apparently does not have a followup to the story.
The dossier stated "there was a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership. This was managed on the TRUMP side by the Republican candidate’s campaign manager, Paul MANAFORT, who was using foreign policy advisor, Carter PAGE, and others as intermediaries." The New York Times reported on February 14, 2017, that phone records and communications intercepts showed that Trump associates — including members of the Trump campaign — had "repeated contacts" with senior Russian intelligence officials during the 2016 campaign. Paul Manafort was the only Trump associate who was specifically identified as participating in these communications. CNN reported on March 23, 2017 that the FBI was examining "human intelligence, travel, business and phone records and accounts of in-person meetings" indicating that Trump associates may have coordinated with "suspected Russian operatives" to release damaging information about the Hillary Clinton campaign. CNN reported on September 19, 2017 that Manafort had been a target of a FISA wiretap both before and after the 2016 election, extending into early 2017. Some of the intercepted communications raised concerns among investigators that Manafort had solicited assistance from Russians for the campaign, although the evidence was reportedly inconclusive. On April 30, 2018 The New York Times published a list of interview questions for Trump that the Mueller investigation had provided to the president's attorneys. Among the questions was, "What knowledge did you have of any outreach by your campaign, including by Paul Manafort, to Russia about potential assistance to the campaign?"
soibangla ( talk) 17:29, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
(inserting break since prior thread got retitled, discussion inserted at top and has gone from 'Bullrangifer what was that revert series about', and to discuss the mentioned item seperately) Markbassett ( talk) 02:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
User:NeilN -- is the cite to you as a guide making sense for this case? I think he's referring to your line "Reminder: Consensus-required also applies to removing long-standing material. While the definition of long-standing can vary from admin to admin, I take it to be more than four to six weeks on highly-edited, highly-watched articles like this." The last para was part of a bunch of Reaction put in early this year and a lot of edits -- it's the only bit left of those and I didn't see your comment as a top note or know if you meant it for wide use. RSVP. Markbassett ( talk) 00:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
"Restoring longstanding content is okay, per NeilN's interpretation of DS. Deletion of that is then not OK. Deal with this on the talk page."
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Continued from #Criminal referrals connected to dossier
Phmoreno added a paragraph cited only to desantis.house.gov, a primary source, here: [1]. I removed it here as lacking independent third-party citation. Phmoreno re-added it here: [2], and I removed it I again here [3] reminding him to get talkpage consensus for challenged material. He re-added it a third time here [4], with an edit summary of "Already agreed upon in Talk". Can someone show me where this material cited only to desantis.house.gov is agreed up on this page? GreyGoose ( talk) 03:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Phmoreno Please, revert. I also do not agree with your edit. Casprings ( talk) 04:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
An April 18, 2018 letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions signed by several House Republicans referred James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Sally Yates, Dana Boente for criminal investigation related to use of the unverified information in the dossier in a FISA warrant on Carter Page. Hillary Clinton was named for failing to properly disclose payments to Fusion GPS in violation of Federal Election Commission law. [4]
Okay, here are four solid RS:
BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 14:42, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
"Haven't you noticed that punditry and news reporting are clearly separated on those other sites? There is no real separation on Fox News, with the exception of Shep Smith."
"Study the history of Fox News and why Roger Ailes created it."Has nothing to do with today, sorry. Look at the history of CNN and why Ted Turner created it. It's a far, sorry cry from the original vision and intent. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
BR, please use the sources-talk template following the last of your cited sources. It's much neater and doesn't follow us all over the TP. I also want to mention that reverting the material added by
Phmoreno was unnecessary. We can use primary sources when including specific facts: Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred.
I did not detect any OR in the added material. Regardless, if there is an issue with the use of a primary source, we don't automatically revert the material - we use an inline tag such as the primary source-inline or better source templates. Also keep in mind that
Winkelvi is correct in that FoxNews is an acceptable RS for citing that material, so please stop referring to the
leading news network as unreliable. Granted, some of the things the network's political pundits say are questionable but that applies to all political pundits regardless of the network. Let's not conflate it with news.
