Talk:2016 Democratic National Committee email leak

Restoring factual, relevant, evidentiary-based, well-documented edit that was gratuitously removed without appropriate 'Talk' section explanation. The text had been added to the bottom of the CyberSecurity section of the article

Jloiacon, have any secondary sources discussed the specific quote from congressional testimony that you would like to include? Coverage in secondary sources is required to establish due weight for inclusion and to avoid any original research or synthesis by Wikipedia editors when it comes to interpreting or assigning significance to primary sources, such as the congressional testimony in question.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging Snooganssnoogans Jloiacon What sort of approach gives more weight to secondary sources than a good primary one? Let's review how nonsensical this all is :

* This isn't a primary source as in a very technical, hard to follow, academic one, but a straight forward testimony.

* The hearing is an official government inquiry into the EXACT topic this article is about

* It is testimony straight from the horses's mouth - from the very company that were asked to carry out the investigation

* original research is totally irrelevant - how is any of this original research? OR would be your own findings or conclusions. That's not what that quote is.

* synthesis also does not apply. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source". None of this is going on, conclusions are not being inferred or implied, as the quote is a direct one and it's clear what is being said. Nobody is saying "Oh look, it shows it was a hoax!". What is being said is that there is no specific evidence of an actual hack or that one took place, because you know, Crowdstrike said exactly that...

* As for undue weight, you are again misrepresenting this WP principle. That quote doesn't change the overall context of the article nor does it change 99% of the rest of the context. It is one quote, buried deep within the page that provides just a tiny amount of clarity and balance to the article. How on earth is this providing undue weight? This isn't someone saying "Let me get back to you on that" and making out they never did, but it's a direct and open admission to a direct question.

* The article uses sources like this usnews.com - which makes absolutely no mention of where it's even getting the info it's reporting on. Or this commondreams.org which interview Shawn Henry himself, so those quotes are fine, but not direct quotes from his congressional testimony? So people on Wikipedia are too stupid to read quotes from a testimony, but not an article that condenses it for them in different ways? Can you see the hypocrisy??

* Most of the cyber security analysis section is comprised of sources NOT in the WP:RS list. Infact, let's analyse them:

1 Ref 46 Arstechnica - not an RS, here's the first paragraph: "We still don't know who he is or whether he works for the Russian government, but one thing is for sure: Guccifer 2.0—the nom de guerre of the person claiming he hacked the Democratic National Committee and published hundreds of pages that appeared to prove it—left behind fingerprints implicating a Russian-speaking person with a nostalgia for the country's lost Soviet era.". What top quality Wikipedeeing has been going on here! That one is getting removed

2 Ref 47 TechCrunch - RS list says to use a great deal of caution with this one, to no surprise as the entire article is conjecture that the sole hacker could be a Russian state agent, nothing even remotely conclusive here

3 Ref 48 Vice/Motherboard - the WP:RS list says there is no consensus & the link doesn't even work also. Removed.

4 Ref 49 ProvidenceJournal.com - not RS, one paragraph article just repeating unsourced assumptions from other outlets. Removed

5 Ref 50 Guardian - more conjecture and no conclusive evidence of any sort that the hack took place. The main source for this article says " Since the going theory of the DNC hack is that it was perpetrated by Russian government groups that then passed this information to propagandists or professional trolls to spread". Exactly, until we can show a hack and the date/time the hack took place, that's all this is, a theory.

6 Ref 51 Guardian - this is basically a regurgitated press release from the Clinton campaign. Again, absolutely no evidence the Russian government were behind the "hack".

7 Ref 52 NYT - not on the RS list (edit: it is, I missed it), and again, not one single piece of evidence that a "hack" took place. This is just a re-print of a WH press release

8 Ref 53 WashingtonPost - "Also unclear, the officials said, is the motivation, even if Russia is behind the leak". Same as above.

9 Ref 54 Vice - again, not on the RS list, maybe as per the article, this is the reason why?: "Almost two weeks ago, the US government took the rare step of publicly pointing the finger at the Russian government, accusing it of directing the recent string of hacks and data breaches. The intelligence community declined to explain how they reached their conclusion, and it's fair to assume they have data no one else can see."

