Talk:List of Trump–Russia dossier allegations

Why this sub-article?

The Contents now "Allegations" section is currently woefully lacking, so I decided to rectify the situation. I have tried to be careful about the following issues: BLP, copyright, OR, primary/secondary/tertiary, fair use, attribution, etc.

I have brought over pretty much everything that's already there, developed much more, and used better sources. I want to be very careful about copyright, and have kept within fair use limits. I also use secondary sources. If a secondary source engages in interpretation, then I have sought to attribute the comment, but if it's straight documentation, attribution is unnecessary.

My aim is to strictly document the main allegations which have been commented on by multiple secondary RS. Some allegations have been completely ignored, so I have also ignored them.

I welcome comments here. If you see any problems, let me know and we can work out improvements. Please ping me when you comment. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Do I understand that you are not intending this to be a standalone article, or at least that wasn't necessarily your intention in creating it? But you put it into mainspace without any qualification or label as such. To prevent it from being immediately AfD'ed, might you want to add some kind of notice at the top that this is a subarticle for possible inclusion in the main article? Or else move it to draft space or user space? --MelanieN (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, maybe I misunderstood your intentions. I see that you have linked to this article as "main" in the other article. So you intended to launch this immediately, and discuss it later? That wasn't what I understood from your bringing it up at the talk page of the other article. --MelanieN (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, explained below in "Now I have time....." -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• I think the "Natasha Bertrand" material should not be in the lede. Who the hell is she, and why does she get to summarize things in the lede paragraph? If kept at all, it should be in the "Cultivation, conspiracy, and cooperation" and/or "Key roles of Manafort, Cohen, and Page" sections.
• As I said at the main article's talk page, I absolutely oppose including any detail about the prostitute allegations, for BLP reasons. --MelanieN (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

What's "any detail"? Those allegations are in the dossier and in fact are probably the most famous aspect of the dossier and the one most commented on. I do agree that the description of it should be kept to a minimum, but it needs to say what it says.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing in BLP which forbids doing what has been done. It is a misunderstanding of BLP and a violation of NPOV and DUE WEIGHT to leave it out. It already gets far less attention in the article than it does in myriad very RS, and that's actually fine with me, especially since it's actually a very small part of the dossier which has been sensationalized all out of proportion. The dossier is actually much more boring reading.

BLP forbids including unsourced or poorly sourced negative content. That is not the case here, and the number of extremely RS which spell it out in its graphic detail is astounding. I have stuck to the actual allegation.

NPOV forbids editors from allowing their likes and dislikes to affect content. NPOV applies more to editorial conduct and attitudes, than to actual content. NPOV expressly allows biased content. Our job as editors is to ensure that the bias is unaffected by our editing. We must present it the way it exists in the original RS. We must not censor it. I suggest you read my essay: WP:NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content.

DUE WEIGHT tells us to give content the weight it receives in RS. Well, the dossier is what it is, and we must see what secondary RS say about it, and then document what they say. I am willing to compromise and violate DUE WEIGHT to some degree by giving the salacious details less weight than their sensationalized mention in RS, but not less than they do in the way of strict documentation of the actual allegations. They do that, and that's what I've done, neither more nor less. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Now I have time.....

Now I have time to respond to questions, objections, and suggestions. I appreciate it all. To adequately do this, I'd like to keep everything in one place, right here. Splitting a discussion between two pages is frustrating and wastes a lot of time.

I will answer one concern by explaining why I ultimately chose to make a sub-article, leaving a short summary and "main" link in the main article.

I originally intended to use the content in the "Contents" section of the main article. I have written several sizable articles and a number of smaller ones, and am quite familiar with the proper procedure for spinning off content when a section bloats so much it creates an undue weight situation. I have done that many times. The policy is found here: WP:SPINOFF.

Well, my good intentions had not envisioned how much stuff there was. It soon became apparent that using prose format in paragraphs would do the subject injustice, so I followed our guidelines for lists and chose a bullet format. This allows for easy reading, development, and adding two things which are relevant to the subject of these allegations: (1) Commentary, which of course must be attributed, and (2) Confirmation status, since each allegation has its own status. Some allegations have already been proven to be true, and others are still in limbo. The FBI knows more than we do, and I suspect, from what some RS state, that the FBI could, if it were wise to do so before the investigation is done, already confirm the veracity of a number of other allegations, but we are left waiting. They remain "unconfirmed", which does not equal false. C'est la vie.