Atsme
📞
📧
15:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
I added the following:
Within the first year of publishing the dossier, BuzzFeed was sued on three separate occassions for defamation related to dissemination of the dossier. The first lawsuit was filed in February 2017 by Aleksej Gubarev, a Russian internet businessman, the second was filed in late May 2017 by Russian bank, Alfa-Bank, [1] and the third was filed in early January 2018 by Michael Cohen, Trump's personal attorney who also sued Fusion GPS in a separate lawsuit. [2] Cohen dropped both of his lawsuits in late April 2018 [3] after he became the subject of a criminal investigation for his business dealings. [4]
Sources
- ^ Beavers, Olivia (2017-05-26). "Russian bank owners sue BuzzFeed over publishing dossier". TheHill. Retrieved 2018-04-29.
- ^ Brito, Christopher (2018-01-10). ""Enough is enough": Trump lawyer files lawsuit against BuzzFeed over Russia dossier". CBS News. Retrieved 2018-04-29.
- ^ Polantz, Katelyn (2018-04-19). "Cohen drops defamation suits over infamous dossier". CNN. Retrieved 2018-04-29.
- ^ Polantz, Katelyn; Scannell, Kara; Jones, Julia (2018-04-13). "DOJ: Michael Cohen 'under criminal investigation'". CNN. Retrieved 2018-04-29.
My edit was reverted with the following edit summary: (this does not belong in this key paragraph of the lede, which remains under discussion for consensus, and the edit is highly disruptive to reaching that consensus, and it certainly doesn't deserve this degree of detail here). I disagree with Soibangla's argument, or that it is in any way disruptive, or that is has anything to do with any consensus discussion that may be taking place. The material I added can stand on it's own. Will it be necessary for me to call an RfC? Atsme 📞 📧 00:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
"The material I added can stand on it's own" Yet you appended it to a completely unrelated graf that is being actively debated for consensus, thus complicating the debate. At most it deserves a one-sentence graf, but even then, the topic does not warrant being in the lede, it's a minor item soibangla ( talk) 02:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Not in lead One, the Cohn lawsuit was dropped. Second, they aren't noteworthy. People can sue in America. Nothing noteworthy has come from these lawsuits. WP:UNDUE, especially for the lead. Casprings ( talk) 03:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't belong in the lead for the reasons others have stated. There's no independent significance to a private party filing a civil lawsuit—it literally takes submitting a complaint and the filing fee to the court—so I don't see how the material is important enough to belong in the lead, nor how it could be argued to provide balance. Dyrnych ( talk) 16:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
I see two different discussions going on here, and they are getting mixed up. Some people (including Atsme's initial proposal) are talking about the lede; some are talking about the lawsuit section in the body of the article. Please let's make it clear, when we make a comment, which we are talking about. 1) What, if anything, should be in the lede about the lawsuits? Should there be a detailed description of each lawsuit as Atsme proposed, or a single sentence summarizing the fact that there have been civil lawsuits filed, or no mention at all in the lede? My preference: no mention. 2) Should the existing four five paragraph "Litigation" section in the article text be retained, or should the section be made shorter because "lawsuits resulted in nothing"? My preference: retain, and update as new developments occur. --
MelanieN (
talk) 16:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC) P.S. Re updating: Somebody please add the fact that Cohen dropped his lawsuits.
[5]
[6] I don't have time to do it myself. --
MelanieN (
talk)
17:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Everybody seems to sue everyone these days. If suits don’t result in some action that is notable, they aren’t notable. Nothing in the lede and one sentence each max in the body. O3000 ( talk) 17:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Agree. My rule of thumb is that if something is notable enough for its own section, it most likely should be mentioned in the lead. See WP:CREATELEAD. A sentence should do the job. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 22:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
I have removed the following paragraph:
Contrary to assertions by Trump and his supporters that the FBI investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections was triggered by the dossier, the Nunes memo confirmed the investigation began with a tip from Australian diplomat Alexander Downer regarding a conversation he had with Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos in a London bar in May 2016. [1] [2]
The first source, NY Times, does not address the Republicans' allegation and the second (NPR) is not faithfully represented. My understanding is that the Republicans allege the dossier was used to support the FISA warrant on Page, which the NPR source confirms: "The document alleges that the FBI and Justice Department relied on the unverified Russia dossier [...] to obtain court approval for surveillance on [...] Carter Page." This is distinct from the claim that the dossier triggered any and all investigation by the FBI into Russian interference.
