Talk:Steele dossier

Overnight in Moscow

Phrases in the article: "Comey who, after Trump repeatedly lied to him about the alleged incident" and "Trump later repeatedly lied to Comey by claiming he was not in Moscow the night of November 8–9" and "He [Trump] also lied by repeatedly claiming that he did not stay overnight in Moscow" and "According to Comey, Trump's false denials about whether he had stayed overnight in Moscow". There are lots of cites but only one source: James Comey. The article acknowledges that Trump denies saying it, but only wikivoices Comey by saying that Trump lied. Also it has some analysis by Comey about Trump's statements.

A long argument in 2021 thread Discussion of including random opinion petered out without agreement as far as I can tell. I ping all unbanned editors who participated: Mr Ernie, SPECIFICO, Guy, Slatersteven, TheTimesAreAChanging, The Four Deuces, starship.paint, PackMecEng. (I guess it's not courteous to ping an editor who can't reply.)

I looked at the cited sources. I'm claiming that no cited source actually adds anything that bolsters Comey's claim that Trump said he didn't overnight, and no other source (that I know of) heard Trump say such a thing. Therefore everything in the article about overnight in Moscow fits the WP:BLP criterion "Contentious material about living (or, in some cases, recently deceased) persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced ..." and should be removed. I'll go away for a week and see when I come back whether keeping it has consensus, which is required. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I would say trash anything not directly supported or is just original research. PackMecEng (talk) 22:25, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Disagree. The Politico article seems to state it in its own voice, not attributed to Comey. Andre🚐 22:46, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

The only hard facts that I am aware of in relation to this incident were briefly described in a CNN news report ():

• "President Donald Trump denied on Thursday that he told former FBI Director James Comey that he didn't spend a night in Moscow, saying, 'Of course I stayed there. ... I stayed there a very short period of time but of course I stayed. Well, his memo said I left immediately. I never said that. I never said I left immediately.' ... Comey, who was fired by Trump in May 2017, wrote in memos that Trump told him on two occasions that he did not stay overnight in Moscow around the time of the Miss Universe pageant in 2013. ... 'It's always significant when someone lies to you, especially about something you're not asking about. It tends to reflect a consciousness of guilt,' Comey said. 'I don’t know what was in his head. I don't know whether he was intentionally misstating a fact to me.'"

I agree with Peter Gulutzan's statement that "no other source (that I know of) heard Trump say such a thing."

It's certainly possible that a minority of nominally reliable contemporary news sources repeated Comey's anecdote as fact or without explicit attribution to Comey, but this is ultimately a he said-he said that is impossible for anyone to independently verify. (The incident supposedly took place at a private dinner between the two men.)

The kerfuffle over the Comey memos might be worth a sentence or two in this article, but I doubt that it deserves any more WP:WEIGHT than that. To Peter Gulutzan's point, neither Comey's nor Trump's account should be presented in wikivoice.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:44, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Did you read the Politico report which explicitly says that it researched " flight records obtained by POLITICO, as well as congressional testimony from Trump’s bodyguard and contemporaneous photographs and social media posts"? Andre🚐 23:58, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Nevermind, I understand. We're not talking about the trip to Moscow but the statement to Comey. Andre🚐 00:04, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Correct. We all agree that flight logs, Trump's bodyguard, etc., all prove that Trump spent a night in Moscow in 2013 in relation to the Miss Universe pageant. The question is how much WP:WEIGHT to give an anecdote from Comey that Trump ("at a private White House dinner attended only by Donald Trump and Jim Comey," in the words of Politico) twice denied staying overnight, and whether this demonstrates any "consciousness of guilt" on Trump's part.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Hmm, ok. To the weight point I think the question is how much it weighs in about the Steele dossier specifically. Since it weighs on the part of the dossier that says he was up to stuff in Russia. But Peter Gulutzan above makes the argument that this is "poorly sourced." in the Politico article I would say this is well-sourced. It ultimately comes back to Peter Zeidenberg about the consciousness of guilt, not Comey. However, I think the article could attribute this to Comey, inasmuch as it is what he thinks or thought, but the Politico article clearly states that the event happened (Trump's false statement) so the question is are there any sources that do not think Trump said that. Andre🚐 05:46, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

At the very least, Trump himself has denied that he made the statement to Comey, and while few put much stock in his words at this point, that does raise the question of whether it is appropriate for Wikipedia to portray Comey's account as factual in wikivoice.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I think it just depends on whether any source doesn't treat Comey's account as factual. The Politico article does. Andre🚐 20:26, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

The Politico piece is explicit and references the supporting evidence. I know people are desperate to undermine every possible aspect of the dossier, but we're not here to do that job for them. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:33, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Who is desperate for what? But seriously it really is just speculation and when dealing with stuff like that its best to include the denial if its included at all. Because at the end of the day, its more of a guilt by association and educated guesswork vs actual fact. PackMecEng (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

JzG, from this strange drive-by comment, I think that you are perpetuating the same confusion as AndreJustAndre, who already modified his statements.

This thread (which is possibly misnamed, as "Overnight in Moscow" is not really what we are discussing) is not about the obvious and uncontested fact that Trump spent a night in Moscow in 2013 (as was widely reported at the time and is not an insight unique to the Steele dossier), but about a later "private White House dinner attended only by Donald Trump and Jim Comey," for which Politico is unable to provide corroboration and simply accepts Comey's account at face value, and Comey's speculation that Trump's comments to him may have demonstrated "a consciousness of guilt".

I don't favor removing the material entirely, but it may have gotten too bloated, like much of this article, and it should be attributed to Comey.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I admit my thread title was vague, I won't object if you change or add a subtitle.