10 Ref 55 Esquire - not on the RS list, and the entire article is "the government said it happened, we have to trust them. Seriously, read the article...".

11 Ref 56 Buzzfeed - on the RS caution list, and the article itself again provides no sources other than a reprint of a WPo article.

12 Ref 60 CBS - so a Comey quote as part of a CBS article is fine, but the direct quote from a primary source during a hearing is not. Can you see how this doesn't make sense?

13 Ref 61 Politifact: "We got the forensics from the pros that they hired which -- again, best practice is always to get access to the machines themselves, but this my folks tell me was an appropriate substitute," Comey said". Again, this secondary source quoting a primary is fine?

In short, the non-RS and dubious article references are going to be removed, and in a few days I'm going to add the Congressional testimony back in. There is no good reason it shouldn't be in there, other than you personally don't like it Apeholder (talk) 03:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

If you think that The New York Times is not a reliable source, that speaks to your lack of WP:COMPETENCE to edit this encyclopedia. It is not the job of Wikipedia editors to comb through congressional testimony to look for quotations that they find newsworthy; even if you could be trusted to accurately summarize the testimony, without coverage in reliable secondary sources there is no way for any of us to verify if the comment is significant.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

It looks like Apeholder and Jloiacon make valid well-explained points backed by RS already being used in the article, while the counter to that are one-liner false accusations and edit warring. I'm not seeing any proper argument or refutation against their point. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging:

1) The fact I missed the NYT on the list of the RS does not speak to my inability to offer worthy input to Wikipedia, it simply means that in flying through a long list of sources I simply missed it. Again, you are reaching with hyperbole here.

2) The idea that people are "coming through congressional testimony to look for quotations they find newsworthy" is pure nonsense. People are trying to provide a WP:POV, something which your blind refusal to enter a discussion about this indicates is something you are unwilling to provide. As I said above, this is a Congressional hearing held specifically covering the exact topic of this article, so the fact you're questioning the relevance makes me question your own WP:COMPETENCE. This hearing should help this article cut through any bias or prejudice, and only improve the accuracy of this article. There is simply no good reason to refuse to accept it.

3) Ask yourself this, is it a WP:POV to only include articles that only confirm the general premise of the article and absolutely NONE that provide any counter opinion? Not only that, but to rely on poor secondary sources that are mostly conjecture and opinion, some on the RS warning list, others re-prints of other articles and can't actually show the most basic premise they're trying to provide throws this entire article into disrepute.

4) Neutrality had the audacity today to revert this same edit claiming that the quote was cherry picked. I can use that exact logic for every other part of this article. Does it not seem convenient that every source says the same thing? How co-incidental that with the billions of people able to edit this site, the references used all agree. What are the odds?!? I also find it equally strange that talk has never piped up and reverted an edit someone provided to this page when that edit goes along with the narrative on here that the hack did happen (just that nobody can prove it).

5) This article is overrun with WP:Citation clutter as someone has basically used the ad populum argument - "It must obviously true if everyone is saying it! Look at all these inline references[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]". This tactic isn't fooling anyone. Will I get any pushback when I start going through the references one by one and ensuring the article mirrors the questionable opinion pieces passed off as fact? Something tells me I will.

6) Now to actually putting the direct quote back in. I have found a source from antiwar.com written by Ray McGovern. "What? How ludicrous!" I hear someone scoff. If Antiwar.com is not a credible enough source, then someone better get editing the plethora of articles I've already found on WP that used it as an inline reference. If it's good enough for all those other articles, then it's good enough for this one. "But I've never even heard of Ray McGovern!" I hear someone shriek. Someone's lack of knowledge of an author does not make it any less credible. McGovern is a former CIA analyst, routinely briefed the President and Secretary of State on a daily basis and already writes for various outlets in a professional capacity. "But this is a blog!" another person cries... Yes it is, and it's perfectly within the "professionals writing within their field" principle under WP:Blogs_as_sources. McGovern, in the blog, even mocks the exact scenario we are debating here: "if read carefully, even cyber neophytes can understand"

Another source I'm going to provide is a memo submitted to consortiumnews.com by Veteran Intelligence Professionals For Sanity, a think-tank setup by the above and other individuals.