I believe the Republican allegations and relevant circumstances and contradictions should be included so my removal is temporary pending accurate and consensus wording. James J. Lambden ( talk) 20:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Off topic misunderstanding by an editor
|
---|
::
Factchecker_atyourservice, ummm....try reading the article: #Subject of Nunes memo. The Gowdy/Face the Nation content has been there a very long time. --
BullRangifer (
talk) PingMe
06:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
|
References
LaFraniere_Mazzetti_Apuzzo_12/30/2017
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).This has been in the article for a long time and should stay. Why this matters: because there is a Republican meme, often referred to by Trump and others such as Hannity, that the Democrat-funded dossier was the whole reason why the investigation was launched. In other words it was a setup from the beginning, a witch hunt, a Democratic plot against Trump. The NYT reference does refer to this claim, saying the memo confirms that the origin of the investigation "was not, as Mr. Trump and other politicians have alleged, a dossier compiled by a former British spy hired by a rival campaign". The New Yorker also spells it out: "The right-wing argument goes that Clinton operatives cooked up a scandalous piece of fiction, got Steele to pass it along to some Trump-haters in the F.B.I., who then persuaded their bosses at the Justice Department to open an investigation, and here we are, eighteen months later, with Robert Mueller and his investigators hounding an innocent President." [7] That’s why it’s important that a Republican-issued memo specifically pointed out that the dossier was NOT the reason for launching the investigation. I suggest readding the material to the article, with the addition of the New Yorker reference after the first clause. In other words,
Contrary to assertions by Trump and some of his supporters that the FBI investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections was triggered by the dossier, [1] the Nunes memo confirmed that the investigation actually began with a tip from Australian diplomat Alexander Downer regarding a conversation he had with Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos in a London bar in May 2016. [2] [3]
References
- ^ Cassidy, John (February 2, 2018). "The Nunes memo undermines the Right's Trump-Russia conspiracy theory". The New Yorker. Retrieved 28 April 2018.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
LaFraniere_Mazzetti_Apuzzo_12/30/2017
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).- ^ Lucas, Ryan (February 2, 2018). "Nunes Memo: What's In It And What's Not". NPR. Retrieved April 23, 2018.
Thoughts? -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Just a few comments. First and foremost, as a strictly factual matter and not getting lost in all the different things people have argued, we need to separate at least 6 arguments among what the sources say, not that we necessarily talk about them all but just so we're not mixing them up: (1) that the Russia investigation would not have occurred at all without the dossier, (2) that there was political influence on the conduct of the Mueller investigation, (3) that the dossier had significant influence on the Mueller investigation, (4) that Carter page would not have been investigated at all without the dossier, (5) that the Page FISA warrant would not have issued without the dossier, (6) that the Page FISA warrant would not have issued if the Clinton connection had been fully disclosed.
All of these arguments are out there in sources, some are pretty roundly refuted, e.g. #1 is denied even by Trey Gowdy and #4 is at least undermined, if not necessarily contradicted, by reporting that Page was on intelligence agency radars before the dossier. For reference, those are the claims that no investigation would have occurred at all claims and those are the ones that are clearly refuted.
That said, there's a big difference between an investigation existing and it blossoming into what it has blossomed into, and it's various forms of this latter blossoming that most critics are talking about when they complain about political influence and use of the dossier. So, that still leaves the other claims which, roughly speaking, all amount to the dossier being used to intensify the existing investigations, e.g. by allowing a wiretap of Carter page which, again according to Gowdy the House Intel Committee guy, would not have occurred without the dossier.