I started by quoting the article's "Trump lied" stuff and now I'm sure it's poorly sourced material which has no consensus. But let's see if, after it's removed, a few of us can agree on a non-bloated attributed-to-Comey sentence or two. (My preference is to say nothing but compromise can be soothing in this contentious area.) Something like: in the section Moscow weekend, November 8‍–‍10, 2013:

Leave the section's first paragraph alone for now (I might propose removal in a later thread if not bogged down in this one).

Add the rest of the section without flight records and testimonials showing how long he was in Moscow, where he went outside the hotel, etc. You're right there's no dispute about such details and there's no relevance to pissing prostitutes at the times he wasn't in the hotel. "Trump flew from the U.S. to Moscow on Friday November 8, booked in at the Ritz-Carlton hotel, attended a party, and, at about 1:30 am (early morning Saturday November 9) returned to his hotel room with his bodyguard, Keith Schiller.[325] After Trump went to bed alone, Schiller said he stood outside Trump's door for a time and then left.[326] On Saturday evening Trump attended the Miss Universe pageant, followed by an after-party that started at 1:00 am (Sunday November 10). Then, without returning to his hotel, he flew back to the U.S.[324][87]: 300 [325][332]"

At the end of the section add the Comey-said-Trump-said material: "In April 2018 James Comey wrote that Trump told him he did not stay overnight in the hotel. Trump denied that he had told Comey that." Or go even further for compromise's sake, at the end of the section add: "In April 2018 James Comey wrote that Trump told him he did not stay overnight in the hotel. Several media sites reported about Comey's account, with some suggesting that it was true which might mean that Trump lied. Trump denied that he had told Comey that." Follow with all the cites that are currently in the section.

Maybe we should go all the way to give in to AndreJustAndre by adding: "Politico agreed with Comey by saying [quote]" if AndreJustAndre will tell us specifically what [quote] should be from the article Donald Trump's false claims to James Comey about Moscow stay could aid Robert Mueller. This article was written before Trump's denial during the 2018-04-26 Fox and Friends interview (and before Mueller's report which ignored the event), and wasn't updated. But it's an attributed quote about Politico which for some reason is considered important. In return I'd hope AndreJustAndre will accept the necessary removal of the Trump-lied stuff with good grace.

I don't know whether PackMecEng will accept. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I would agree that it is rarely necessary to point out that Trump lied, since the objective evidence shows that he does not care whether what he says is true or not. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:02, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

So if the Politico article is outdated that's fine and we should use a more up to date source, but I don't think an attributed denial on Fox and Friends counts for a lot, but we could add that to round it out, I'm good with rewriting the sentence to be clearer, but Politico doesn't need to be attributed necessarily, because it's considered a reliable source. If Politico is reliable and Comey's statement is accepted at face value by Politico, and there is no source other than Trump on Fox and Friends that disagrees, then attribution is hedging without a reason. The question is how is this all relevant to the dossier which determines how much weight to give it. I think the relevance is that Trump supposedly denied being in Russia even though we know he was or at least RS say he was. This might not be terribly relevant to the dossier, except Politico says, A conscious effort by Trump to mislead the FBI director could lend weight to the allegation — contained in a largely unverified private research dossier compiled by a former British spy in 2016 — that Trump engaged in compromising activity during the trip that exposed him to Russian government blackmail. So to me the relevant questions are 1) is any source (not Trump's own statement on Fox, but a reliable source) in disagreement with or contests what Politico, an unqualified RS in this case correct?, says?, 2) is there any more up to date source about the statement, the events, or the dossier that would shed light on the relevance or validity? Andre🚐 20:53, 24 August 2026 (UTC) P.S. as a point of order, if there's no consensus to remove it in this thread, because of PUBLICFIGURE, BLPCRIME doesn't default to removal, and the long-standing status quo should remain rather than defaulting to ONUS. However, at this point, there's an active discussion, which could lead to an RFC or something if intractable. I think it's tractable as I think we are having a substantive discussion.

So you reject "Politico agreed with Comey by saying [quote]", okay. Re "default to ONUS" -- actually I was thinking more about WP:BLPUNDEL. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think Politico is agreeing or disagreeing. They are reporting information that is gathered investigatively. You saying that Politico "agreed" with Comey makes it sound like the writer is a political hack. I think a better way to attribute it, if you insist on attribution, even though you haven't yet made an argument why we cannot simply express what Politico, an RS, writes in Wikivoice, but for the sake of finding a compromise, it should attribute it to the author byline, "Ben Schreckinger reported in Politico." Andre🚐 23:24, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

If Politico isn't agreeing, I've lost what's the point of bringing it up. Anyway, my Politico suggestion's rejected but the more important suggestions can still be discussed -- or rejected. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Huh? my statement is that Politico can be treated as an RS, and therefore qualification is not necessary, but if it must be qualified, I stated that I believe the right way to attribute it is "Schreckinger reported," not "Politico agreed with Comey." Politico reported what Comey said as factual. Trump said that Comey was a liar and a leaker. I think Politico isn't an actor, they are an outlet. Is this tracking or are we talking past each other? Andre🚐 00:14, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I'll get back to this in another week, remove the Trump-lied stuff, and see whether there are discussions or alternatives re adding material in section Moscow weekend, November 8‍–‍10, 2013, for suggestions that haven't been rejected already. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:13, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Why do you think that an effective approach to consensus building is to propose a suggestion, characterize continued questioning and dialogue as "rejection" of your suggestion, then throwing up your hands and announcing your departure until a future time? First of all, you are not the only participant in the discussion, there is no need to "announce" your future edits. A consensus has not been established to remove the material. You were always able to remove, or rephrase, the material, and others may choose to revert that, or restore a modified version. Or we could continue discussion on the merits. I don't see that the discussion reached any natural conclusion, and you haven't explained how what I asked was invalid or didn't apply. Andre🚐 02:47, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I have removed the Trump-lied stuff and there is no consensus to re-insert. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