I really hope we can put this discussion behind us and actually allow an excellent referential source to be added Apeholder (talk) 03:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Neither "RealClearInvestigations" nor "ConsortiumNews" nor VIPS is a reliable source, and the content you are proposing would be undue weight to a fringe view. Neutrality^talk 03:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

1 Firstly, I did not personally provide RCI as a source as I knew it would be immediately dismissed.

2 I did however provide ConsortiumNews.com. You say it's an unreliable source, who else but you is saying that? Where's your evidence for this blanket generalization? Is it because it's not in the RS list? Well, before you use that as a fallback - neither are half of the rest of the 'references' on this page either. Please provide some evidence that CN is not a good source.

3 ConsortiumNews was setup by the Pulitzer Prize winning author Robert Parry who was the first person to break the Iran-Contra affair. Yeah, that sounds like a really poor source!

4 If this was truly a fringe view, then this quote would be Congressional testimony of Alex Jones or David Ike.

5 It's not even a view or opinion - it's a direct quote - a statement of FACT - from a primary source in a Congressional hearing under oath. I really don't know how you can even suggest that it's a fringe PoV? Are you being serious right now?????

6 I'm providing extensive rebuttal to the nonsense provided here, the only replies I've had are pretty much one-liners.

7 How is it applying undue weight?? If that was the case, it would be an out of context, misrepresented snippet and huge parts of the article would be based around it. All we are trying to do here is add a direct quote. If you want to read into something, then that is unpreventable and on the part of the WP reader, and that cannot be helped. What can be helped is the deliberate and systematic removal of valid counter viewpoints that go against the established narrative of this article. To keep this quote out only shows you do not wish to achieve an WP:NPOV. Apeholder (talk) 05:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

8 Further to my last, it appears that this is not the only time improvements have been proposed to this article and they have been ignored. One above asks for clarification on dates the FBI receieved the HDD images, and the other asks the same thing we are asking here - for actual evidence.. Both were ignored. The second one makes a valid point that it is not the job of Wikipedia to simply be an outlet to re-regurgitate FBI and CIA press releases. It is only in the interest of transparency and providing an NPOV that additional evidence needs to be considered. Apeholder (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

ConsortiumNews is not a RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans Now, your quick one-liner and above comment shows you have not read anything I have typed. If CN is not a RS, then neither are half of the other references on this page. Also, why are they not an RS? Is it because you have said so? Can you provide any evidence they are not a RS? Please feel free to present some evidence. Your simple opinion is not satisfactory.

Edit: I have searched WP for any time ConsortiumNews.com has been used as a reference on this site, there appears to be in excess of 60 separate articles it has been used as a source. This is contrary to your off the cuff remark. Apeholder (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

My personal view is that Consortium is certainly a fringe source, and increasingly so over time, and probably not a reliable source. In many cases, as with VIPS memos, Consortium tends to simply reblog them. VIPS is certainly a fringe source. Could take to RSN to clarify. Worth noting that many VIPS members refused to sign the VIPS memo on the DNC hack and others rejected it afterwards, and also that its co-author, William Binney, later realised he had been wrong. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veteran_Intelligence_Professionals_for_Sanity#Russiagate_and_the_Trump_presidency Some VIPS members, describing it as a "problematic memo because of troubling questions about its conclusions", refused to sign the July memo,^[1][2] including Scott Ritter^[2][3] and former NSA technical manager Thomas A. Drake. Drake said "Ray [McGovern]’s determination to publish claims he wanted to believe without checking facts and discarding evidence he didn’t want to hear exactly reproduced the Iraq war intelligence failures which the VIPS group was formed to oppose.”^[4] Duncan Campbell for Computer Weekly investigated the claims and found that the documents on which VIPS relied were fake, and tracked their source to a pro-Russian Briton.^[5][6] After checking the source material, Binney conceded that the Forensicator material was indeed a "fabrication".^[4] BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