In order to fully understand why these claims are being made, first, a word about legal analysis of factual causation. This is just so we can understand it as editors, mind you, in a topic where a good chunk of the commentators are prosecutors or other government attorneys (once upon a time, most FBI Agents had law degrees). In the law, in analyzing the question of whether one thing caused another, if X would not have happened unless Y occurred, then Y caused X, even if Y was not the only factor that caused X. That is what people mean when they say the FISA warrant was caused by the dossier—as Gowdy said on the CBS interview program, the warrant wouldn't have been issued without the dossier. That's a paraphrasing of baseline legal logic known as "but-for" causation, i.e. no warrant "but for" the dossier. That means, if Gowdy is correct, then without the dossier, the Page investigation might have never amounted to anything more than a collection of files on a DOJ share drive rather than a federal wiretap on a campaign operative of the political opponent of the person who (at the time, secretly) paid for the dossier, during campaign season—something that can fairly be regarded as an intrusion into the political process if there is some sign of influence in the process by which the intrusion was authorized.
Anyway the point of all this is that not all these claims are refuted and some are being made by prominent figures. For example positions 2 and 3 have been espoused by, e.g., the nat'l security expert and USA Today board of contributors member James S. Robbins whose opinion I reflected in the opinion section of the prose I added. Likewise from my prose, Richard A. Epstein, a well credentialed senior think tank fellow, argues in Newsweek, essentially rebuts the Democratic argument that the Clinton association was duly disclosed: "To be sure, the FISA application that relied on the Steele dossier did say that some political sources were involved in the case, without naming the Clinton campaign. Unfortunately, that partial disclosure only makes matters worse. A half-truth in a setting that requires full disclosure is deliberately deceptive and akin to a complete lie."
Yes, these guys are Republicans and Republicans are "right wing", but it is important not to characterize people like this along with Hannity, or to conflate refuted arguments with reasonable ones. I think it would also be nice if we could avoid characterize any of them as "ignorant" or dumb, as has been commonplace on articles such as these, and worse, making assumptions about who believes what, which is just pointless. Factchecker_atyourservice 01:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Reminder: Consensus-required also applies to removing long-standing material. While the definition of long-standing can vary from admin to admin, I take it to be more than four to six weeks on highly-edited, highly-watched articles like this. -- NeilN talk to me 01:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Keep: well sourced and relavent to the article. This page seems to be under attack from editors pushing a pro Trump narrative. Casprings ( talk) 02:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Keep - this is longstanding material, and I do not see any reason for deletion. Also agree with NeilN. Hence restored. My very best wishes ( talk) 04:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
"John Cassidy....is unreliable.Politrukki ( talk) 12:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
[responding to MelanieN (14:09, 29 April 2018)]
Melanie - what should be included is the fact that there was
no official investigation whatsoever that started the Russia investigation. Nunes said it was "based on a review of “electronic communication” from the FBI and the Justice Department"
which does belong in this article. The role of the Steele dossier appears to be headed in an entirely different direction. Let it incubate.
Atsme
📞
📧
17:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
"based on a review of “electronic communication” from the FBI and the Justice Department"? Atsme 📞 📧 21:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Atsme, you wrote: "...there was no official investigation whatsoever that started the Russia investigation,.." (I believe you are summarizing there.)
There were myriad pieces of information which raised suspicions and led to the investigation: The multiple, Trump campaign encouraged, Russian-related communications and contacts involving Papadopoulos and Carter Page (Page made a five-day trip to Moscow in early July), the hacking of the DNC, the June 9, 2016, Trump Tower meeting, other secret contacts between Trump campaign members and Russians, together with intercepted conversation between Russian nationals discussing their contacts with Trump campaign members, and other information shared by friendly foreign intelligence sources, all these were factors in the start of the investigation before the dossier even mentioned Carter Page, and it never mentioned Papadopoulos.