You expected a consensus in seven minutes? I suggest you self-rvt and wait for a close. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:34, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Between 17 August and 31 August is 14 days, not 7 minutes. I explained, I saw that some others agreed, I gave notice. I referred more than once to how consensus would be a requirement for re-insertion, I assumed this would be understood by those reading the discussion. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:54, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Consensus is needed for removal if this was long-standing content. Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

I see you're not citing policy. I did. The bit in WP:BLP about contentious material about living people that's poorly sourced. And WP:BLPUNDEL. I assumed this would be understood by those reading the discussion. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Others disagreed, which was also clear from reading this discussion; read wp:consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Can you identify who you think disagreed or disagreed? Can you explain why disagreement means veto, since you won't cite policy re "long-standing"? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Andre, they (literally) say "disagree", and why do you get to ignore them? Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 31 Aust 2026 (UTC)

So: "long-standing" = WP:NOSUCHPOLICY, "others" = Andre. I can't ignore anyone who has new arguments or is a new disagreer. Do you disagree and support re-insertion? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

I say obey wp:consensus, and get agreement for your edit (before making it). You have no more right to ignore others than they have to ignore you. Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:BLPRESTORE requires consensus to include challenged material. No consensus for challenged material regarding a BLP defaults to leaving it out. Looking at the first removal, Trump later repeatedly lied to Comey by claiming he was not in Moscow the night of November 8–9. it is sourced to a commentary article which states I think Donald Trump told the FBI director a brazen lie about his time in Moscow in order to try to convince him that the Pee Tape story was not true. and only discussing a single instance and the second source doesn't say anyone lied, except for quoting Trump saying Comey lied to congress. It does say, though Is Comey sensationalizing facts to promote his upcoming book, A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership? Maybe. We don't get to ignore WP:BLPREMOVE regardless of who the subject of the material is, and the first removal is clearly poorly sourced. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

If something is added in a BLP and challenged by quick removal, consensus is required to restore. What bothers me about this removal is that the text is over a year old (presumed consensus), and it was already in an open discussion. I'm not a fan of BOLD action during discussion. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:BLPREMOVE: Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: is unsourced or poorly sourced;

WP:BLPRESTORE: the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material.

It's right there in the policy. There's nothing about how long something has been in an article. BLP is BLP for any living person on any Wikipedia page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, project pages, and drafts. If BLP material is challenged in good faith it gets removed until a consensus to include it is demonstrated regardless if there is ongoing discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:57, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

NBC [] Washington Monthy [] cnbc []/ Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

At this point, a mention of wp:point (I get the feeling) might be useful, as there is a lot of contentious material that can be removed as "contested". Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

If its poorly sourced info about a BLP yeah it should be contested and removed. Which I think you are right, there is probably a lot of that in this article. Its why the main author of this article was topic banned. PackMecEng (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

• As I argued, the Politico article states this in its own voice, which makes it not "poorly sourced," not to mention the PUBLICFIGURE exception to BLP. Long-standingness and the issue of consensus or lack thereof aside, I don't think Donald Trump, of all people, is entitled to protection of being libelled if the so-called libel is just a well-documented assertion by the FBI director of all people. I can understand wanting to properly attribute this, such as to the Politico reporter, but the reporter is reporting what another PUBLICFIGURE is saying about a PUBLICFIGURE, so in my view this is a clear WP:CRYBLP. So, since there is a critical mass of editors here and I don't want to edit war, let's prepare an RFC statement. Would someone other than me like to take a first stab at the RFC? If the RFC finds that this is not "poorly sourced," there is no BLPREMOVE argument. Andre🚐 20:06, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

  WP:PUBLICFIGURE has no exception to BLP. It states that allegations against public figures should be covered if there are multiple third-party sources. The politico source is careful to say things like in contradiction to the recollections of Comey, and says that Trump was in Russia overnight, but not that Trump lied to Comey. Language like Trump later repeatedly lied to Comey by claiming he was not in Moscow the night of November 8–9 needs to be supported by multiple high quality sources that actually say that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

  The Politico article and the CNN article, that is multiple sources is it not? I'm definitely open to workshopping the text to improve source fidelity, which is a great alternative to deleting it. In fact we were starting to do that, I thought, before Peter took his ball and went home before coming back to remove the content, instead of engaging in a thoughtful discussion. Andre🚐 20:29, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

  If the text is wrong in a BLP it gets removed, then you workshop the text to improve it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

  Not if the allegation is presumptively under PUBLICFIGURE and there's an active discussion on the merits. I don't think most people in the community would agree that PUBLICFIGURE isn't an explicit carveout to BLP. So long as we agree that there are multiple sources that discuss the allegations that should therefore be documented. No argument has been furnished that Comey lied, and we have every reason to believe Trump did. BLP doesn't mean we suspend everything we know that RS already document, which is our job to faithfully echo. But, what's done is done, so no point in quibbling about that. There seem to be enough editors that want to restore this that we should be able to come up with a workable text proposal, and if need be we can go the RFC route to gain a consensus for said new text. Andre🚐 21:00, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