ITWire has covered this story. We need to be more careful in the way we describe CrowdStrike's findings.^[7] Burrobert (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Further to the discussion above, I am going to add an NPOV tag to this page and start removing poor sources. This is because of many sources used have are of dubious quality and provide next to zero evidence relating to the evidence that a "hack" took place. In short, Wikipedia has let its standards slip when they are pushing a particular PoV, but as soon as ONE good source to the contrary appears, it is being removed without discussion. Here is the reasoning why this article needs an NPOV marker and a huge overhaul - let's look at the sources provided:

• Ref 46 ArsTechnica: "We still don't know who he is or whether he works for the Russian government, but one thing is for sure: Guccifer 2.0—the nom de guerre of the person claiming he hacked the Democratic National Committee and published hundreds of pages that appeared to prove it—left behind fingerprints implicating a Russian-speaking person with a nostalgia for the country's lost Soviet era"
• Ref 47 TechCrunch the RS list says to use a great deal of caution with this one, to no surprise as the entire article is conjecture that the sole hacker could be a Russian state agent, nothing even remotely conclusive here.
• Ref 48 Vice/Motherboard - the WP:RS list says there is no consensus on this source & the link doesn't even work.
• Ref 49 ProvidenceJournal.com - not WP:RS, literally a one paragraph article just repeating unsourced assumptions from other outlets.
• Ref 50 Guardian - more conjecture and no evidence of any sort that the hack took place. The main source for this article says " Since the going theory of the DNC hack is that it was perpetrated by Russian government groups that then passed this information to propagandists or professional trolls to spread". Exactly, until we can show a hack and the date/time the hack took place, that's all this is, a theory.
• Ref 51 Guardian - this is basically a regurgitated press release from the Clinton campaign. Absolutely no evidence the Russian government were behind the "hack".
• Ref 52 NYT - Not one single piece of evidence that a "hack" took place. This is just a re-print of a WH press release "citing Federal officials who have been briefed on the matter". "Dude, trust me!!"
• Ref 53 WashingtonPost - "Also unclear, the officials said, is the motivation, even if Russia is behind the leak". Same as above.
• Ref 54 Vice - not on the RS list - this is probably the worst example here: "Almost two weeks ago, the US government took the rare step of publicly pointing the finger at the Russian government, accusing it of directing the recent string of hacks and data breaches. The intelligence community declined to explain how they reached their conclusion, and it's fair to assume they have data no one else can see.". This is not only amazing that an outlet would appeal to authority like this, but also that someone found it acceptable to use.
• Ref 55 Esquire - not on the RS list, The article even admits that the allegation doesn't come from the government, but from Crowdstrike, who did not even provide the FBI the hard drives in question: "CrowdStrike posted a report that detailed the methods used by the intruders. The firm also did something unusual: It named the Russian spy agencies it believed responsible for the hack. Fancy Bear, the firm said, worked in a way that suggested affiliation with the GRU. Cozy Bear was linked to the FSB.". A suggested affiliation and it doesn't elaborate how CozyBear was linked to the FSB.
• Ref 56 Buzzfeed - on the RS caution list, and the article itself again provides no sources other than a reprint of a WPo article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apeholder (talk • contribs) 00:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

You seem confused about Wikipedia policy. We do not remove or alter reliably sourced content because we personally disagree with the content of the reliable sources or we find the reliable sources unconvincing. The NY Times does not have to "prove" something for NY Times content to be included on that something on Wikipedia. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources don't have to provide "evidence." That The New York Times used anonymous sources for their article is neither here nor there. You will need to establish clear and unambiguous consensus that these sources are inappropriate before removing them. I have reverted your edits. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

SnooganssnoogansNorthBySouthBaranof You seem confused about Wikipedia policy too. Where in the policy does it also allow users to deny content being added from reliable sources because they personally disagree with it? That is what is happening here with this article right now. And yes, Wikipedia routinely removes content because people disagree with it. It shouldn't happen, but it does.