This is from this section: Trump–Russia dossier#FBI's Russia investigation:
This is an especially good source. Well worth reading. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 05:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
whether he had seen evidence of collusion, he stressed that the CIA’s business was intelligence rather than evidence and he could not make that judgment.There was no "official" intelligence conducted specifically to prove Trump colluded with Russia (and zero evidence to this day) which is why the FBI used the unsubstantiated Steele dossier to obtain FISA warrants. That fact is substantiated without the need to piecemeal sources using SYNTH. Atsme 📞 📧 21:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Frida Ghitis, writing in Foreign Policy magazine, commented: "The most important question the dossier raises is whether Trump colluded with Russia in its interference in the U.S. presidential election. That is crucial not just because it might constitute treason, but because if it did occur, that alone would amount to kompromat. Forget the prostitutes. If Trump and the Kremlin worked together, that fact alone gives Putin something with which to pressure Trump to act in Russia's interest." [1]
Sources
- ^ Ghitis, Frida (July 10, 2017). "Donald Trump's Russia Scandal Is Just Getting Started". Foreign Policy. Retrieved February 11, 2018.
BullRangifer - Hanh???? per request to talk, well did you maybe goofed or duped or are in flux edits since you reverted two edits in a row with the same tagline ???
My edit was not on a longstanding content, but I'm here per request.
My change was removing the bottom most section of Reactions, on basis of appears as a later speculation not a reaction for the dossier, and also seemed a photobomb or quotefarm or maybe remnant of recent edits.
That content is not present and there is a major difference of section the end of January 2018 (or similar for at least 8 months before ...)
The section gets a lot more content/edits and this specific subsection gets appended by the end of February
After what looks like lots of BullRangifer edits in a couple months ... The Reactions section is much much larger and different by 28 April 2018
But seeing the 2 May version, I see the Reactions subsection "Reactions to specific allegations" has only the subsubsection "Allegation of collusion with Russia" with only one paragraph of a Frida Ghitis quote, one where she seems saying forget the dossier content we have a bigger topic now.
To me that's a remnant bit and now thin content to have two levels of section, so maybe a remnant. In any case, it seems not a reaction to any specific allegation of the dossier so does not match the section titles, and does not seem a significant part for the dossier article -- seemed just a stray quote of nto large note.
So ... delete ? Still oppose ? RSVP. Markbassett ( talk) 05:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
My very best wishes and SPECIFICO, the only reason I haven't restored it is respect for 1RR since I've already done it once. Anyone else can do it since the deletion is a DS violation. Go for it. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 14:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
BullRangifer - please, no requesting help to get around 1RR -- just wait the day out and meanwhile TALK. This is about you did two deletions in a row with the same tagline so I asked why mine (the second) that removed the final section and para since the tagline about NeilN was not making a lot of sense, so I came to TALK as the tag said, to ask about what is going on.
Basically we have a section "Reactions to specific allegations" that has been edited down to almost nothing left, just has a subsection "Allegation of collusion with Russia" that has only one paragraph. And that paragraph seems not particularly substantial or prominent or even responding to any of the dossier allegations. 'Collusion' seems a dogwhistle that came later and not presented in the article as said in the dossier. (Though mostly the article is all about he-said she-said gossip rather than dossier content.) So BullRangifer, please clarify why this revert, and I'd suggest maybe just letting it go? Markbassett ( talk) 02:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
FYI: I added the content where it belongs:
However, in a May 4, 2018 court hearing, Federal District Court judge T.S. Ellis — who is set to preside over Manafort's trial — excoriated the special counsel, challenging whether the charges against Manafort arose from the Mueller investigation exceeding the scope of its investigative authority. Ellis issued no ruling, but demanded the Justice Department provide him with an unredacted version of the August 2016 Rosenstein memo authorizing the special counsel to pursue lines of investigation and prosecution relating to Manafort's payments from Ukrainian officials. Despite the judge's sharp rebuke, Politico reported, "At times, the judge suggested he may conclude that Mueller's initial jurisdiction when he was appointed last May was effectively expanded at a later point to cover the case he brought against Manafort in Virginia in February." soibangla ( talk) 21:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I added this to the Manafort denials subsection.