  You: allegation
  The article: Trump later repeatedly lied to Comey
  Do you see how one is an allegation, and one is making a statement about a BLP in wiki voice? That is a clear cut BLP violation and it gets removed immediately. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah, but I'm not arguing that, in the prior thread we were discussing only the first part, the baby having been bathwatered (or motte-and-baileyed) and I proposed a compromise of, "Ben Schreckinger reported in Politico." Peter claimed I was rejecting him and left without engaging. We have no reason to believe Politico's reporting of what Comey said about Trump is not good information, but attribution makes clear who said what and why and how and when. BLP says we should clearly document what Politico and CNN say about it. Anyway, in the interest of moving past our disagreement of how BLP and PUBLICFIGURE intersect with a consensus or not (one editor can't just make a BLP argument that arrives contested and claim the banner to remove anything they want willy-nilly - that isn't how Wikipedia works, even with clearer cases)

  I propose something like (these sentences are theoretically severable):

  Ben Schreckinger reported in Politico that Comey's notes show that Trump lied to Comey privately, when he stated that he had not stayed overnight in Moscow the night of November 8–9, when in fact he had according to flight records. Comey interpreted this as reflective of a consciousness of guilt, while Trump maintains that he had in fact always admitted to the night in Moscow, and had not told Comey otherwise. Jennifer Rubin likewise opined that a "false alibi" could be evidence of a consciousness of guilt.

  Andre🚐 21:23, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

  I was just here to clear up the BLP confusion. Probably worth a quick reminder that BLPs are a contentious topic, as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:29, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

  That's fair, I understand your position, BLP is a red line that grants carte blanche, even if it's not clear that the material in question is in fact poorly sourced, and in fact it seems that the material is well-sourced, simply poorly attributed. Since I haven't restored the removed material, and I am simply haranguing the multitudes at worst, it is a moot point, but as a point of order or information, it is not at all clear to me that the poorly sourced plank of the BLPREMOVE test is satisfied when we have a case of someone using a proper source, but failing to adequately attribute the material therein, which falls under PUBLICFIGURE. Poorly sourced means what it says it means: no source, or source is not reliable. It does not, in my view, extend so far as to cover cases where the source is good, and the material appropriately paraphrases what the source says, but it is not adequately attributed. Attribution is the simple and prescribed fix, not removal, and I think the ultimatum-and-retreat approach is disruptive, not simply pointing out that BLP is not a catch-all for anything about a living person that is controversial, rather it must be poorly sourced. This isn't a case of someone applying an opinion to a non-opinion, because as we've established, an RS stated in its authoritative voice that the event occurred and that Trump lied to Comey. This is not precluding my compromise position to attribute it, which I've always been open to. Andre🚐 00:09, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  Are you talking about this politico source?

  Trump “had spoken to people who had been on … the trip with him and they had reminded him that he didn’t stay over night in Russia for that,” Comey recalled.

  Trump made the same claim a second time, telling Comey in a later Oval Office meeting “that he hadn’t stayed overnight in Russia during the Miss Universe trip,” as Comey wrote.

  in contradiction to the recollections of Comey, who wrote about his early 2017 meetings with Trump minutes after they concluded.

  The source is very careful to attribute this to Comey, not to state it in their own voice. That makes the claim that Trump lied in wiki voice or attribution to Politico or the author poorly sourced if relying on this Politico piece. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:18, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  So in your view, if I restore this material appropriately attributed that Ben Schreckinger reported that Comey wrote it or recollected in Politico, am I running afoul of BLPRESTORE? Andre🚐 01:29, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  Ben Schreckinger reported in Politico that Comey's notes show that Trump lied to Comey privately would be the issue. The notes don't show that he lied, the notes show that Comey says Trump told him he didn't spend the night. There is a significant difference between the two. We can both personally read between the lines and infer what the writer thinks but we cannot say that in wiki voice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:41, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  also, I want to add, while it was me, TTAC, Peter, Pack, and Guy, the presumption was a roughly split field, I think arguably with the arrival of Slater and O3000, the consensus is starting to lean in the direction of inclusion -- if and only if we consider their arguments meaningful. Again, I find the "I am going to remove it in 1 week if there is not a consensus" posturing to be unwikilike, but if we must formalize it to make progress, that may be par for the course in a contentious BLP, and AMPOL topic. I also want to add that while I am sure we all know that Valjean is still responsible for the bulk of the text on this article, we should try to have a discussion about what's best for this article going forward while also preserving any policy-abiding text that Valjean added. If Slater, Guy, and O3000 agree with me that some inclusion is merited and basically Valjean was summarizing sources and roughly what they actual do say, that would seem to shift us to more of a WEIGHT, rather than a BLPREMOVE footing (per, TTAC earlier) Andre🚐 01:18, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

The text that I proposed for Comey-said-Trump-said on 24 August was ignored (AndreJustAndre has mixed this up with an extra proposal that was rejected). I'm not offended. Now we have two clashing proposals. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Why wouldn't you simply instate your version? It's surely preferable to nothing at all. Andre🚐 23:00, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

I won't insert without consensus. I'll oppose anybody else who tries to. But I've done enough arguing for now. Back next week. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

But if you're proposing it and nobody disagrees with your version being an improvement over nothing, it has a consensus. Or are you insisting on a formal closure of a discussion? Andre🚐 01:03, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

I have removed the Trump-lied stuff. There is no consensus to re-insert. I guess this thread's done. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Proposal 3

Even though I think it's clear that Comey is treated as reliable by other RS (i.e. WP:USEBYOTHERS: the establishment RS such as reporters for reliable outlets (Ben Schreckinger is hardly a liberal!) treat them as reliable oracles unto themselves), let's sidestep that for the moment. Here is my new text proposal with changed attribution:

Ben Schreckinger reported in Politico that Comey wrote contemporaneous notes which stated that on two occasions, Trump had privately represented that he had not stayed overnight in Moscow on the night of November 8–9, when he had according to flight records. Trump later stated he did not make those statements, and disputed Comey's account. Comey and some commentators, such as Rubin, interpreted this at the time as reflective of a consciousness of guilt.