Furthermore, we should be reviewing the content of reliable sources. You know how I've found issues with these references? I've READ them. Imagine that. People have either been adding the references without reading what the articles actually say, or they have not been verified by anyone.

Just because a sources is considered reliable doesn't mean that we should not even check the sources that are being added.

Your arguments are both very disingenuous. Nobody is asking the NYT to "prove" anything, they are just asking the article on this page to accurately reflect the information we have from various reliable sources. Also, by your same logic, if the NYT doesn't have to "prove" anything, then neither do other sources. Kinda blurs the lines between what is considered "reliable" and "unreliable" doesn't it?

As for the consensus, fine, go ahead and read my criticisms of the articles. Some are unmitigated trash. I'm asking for a consensus to be discussed, not for you just to say "let's not remove them or anything, just say a discussion is needed but fail to actually have a discussion" just like the other sections on the talk page here above have been ignored too Apeholder (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

We're having a discussion. You're welcome to open a request for comment to get more opinions.

If you need help understanding what is and is not a reliable source, please review the Reliable Sources guideline, and ask on the reliable sources noticeboard for more opinions.

No source needs to "prove" anything. The question is, is it a reliable source or not? The New York Times is a gold-standard publication and there is a rebuttable presumption that anything published in its news pages is a reliable source. The onus is on you to demonstrate a consensus to treat this particular NYT article as non-reliable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof So, regarding your latest revert - how is the following unacceptable? There's not even a quote here and you seem to have an issue with just referencing that the hearings actually happened, nothing to do with what was said during them - please do not mention "primary sources!!" when there is no primary source quote in this addition:

"Throughout late 2017 into early 2018, numerous individuals gave testimonies to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) who were charged with carrying out an investigation into the series of cyberattacks^[1].

I also find your use of the word 'slanted' quite strange. Are none of the other sources provided "slanted"? I'm assuming you mean biased. In your most recent revert, you also removed the antiwar.com reference, a site that is used in over 500+ Wikipedia articles. If it is a poor site, please explain why it is used in so many WP pages? Apeholder (talk) 04:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Seems to me that this talk page is significantly more informative than the actual article - which has clearly been dominated by people who refuse to question the approved line of a powerful cohort within the US establishment. Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I support the removal of most of the section about the Steele dossier. However I think a short section should be left behind pointing to the article and containing a sentence saying it had allegations about the email leak that have since been discredited plus a bit from the first paragraph of that article. It was a notable part of the story even if it was discredited later. NadVolum (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I think thats good. I didnt have a problem with it mentioning the Steele dossier, it was just a lot of detail that wasnt need in this article. Softlemonades (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Are you goingto put something basic in there or are you leaving it as a task for others? NadVolum (talk) 19:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Youre the one who proposed adding something, so feel free Softlemonades (talk) 11:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay I've restored it till I get around to doing the change. NadVolum (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

And Softlemonades went and removed it because "Add what you think actually belongs, until then the Steel Dossier shouldnt take up 15% of the article". Can I remind you that you removed it all recently and you should have left a stub pointing to the Steele dossier article. I'm willing to do that but it might take a few days and in he meantime wanted the stuf left there so the article covers the incident. Why are you so desperate to delete the lot so quickly and yet unwilling to do the bit of work necessary to ensure the article does cover the incident adequately? NadVolum (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

15% of the article is ridiculous, and Im fine with no mention of the Dossier being in there. Its a tangent at best, and Im not convinced the article needs to cover the incident at all, I just dont have a problem with it if you want to rewrite a much, much shorter version. What I have a problem with is 15%. Why are you "so desperate" to fight about this and implying an agenda outside of "15% of the article is absurd" and yet unwilling to do the editing you want done? Isnt it exhausting? Softlemonades (talk) 04:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Something about the Steele dossier should be in. It was in for quite a long time. You removed it completely. Just because it was discredited later does not mean it should be whitewashed out of the article. It is an interesting part of the story and newspapers of the time commented on it widely. And no before you start present significance is not the point any more than it would be for the Punic Wars. Whole swathes of thr articl would be removed using that criterion. NadVolum (talk) 08:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