The federal judge hearing the charges against Manafort expressed skepticism about the scope of the Mueller investigation, [1] suggesting that the charges against Manafort were unrelated to Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign or possible collusion with Russia [2] and that the goal of the charges was to oust Trump from office. [3] [additional suggestion] The judge said Mueller's office might still have the authority to bring the charges even without such a connection, but questioned why the charges had been kept with the special counsel's office when other unrelated charges involving Stormy Daniels had been referred to an outside prosecutor. [4]
References
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
None of the charges relate, however, to Trump's 2016 presidential campaign or possible collusion with Russia. Trump has denied any collusion.
A federal judge expressed deep skepticism Friday in the bank fraud case brought by special counsel Robert Mueller's office against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, at one point saying he believes that Mueller's motivation is to oust President Donald Trump from office.
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
He said even without such a connection the special counsel, which is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election, may well still have the authority to bring the charges. "I'm not saying it's illegitimate," Ellis said. But the judge did question why an investigation into Trump attorney Michael Cohen was handed over to federal prosecutors in New York, while the Manafort case was kept with the special counsel.
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
Thoughts? Factchecker_atyourservice 17:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Ah, OK. I was adding some text about the goal being to get Manafort to "sing" against Trump, but I guess it's irrelevant anyway because this is apparently
UNDUE.
Marek, no, I wasn't complaining about recentism, I was talking about the shaky and explicitly uncorroborated nature of the other report which Mueller's office seems to have almost specifically called false, not the fact that it was recent. I was also complaining about the failure to represent an entire year's worth of fact coverage saying there's no public evidence of collusion, but again—not a NOTNEWS complaint, more like a WP:FAILURETOREFLECTREALITY complaint. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
The judge's skepticism about Mueller's scope is not relevant to Manafort's specific denials soibangla ( talk) 17:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
This is not a NEWSPAPER and there is no need to rush thing to print. Let the story develop and gather in all the facts, not just opinions, and then think about changing the article. C. W. Gilmore ( talk) 18:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Seems relevant to the manifold section already in the article and well sourced. But I would give it a few days to see if anything develops and then pop it in. PackMecEng ( talk) 18:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok, but I think the diffs show that the single explicitly unconfirmed report from one news agency alleging evidence of a criminal conspiracy was added to the article less than two hours after it first broke? Factchecker_atyourservice 18:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh lord, "weasel" out of this? Again, the "Key roles of Manafort, Cohen, and Page" section says: "That then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort had 'managed' the 'conspiracy of co-operation'".
There's only one conspiracy of cooperation discussed in the article, it's the Trump/Russia conspiracy, and it's just been claimed in the previous paragraph to be "a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership"; the dossier is literally saying that Manafort was in charge of running it; and our article repeats things in considerable detail.
Regarding the BBC source it specifically had an "ANALYSIS" section that said the partisan bickering over whether the House investigation had gone far enough showed that no clear evidence had emerged: "That these are the key questions is good news for the Trump administration - an admission that no clear-cut evidence of 'collusion' has been unearthed." Yet you accused me here here and here of making "straight up misrepresentation" of the source. Regarding the separate quibble about the one Reuters source, it was a simple and inconsequential mistake about the date of the source, which made no difference because there was plenty of fresh 2018 sourcing, and I never accused you of "misrepresenting" anything. Factchecker_atyourservice 00:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
@ Volunteer Marek: Strike this as an ignorant personal attack. You have no clue what you are talking about.
I haven't been making mistakes other than the one inconsequential April 2017/April 2018 date mix up that was inconsequential. You know what inconsequential means, right? It had no impact on any of the article content we were discussing.
The dossier quotes in the article clearly claim that Manafort managed Trump's alleged Russian conspiracy, and they clearly claim he received kickback payments from the Ukraine pres. I have already both pointed this out and explicitly quoted it.
Your repeated and debunked accusations of dishonesty are a waste of time and they are uncivil and unproductive. Factchecker_atyourservice 14:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the mistake was inconsequential. As I've explained repeatedly, the only reason I included sources from 2017 was to show that TOP RS FACT SOURCES started saying waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in 2017 (over one WP:RECENT year ago!) that there was NO PUBLIC EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION. The fact sourcing from 2018 includes NYT, WaPo, BBC. These are top outlets.