This is in a new section to restart the discussion and address the feedback offered by SFR. Andre🚐 01:51, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I do not object to Andre's proposal.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Looks good to me. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

My proposal 1 was: "In April 2018 James Comey wrote that Trump told him he did not stay overnight in the hotel. Trump denied that he had told Comey that."

My proposal 2 was: "In April 2018 James Comey wrote that Trump told him he did not stay overnight in the hotel. Several media sites reported about Comey's account, with some suggesting that it was true which might mean that Trump lied. Trump denied that he had told Comey that."

My take on AndreJustAndre's proposal 3 is:

Saying Schreckinger reported that Comey took contemporaneous notes is saying it as if Schreckinger saw Comey taking notes, while once again the sole source of this is Comey.

Adding ", when he had according to flight records" is bloat, I suggested in thread "Overnight in Moscow" a shortening of the paragraph that's already in the article about flight records etc., instead here's a suggestion to add yet more.

Adding Comey's opinion about consciousness of guilt is unbalanced, if opinions were appropriate then we should add something from the other side e.g. Sarah Huckabee Sanders: "This is nothing more than a poorly executed PR stunt by Comey to desperately rehabilitate his tattered reputation and enrich his own bank account by peddling a book that belongs on the bargain bin of the fiction section." But the short way to be neutral is to add no opinions at all.

So I oppose proposal 3. But I acknowledge it currently has majority support. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Schreckinger presumably saw Comey's notes. He doesn't need to have been there when Comey took the notes. The requirement for BLP isn't that everything that a political reporter reports must be an eyewitness account. Did Woodward and Bernstein personally see Nixon telling Haldeman to cover up Watergate? This level of requirement for sources is not one in guideline or policy. It's enough that an RS reported it. Wikipedia defers to RS to do the legwork to verify and corroborate and fact check material. Then we have to report what they say (with appropriate attribution as necessary).

I think the flight record thing is obviously relevant and a pertinent detail, because otherwise there is no issue. We know that Trump was in Moscow at that time, which he now doesn't deny, but in 2018 this was not known, and the flight records were what showed it.

I don't see where the Sarah Huckabee Sanders in the Hill comments on this specific thing. She seems to be generally blasting Comey and she mentions the inclusion of Trump wanting Comey to disprove the lewd allegations. It seems like fluff. But I'm willing to include something from Sanders, who is a notable politician and was at the time press secretary. Can you make a proposal for what it should say? Not a verbatim quote, but maybe a short summary? Andre🚐 18:26, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

I already made a "proposal for what it should say": nothing. And I acknowledged that your proposal has majority support (3-1). I guess this thread's done. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:08, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Presidential suite

The article has "In the sections below, the allegations are simply presented as they are ... .. that Trump "hated" Obama so much that when he stayed at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Moscow, he hired the presidential suite (Report 80), but did not stay in it.[37]" But "but did not stay in it.[37]" is misplaced, it is not in the allegation, it is in [37] which is from "United States Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel John H Durham" aka Durham report which says "Further, the Office obtained records from the Ritz Carlton Moscow that reveal that Trump was a guest at the hotel in 2013, but did not stay in the Presidential Suite then or at any other time. 858" where 858 is "SCO-101769 (Moscow Ritz Carlton Records)." I intend to move ", but did not stay in it.[37]" to section "Moscow weekend, November 8‍–‍10, 2013" after the words "and booking in.[323]" with minimal change i.e. "Trump did not stay in the presidential suite.[37]" The trivia in that area can be worried about again later. If there's no objection, I will include the "Further," quote in the cite footnote. Any support or oppose? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:47, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

The fact the did not use it is true, why he did not is the allegation. Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Are you saying that the Steele dossier says Trump did not stay in the presidential suite? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Agree with Peter Gulutzan and believe that Slatersteven may be a bit out of his depth here.

For many years, this article reported the allegation "that Trump 'hated' Obama so much that when he stayed in the Presidential suite of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Moscow, he employed 'a number of prostitutes to perform a "golden showers" show in front of him' in order to defile the bed used by the Obamas on an earlier visit." This was sourced to the Steele dossier , as well as secondary sources citing Steele (e.g., Mayer 2018: "The sources said that when Trump had stayed in the Presidential suite of Moscow's Ritz-Carlton hotel, in 2013, he had paid 'a number of prostitutes to perform a "golden showers" (urination) show in front of him,' thereby defiling a bed that Barack and Michelle Obama had slept in during a state visit.").

When Durham's investigators "obtained records from the Ritz Carlton Moscow that reveal that Trump was a guest at the hotel in 2013, but did not stay in the Presidential Suite then or at any other time" , this seemed like a potentially fatal blow to what little remaining credibility the "pee tape" theory had left.

Never one to lose hope, however, Valjean made a little-noted edit (technically two edits) to the Steele dossier#Allegations subsection, synthesizing Steele and Durham to create a compound revised allegation "that Trump 'hated' Obama so much that when he stayed at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Moscow, he hired the presidential suite (but did not stay in it) and he employed 'a number of prostitutes to perform a "golden showers" (urination) show in front of him' in order to defile the bed used by the Obamas on an earlier visit." The goal of this edit, IMHO, was pretty clearly to make it seem more superficially plausible that Steele could still be correct despite the setback posed by Durham's evidence.