You can ask for WP:Third opinion if you like about whether mention of the Steele doissier should be included. Just because you don't feel it should be included does not mean it should not be included. And if it should be included you should have put in a stub when removing it. I said I was happy to do the clean up but you just can't wait a bit. If you have ants in your pants do the job properly as I have other things to do. NadVolum (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

On the contrary, Im fine with waiting. Softlemonades (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

thanks, I've reverted it and will probably do the work on Sunday. NadVolum (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Thats not what I meant which I thought was clear - Im fine with waiting for the edits to be done. I even went and asked for a Wikipedia:Third opinion like you wanted. If you have ants in your pants and cant wait, write the stub youre so desperate for. Softlemonades (talk) 03:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry that the comment wasnt clear. I can see how it would be easy to misread. But my stance hasnt changed. A stub is one thing, but this isnt all about the Steele Dossier or the Punic Wars. Softlemonades (talk) 03:48, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

You made the original bold change removing 15% of the article. I reverted it. We're dscussing per WP:BRD. NadVolum (talk) 08:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Youre not discussing it or trying to make any edits of your own, youre just reverting it and insisting it be the way you want until some unknown point in the future when you might do real edits. Youre not even responding to the points I make anymore or waiting for the Third Opinion YOU wanted me to ask for but couldnt be bothered to ask for yourself. Youre just edit warring. Softlemonades (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

You did a bold change. I reverted. We shoudd discuss the problem of no mention of the Steele dossier if the whole business is removed. (Personal attack removed) that you cannot work with other editors and insist in doing your own thing no matter what anybody else says? You waste my time when I can be doing something more useful. NadVolum (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Im not insisting on "no mention." And the "more useful" could be you doing the actual edit you keep saying youre going to do. Id love to see you work on the stub you keep saying youre going to do! I have no objection to Steele Dossier content, it was just the 15% of the article was too much in my opinion. But we finally got someone else to weigh in, and Im happy to go with that. Softlemonades (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I'm not at all satisfied with this discussion which quickly deteriorated due to edit warring from Softlemonades. The Steele dossier section is longstanding and well within the scope of the article, so more discussion is needed to remove/replace it. I'm willing to mediate this discussion going forward if you two can discuss the matter civilly. ––FormalDude talk 13:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in. Didnt mean to edit war, and felt like Nad was doing that by not contributing edits and only posting things like "were discussing it." Clearly Im wrong and lost perspective. Softlemonades (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes thanks. I had asked earlier today Steele dossier about what they thought was the status of the dossier as I was going to say it was discredited, but it is just some that say that and the article says no allegations have been disproven. Then again many haven't been proven either. I think still it would probably be easier to cut the allegations out and direct to the Steele dossier article.

I am concerned by the latest edits. They are removing denials as 'Not about both Steele Dossier and DNC emails'. WP:BLPPUBLIC is quite specific about including denials. Trump's seems to e the main ones left and who can trust anythng he says but under BLPPUBLIC yes his should be included too. If we just have a stub referring to the Steele dossier article we can get rid of that as well though. NadVolum (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I removed those because I didnt see how they were relevant to the DNC email leak. I do see I missed an earlier reference to Manafort which makes his denial relevant to the text, but that Manafort reference isnt relevant to the DNC email leak so it could easily come out. Carter Page is referenced in the text, but his denial isnt quite relevant to that text.

I didnt see it as a BLP issue, I was just trying to clean up the text. Now that you say it, I guess Carter Page could go either way and Manafort could be fixed by restoring the denial or removing the reference entirely.

I think youre working on a plan for the section so Ill leave it up to you which way to fix it. I was just trying to leave less for you to do. Softlemonades (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I can't say in Wikipedia's voice that the dossier has been discredited. However it doesn't have enough support in the intelligence community to start duplicating the section detailing the allegations. NadVolum (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, and whats there now looks good to me.

The only reason I can think of to maybe expand the stub is if theres impact on the investigation from the Dossier that should be mentioned, but none comes to mind. Softlemonades (talk) 02:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)