Saying "news outlets have reported that" is just attributing things because I rarely put anything in WP editorial voice. Heavy attribution is a good and responsible method of writing articles and news reports about controversial matters should rarely be unattributed.
Anti-Trump article material is copy-pasted from a single weaker straight into WP editorial voice to to satisfy editors' desires to represent Trump in the most negative possible light, would you prefer we do that here? E.g.
In February 2017, some details related to conversations "solely between foreign nationals" were independently verified. Some of those individuals were known to be "heavily involved" in efforts to damage Clinton and help Trump. The conversations "took place between the same individuals on the same days and from the same locations as detailed in the dossier", giving US intelligence and law enforcement "greater confidence" in the credibility of parts of the document.
That's almost 75 words about "corroboration" from one CNN source not even attributed to the source, and it's just stated as a straight fact in the lead even though it's citing unnamed sources talking about the "confidence" of unnamed investigators. So if there were additional sources backing that up and an editor wrote "news agencies reported that", you'd call it "misrepresentation", but with just one source straight copied into WP voice that's OK?
So shall we just say "No clear-cut evidence of 'collusion' has been unearthed" (BBC, March 13) or "there is no public evidence at this time that Trump campaign staff directly sought to aid Russian interference efforts" (WaPo, Feb 23) or "as yet there is still no public evidence of a direct link between President Trump himself and the Kremlin" (NYT Jan 9) and just state it in straight up WP voice? These are all better sources than CNN. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I'm totally trying hide that sentence from the New York Times, and that's why I added a sentence to this freaking WP article that said The Times also reported that despite extensive evidence of links between Trump associates and Russian intelligence operatives, there is no known evidence of a direct link between Trump and the Kremlin. And also posted it on the talk page in my proposed content. It's the third freaking sentence. Jesus, you're dense.
The relevance of the block quote is obvious despite your playing dumb. It's a 70+ word series of quotes and paraphrasing from a single CNN article from early 2017, unattributed, right in the lead. So if your only problem is the wording of my attribution ("news agencies have reported that")—then we can just cite those fact sources as straight WP editorial voice, which apparently is not an problem for other content in the article.
So we can just say No clear-cut evidence of 'collusion' has been unearthed (BBC, March 13) or there is no public evidence at this time that Trump campaign staff directly sought to aid Russian interference efforts" (WaPo, Feb 23) or "despite extensive evidence linking Mr. Trump’s associates to Russian government and intelligence operatives, as yet there is still no public evidence of a direct link between President Trump himself and the Kremlin" (NYT Jan 9).
Oh no, wait, I'm sure those paraphrases misrepresent the sources in some crucial way, right? And then we'll have to have alllllllll kinds of blather about my evil intent . So to avoid all that important chatter about me we could just quote those sources verbatim. Factchecker_atyourservice 02:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
I get that people don't like RS fact coverage summarizing the lack of public evidence, but at least don't use SYNTH stringing crap together to show "possible confirmations of collusion" when there is plenty of top quality sourcing that says what the Mueller questions mean regarding the collusion claims. User:Soibangla please immediately revert this badly written prose that is not supported by consensus. Factchecker_atyourservice 20:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Despite my edit summary, "possible confirmations of collusion" does not appear in the edit. What appears in the edit are three indications of investigators suspecting coordination, soliciting assistance and outreach by Trump associates. soibangla ( talk) 21:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
The problems are clear. There is no reason to stitch together two CNN sources from 12 and 7 months ago alongside a NYT piece that came out 2 days ago. As I said, there is plenty of coverage where a single source will summarize the significance of these questions and the new collusion evidence they possibly point to. Thus no need for SYNTH using the 2 old CNN sources to explain the significance of the NYT source. Factchecker_atyourservice 22:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
All of you - WP:NOTAFORUM. Another useless section. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 22:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
I just goofed and restored a deletion of a large amount of content. The total number of bytes fooled me. I now see it was a combination of two of Soibangla's additions added a few hours ago, in fact the subject of this thread. My bad. I have therefore self-reverted. Carry on, as consensus is needed to restore this content. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 04:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree with User:My very best wishes that "no reasonable rationale for excluding it was provided above." Would others like to provide reasonable rationale or should the edit be restored? soibangla ( talk) 19:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello? *tap tap* — Is this thing on?