However, this particular formulation is pure original research that may never have been published anywhere outside of Wikipedia. As such, it needs to be removed and rewritten without the OR/SYNTH in order to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:51, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Peter Gulutzan, I took a stab at addressing this issue (, ). Let me know if you consider the issue to have been resolved.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:14, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

The Durham report should not be added standalone. It's a primary source. It needs to be paired with a secondary interpretative source to put it into context. It should not be quoted directly without a reason. And it should not be used for the truth of its contents unless they are simple facts. Complex analysis must be done by a secondary source. Andre🚐 20:44, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

AndreJustAndre, that's obviously best practice, but here Durham 2023 was cited by Valjean for WP:SYNTH purposes, whereas I corrected the citation to remove the SYNTH. And none of this exists in a vacuum. I found at least the following primary sources in the current revision of the article:

• [10] DOJ (September 10, 2020). "Russian Project Lakhta Member Charged with Wire Fraud Conspiracy". justice.gov (Press release). Archived from the original on September 5, 2021. Retrieved September 5, 2021.
• [13] Background to 'Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections': The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution (PDF) (Report). Office of the Director of National Intelligence. January 6, 2017. Retrieved April 1, 2018.
• [36] Office of the Inspector General U.S. Department of Justice (December 9, 2019). "Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane Investigation" (PDF). Justice Department. Retrieved December 9, 2019. (Cited 45 times.)
• [37] Durham, John (May 12, 2023). "Report on Matters Related to Intelligence Activities and Investigations Arising Out of the 2016 Presidential Campaigns" (PDF). Justice Department. Retrieved September 22, 2026.
• [48] Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, U.S. House of Representatives (December 12, 2017). "Interview of Michael Goldfarb, December 12, 2017" (PDF). Office of the Director of National Intelligence. pp. 39, 44. Retrieved March 27, 2023.
• [74] "Gubarev v. Buzzfeed, Inc., 340 F. Supp. 3d 1304, Case No. 1:17-cv-60426-UU". casetext.com. Archived from the original on April 2, 2022. Retrieved August 7, 2024.
• [87] Report ... on Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election (PDF). Vol. 5: Counterintelligence Threats and Vulnerabilities. Senate Intelligence Committee. August 18, 2020. Archived (PDF) from the original on January 22, 2021. Retrieved December 27, 2023. See also the article Senate Intelligence Committee report on Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential election. (Cited 18 times.)
• [133] "President Donald J. Trump -V- Orbis Business Intelligence Limited, Case No. KB-2022-004403" (PDF). Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London. February 1, 2024. Retrieved May 16, 2024.
• [134] Cohen, Michael (September 8, 2020). Disloyal: A Memoir. The True Story of the Former Personal Attorney to President Donald J. Trump. Skyhorse Publishing. ISBN 9781510764699. Retrieved June 13, 2025.
• [167] "Gubarev v Orbis Case No: QB-2017-002808" (PDF). Courts and Tribunals Judiciary. October 30, 2020. Retrieved December 18, 2020.
• [170] "FBI interview of Christopher Steele at Grosvenor Hotel, London, September 18 & 19, 2017" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on April 11, 2025. Retrieved April 14, 2025. (Cited seven times.)
• [198] "ORDER: United States of America v. Igor Y. Danchenko, Case No. 1:21-cr-245-AJT-1" (PDF). United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division. October 4, 2022.
• [202] Grenell, Richard A. "Declassified OIG Footnotes" (PDF). Retrieved May 22, 2024.
• [207] "United States v. Danchenko. Sealed Motion – Document #78". CourtListener.com. September 2, 2022. Retrieved September 14, 2022.
• [213] "Danchenko Indictment.pdf". Justice Department. November 3, 2021. Retrieved August 21, 2022.
• [291] "Volume 4: Review of the Intelligence Community Assessment" (PDF). intelligence.senate.gov. Senate Intelligence Committee (SIC). August 18, 2020. Retrieved September 24, 2024.
• [295] "Documents related to 2017 ICA Assessment, Annex A. (John Ratcliffe response to Grassley and Johnson)". DocumentCloud. Retrieved August 21, 2025.
• [312] Mueller, Robert S. III (March 2019). "Mueller Report: Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election. Volumes I and II". Justice Department. Retrieved April 2, 2023. (Cited five times.)
• [341] "Part 2, Deposition of Michael Cohen, March 6, 2019" (PDF). United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. March 6, 2019. pp. 225–229, 235–236, 254. Retrieved October 31, 2023.
• [342] "Deposition of Michael Cohen, Part 2" (PDF). House Intelligence Committee. March 6, 2019.
• [345] "Rtskhiladze v. Mueller, Memorandum Opinion, 20-cv-1591 (CRC)". United States District Court for the District of Columbia. September 1, 2021.
• [382] "Testimony of Carter Page" (PDF). United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. November 2, 2017. p. 139. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 30, 2021. Retrieved November 24, 2021.
• [386] "Page v. Oath Inc., C.A. No. S20C-07-030 CAK | Casetext Search + Citator" (PDF). justia.com. Retrieved February 28, 2026.
• [419] "'This Week' Transcript: Donald Trump, Vice President Joe Biden, and Ret. Gen. John Allen". This Week. ABC News. July 31, 2016. Retrieved April 18, 2018.
• [499] Lanny Davis (August 22, 2018). "Full Lanny Davis Interview: Cohen was 'never, ever' in Prague". MSNBC. Interviewed by Chuck Todd. 9 minutes in. Retrieved August 25, 2018.
• [540] Backer, Dan (May 22, 2019). "Verified complaint" (PDF). Retrieved May 5, 2024.
• [542] Weiss, Richard L. (March 29, 2022). "RE: MUR 7449" (PDF). Letter to the Coolidge Reagan Foundation. Retrieved May 5, 2024.
• [544] "Grassley: FBI Records Show Partisan Officials Killed Clinton Campaign Investigation" (Press release). United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary. November 13, 2025. Retrieved November 29, 2025.

If you want to have a serious discussion about removing all of these primary source citations, most, if not all, of which are cited for things that presently lack coverage in secondary sources, then I'm for it, but that gets back to the previous proposal to stubify the article, which you have consistently blocked, or at least the rewrite proposed by Thebiguglyalien ("we should start by grabbing general book and journal articles and summarize them in their entirety. It's important that we avoid hand-picking sources on a contentious article like this. The most important thing is that I'd want to avoid using exposés, diatribes, tell-alls, and opinion pieces as sources, even if they're from credible authors and publishers. There should be enough impartial analytical sources to write an article, and whether an opinion is due should be determined by whether one of these sources describes in a third-party fashion. A straightforward list of these sources will make the writing process much easier going forward."), which you also opposed. Besides, merely removing the governmental investigations, which are among the more factual sources presently cited, would not necessarily improve the article from a WP:NPOV perspective without a similarly massive purge of all of the speculative op-eds, memoirs, blogs, WP:NEWSWEEK, pseudonymous spook John Sipher, and other low-quality opinion sources that Valjean has stuffed the article with over the past nine years. Maybe this article requires WP:TNT and "more surgical changes" are unlikely to succeed in bringing it into compliance with Wikipedia's content policies.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:56, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

You have to look at the context of each one. There is a test for what primary source may be used for. We have to apply the test to each one individually, and not muddy the waters. Andre🚐 05:27, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging: Yes, I "consider the issue to have been resolved". You moved to an appropriate place. It's not the minimal move that I proposed but I don't object to it. I don't understand the "primary" objection because (a) the hotel records are primary therefore the mention of them is secondary (b) the WP:PRIMARY description "offer an insider's view of an event" doesn't fit (c) even if it had been primary, the WP:PRIMARY requirements "reputably published" and "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" without any "interpretation" are met. However, I admit "primary" can confuse me so it's good you defended from a different angle. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

The objection is using the conclusions of the Durham report as gospel. We aren't really - it's an attributed quote. But neither the Durham nor the Horowitz report are secondary sources, so we shouldn't be treating them as usable secondary analysis or BESTSOURCES or the last word or obviating journalistic sources. Andre🚐 18:34, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Claim it was "a significant portion" of FISA application

@User:TheTimesAreAChanging, a t-ban doesn't grant some license to TNT long-standing text and bathwater babies. You can make the surgical edits or correct an error if one is there - the edit was extensive so tough for me to tell what the error is. The Nunes memo and Schiff memo got coverage in RS. [ 05:11, 22 September 2026 (UTC) Since edit summary only mentioned Sanchez and the "low bar" and I didn't see that there, I just changed it to only talk about probable cause, which it does talk about. Andre🚐 05:17, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

AndreJustAndre, in my view there are too many issues with Steele dossier#Claim it was "a significant portion" of FISA application for it be salvageable.

For starters, it is organized under the "Conspiracy theories" subsection, which frames the very idea that the dossier played a "significant" role in the FISA applications against Page as a "conspiracy theory." However, the DOJ Inspector General report clearly states: "We determined that the Crossfire Hurricane team's receipt of Steele's election reporting on September 19, 2016 played a central and essential role in the FBI's and Department's decision to seek the FISA order." (I contend that "central and essential" is essentially synonymous with "significant" in this context.) At this point, it would be more of a conspiracy theory or WP:PROFRINGE editing to present the opposite view, i.e. that the dossier bears little connection to the FISA applications targeting Page.

The section is written in an essay-like, non-neutral tone akin to persuasive writing. At one point, the author even starts asking rhetorical questions of the reader: "The role of evidence from the dossier in seeking FISA warrants soon became the subject of much debate. How much of the evidence was based on the dossier? Was it a 'significant portion'[485] or only a 'smart part' of the FISA application?" Simply put, this is not how we write Wikipedia articles.

The section is outdated, factually inaccurate, and lends undue weight to certain opinions and incidents that do not reflect the mainstream view in 2026. As an observation, by my count, if we removed opinion sources, primary sources, and pre-December 2019 (when the DOJ Inspector General report is released) sources, of the nine sources cited (Perez et al. 2017, Nakashima et al. 2017, OIG 2019, Brown et al. 2018, Dilanian 2018, McNamara 2020, Grant et al. 2018, Herridge et al. 2019, and Robertson 2019) only two (McNamara 2020 and Herridge et al. 2019) would remain, and virtually the entire section would be gutted (all but 1-2 sentences).

If we have tacitly agreed to drop Sanchez 2019 for now, that is a constructive step, but the misrepresentation of this source is notable:

• Sanchez 2019 writes about how the FISA court is not "an adversarial proceeding, such as a criminal trial" and thus "the FISA Court rel[ies] on the government to present it with a complete picture, including facts that might call the reliability of government sources into question", further describing the omissions in the Page applications, particularly the renewal applications, as "truly egregious".