PROPOSAL: Prepend two sentences and restore this edit:
The New York Times reported on February 14, 2017, that phone records and communications intercepts showed that Trump associates — including members of the Trump campaign — had "repeated contacts" with senior Russian intelligence officials during the 2016 campaign. Paul Manafort was the only Trump associate who was specifically identified as participating in these communications. CNN reported on March 23, 2017 that the FBI was examining "human intelligence, travel, business and phone records and accounts of in-person meetings" indicating that Trump associates may have coordinated with "suspected Russian operatives" to release damaging information about the Hillary Clinton campaign. CNN reported on September 19, 2017 that Manafort had been a target of a FISA wiretap both before and after the 2016 election, extending into early 2017. Some of the intercepted communications raised concerns among investigators that Manafort had solicited assistance from Russians for the campaign, although the evidence was reportedly inconclusive. On April 30, 2018 The New York Times published a list of interview questions for Trump that the Mueller investigation had provided to the president's attorneys. Among the questions was, "What knowledge did you have of any outreach by your campaign, including by Paul Manafort, to Russia about potential assistance to the campaign?"
soibangla ( talk) 17:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
"The officials interviewed in recent weeks said that, so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation."and
"The F.B.I. has spent several months investigating the leads in the dossier, but has yet to confirm any of its most explosive claims."BTW, wasn't this the piece Comey commented in public testimony, saying the report is not accurate?
"though officials cautioned that the information was not conclusive and that the investigation is ongoing ... One law enforcement official said ... But other U.S. officials who spoke to CNN say it's premature to draw that inference from the information gathered so far since it's largely circumstantial."It is somewhat suspicious that CNN apparently does not have a followup to the story.
The dossier stated "there was a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership. This was managed on the TRUMP side by the Republican candidate’s campaign manager, Paul MANAFORT, who was using foreign policy advisor, Carter PAGE, and others as intermediaries." The New York Times reported on February 14, 2017, that phone records and communications intercepts showed that Trump associates — including members of the Trump campaign — had "repeated contacts" with senior Russian intelligence officials during the 2016 campaign. Paul Manafort was the only Trump associate who was specifically identified as participating in these communications. CNN reported on March 23, 2017 that the FBI was examining "human intelligence, travel, business and phone records and accounts of in-person meetings" indicating that Trump associates may have coordinated with "suspected Russian operatives" to release damaging information about the Hillary Clinton campaign. CNN reported on September 19, 2017 that Manafort had been a target of a FISA wiretap both before and after the 2016 election, extending into early 2017. Some of the intercepted communications raised concerns among investigators that Manafort had solicited assistance from Russians for the campaign, although the evidence was reportedly inconclusive. On April 30, 2018 The New York Times published a list of interview questions for Trump that the Mueller investigation had provided to the president's attorneys. Among the questions was, "What knowledge did you have of any outreach by your campaign, including by Paul Manafort, to Russia about potential assistance to the campaign?"
soibangla ( talk) 17:29, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
(inserting break since prior thread got retitled, discussion inserted at top and has gone from 'Bullrangifer what was that revert series about', and to discuss the mentioned item seperately) Markbassett ( talk) 02:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
User:NeilN -- is the cite to you as a guide making sense for this case? I think he's referring to your line "Reminder: Consensus-required also applies to removing long-standing material. While the definition of long-standing can vary from admin to admin, I take it to be more than four to six weeks on highly-edited, highly-watched articles like this." The last para was part of a bunch of Reaction put in early this year and a lot of edits -- it's the only bit left of those and I didn't see your comment as a top note or know if you meant it for wide use. RSVP. Markbassett ( talk) 00:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
"Restoring longstanding content is okay, per NeilN's interpretation of DS. Deletion of that is then not OK. Deal with this on the talk page."