• Valjean turned this highly critical analysis of the FBI/DOJ's conduct into a blanket statement that "FISA has a 'low bar' for 'probable cause'," like it's somehow normal or even expected for the government to withhold evidence and mislead the court, which isn't the mainstream view at all.

• Needless to say, this content failed verification, but the now t-banned user fought successfully to keep it in the article for seven years (!).

While I agree that "long-standing" content generally deserves to be treated with more deference than recent changes, the circumstances surrounding this article/section and what a large swathe of the community perceived to be problematic ownership behavior by the now t-banned user makes it a somewhat unique case, as the example above demonstrates. Again, I'm not seeing much of encyclopedic value to salvage here.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:50, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

These are all concrete aspects that we can repair one by one. You already did the first part. The tone and the details can be fixed. Please follow WP:PRESERVE and remember we are here to fix the content, not grave-dance on the already banned contributor. As you know, a ban does not mean that contributions are now fair game to blow up. Regarding the IG report: we can use it for simple facts, not analysis, nor does it obviate all other sources. Nor is there a blanket ban on using WP:RSOPINION appropriately. Let's please approach it collaboratively and step-by-step. Andre🚐 18:42, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

WP:DONTPRESERVE is also policy. Original research, NPOV violations, essays, and more should all be removed. Citing PRESERVE is not an argument itself. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

PRESERVE does indeed argue against a bathwatered baby. TTAC identified something wrong with 400, and then removed 4000 bytes from the page. We need to go through it line by line, and not throw out the entirety of it unless the entirety is in fact an essay or original research or an NPOV violation, which it isn't. Real RS have discussed the Nunes memo, and the Schiff memo, and the events of Trump and the purported presidential suite or whatever. Valjean may have made mistakes, but that is why we collaborate and try to fix problems. There is a different problem being introduced if we claim that the IG report means all sources before 2019 are memoryholed. They aren't, and no policy says to do that, and there's not a consensus here to do that Andre🚐 05:29, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm here from the NPOV noticeboard. I agree with Andre that simply castigating the entire section based on identified issues with a small part of it isn't compliant with WP:PRESERVE. Whatever sentences constitute original research can be removed, but remaining content can be reworded to ensure encyclopedic tone and NPOV violations can typically be resolved by presenting other POVs or attributing claims. Katzrockso (talk) 13:23, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not here from the NPOV noticeboard and am not "uninvolved" though I deny being among the "some people" that AndreJustAndre refers to there. The details about Carter Page are already preserved in their own page Carter Page, restricting those details to that page would be okay with WP:DETAIL. If, as claimed, the original FISA warrant for Mr Page wasn't mainly due to the Steeele dossier, repetition about FISA here can be replaced by "Main article: Carter Page" and the sentences which are okay with WP:AGE_MATTERS that TheTimesAreAChanging identified. WP:PRESERVE says to consider "Merging or moving the content to a more relevant existing article, or splitting the content to an entirely new article" -- so the preservationists should consider whether what's relevant is already there. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

NPOVN

Because I think there have been some serious arguments that the article needs to be blown up and repeated attempts to blank sections, I am starting a short thread on NPOVN. Andre🚐 06:06, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi there, saw the NPOVN thread. Now I'm looking at this edit as an example and your restoration of it restored some things that absolutely should not have been restored. For instance: The role of evidence from the dossier in seeking FISA warrants soon became the subject of much debate. How much of the evidence was based on the dossier? Was it a "significant portion" or only a "smart part" of the FISA application? simply doesn't follow encyclopedic style. At all. Likewise, I can confirm the Sanchez source fails verification. And like the editor who removed that section I do think this points to WP:SYNTH problems. Simonm223 (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree about the encyclopedic style, but the Sanchez thing was already subsequently removed by TTAC in his next edit. And I also changed it myself before that. I've just changed the encyclopedic style text you pointed out as well.Andre🚐 16:27, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Horowitz and extended investigation

In section Varied observations of dossier's veracity is the sentence In June 2019, investigators for Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz found Steele's testimony surprising[462] and his "information sufficiently credible to have to extend the investigation".[463] The second cited article actually mentions "two sources with direct knowledge of the lawyers' travels" and later says "One of the two sources said Horowitz's investigators appear to have found Steele’s information sufficiently credible to have to extend the investigation. Its completion date is now unclear." So I can see that the Wikipedia sentence is wrongly confusing familiar sources with investigators and ignoring their uncertainty. I intend to remove the sentence in a few days but will wait for objections. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't think this sentence is too important, but on principle there is no Wikipedia guideline or policy that says we do not trust sources. If Reuters, an RS, trusts their sources to make a statement, we do as well. I can see removing this because it is outdated or it doesn't add much. Since it is from 2019, before the report was released, and it implies Horowitz found Steele credible at the time but it is superceded by the actual report later in which he really didn't find Steele too credible. The uncertainty on the completion date is irrelevant also because we know when it was completed. So I'm OK with removing this but for different reasoning. Andre🚐 18:09, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

AndreJustAndre has removed the sentence. This was not about trusting a source -- the sentence was not supported by the source. However, since the result is what I intended, fine. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:29, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

For the record and posterity, I'm not in agreement fully with that reasoning. It clearly states in the article, One of the two sources said Horowitz's investigators appear to have found Steele’s information sufficiently credible to have to extend the investigation. As I said, I'll buy that this is outdated information because we now know exactly how credible Horowitz found it. But, the difference between the article stating it outright and saying that one of two sources said it is a minor wording error and not a major factual error or an indication that the original article text was wholly unsupported. It is, as in other cases, an error of attribution and not of substance. Andre🚐 19:32, 5 October 2026 (UTC)