What I have done is a reverse spinoff, which is not uncommon. I ended up deciding to go straight to a sub-article because there was so much content, and the potential growth would demand a spinoff anyway. NOW, if it is the community's desire that this sub-article be merged into the main article, without losing ANY content, that's fine. I personally think the size limits there would still allow it, but everyone should go into this with their eyes open: We will soon need to spin it off anyway. Is it worth moving it back and forth?

For those who mistakenly consider this sub-article a forbidden WP:POVFORK, read this: Articles whose subject is a POV. There is nothing about any particular "POV" as a reason for this sub-article. There is no POV to allegations. They are just allegations we're documenting, regardless of their POV. We document POV here. We don't espouse them. There is a difference.

This is a strictly limited job, without much wiggle room. We do not choose the allegations. They exist, and we must document them.

Now, feel free to reply to the above and make other comments, and ping me. Pinging MelanieN. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

"In Wikipedia's voice"?

PackMecEng, you have claimed that "...every allegation is in Wiki's voice...". What do you mean? Give an example from the article. If there is a problem, let's fix it. I'm willing to work with you on this. I wouldn't want anything inappropriate to remain unfixed.

Are you referring to the introduction to each allegation with the word "That....", as in "That Russia supported Trump because...", which is followed by the words from one or more RS? I had assumed that since the article is clearly about allegations, and the word allegation is wikilinked in the first line, that it would be obvious that the word "that" referred to an allegation: "A claim of a fact by a party in a pleading, charge, or defense. Until they can be proved, allegations remain merely assertions." We are repeating properly sourced assertions which are found in the dossier and repeated by myriad RS, without any interpretation. NPOV requires this. Those assertions are never made without using secondary RS. That would be "in Wikipedia's voice" and indeed be wrong.

Do you have a better way to do this? Here's a possible format I've been toying with, here illustrated with a fictive example:

(In the lead it would be noted that all allegations in the dossier will herafter be termed "allegations".

• Allegation: That the Trump campaign has been conspiring with Russian leadership to.... (followed by what the RS say when they quote or paraphrase the dossier.) Ideally we'd just quote the primary source here, but instead we're letting secondary sources do it, so in the end we still provide the reader with the actual allegation.

• Commentary: Captain Cook, writing in The New York Times, has described a history of such interactions ... (attributed comment followed by reference(s) which make the comment in the context of the dossier.)

• Confirmation status: According to the FBI, confirmation of this allegation was provided by allied foreign intelligence agencies which incidentally picked up conversations between Russian nationals and Trump campaign members discussing plans to .... (followed by proper sourcing.)

How else can we document the existence of an allegation? We have an article about a dossier full of allegations, but do not inform the reader about the actual allegations. That makes no sense at all. Before I created this sub-article, there were only five allegations listed. That's woefully lacking. We should document the ones which multiple RS have discussed, and not mention those which have been ignored by RS. That's what I've done. Pinging MelanieN. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that three-part organization would work well, but in paragraphs rather than the bulleted-list look. You have to decide what kind of article this is: is it an article, or a list? --MelanieN (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The main framework is definitely a bulleted list, and the choice is based on the MoS advice for this type of subject matter. It's the only way to do justice to each allegation, and it's much easier to work with as an editor and understand as a reader.

Prose works fine under each bulleted item. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

BullRangifer, Where in the MOS do you see a list format is recommended for this type of material? The MOS says Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a simple list may not. Pleas see WP:PROSE. I also prefer this be in a standard prose format. MelanieN recommended a three part organization. What is your opinion? Or maybe change it to List of Trump–Russia dossier allegations to clarify this is a list article. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Steve. Actually, the three part organization is my idea, and as far as prose goes, we are in agreement. Note what I wrote above: "Prose works fine under each bulleted item." It's ONLY the main framework which is in list form. That idea is found here, among other places: Appropriate use of lists. This allows for easy rearrangement and additions. It also allows for the addition of commentary, evidence, etc. I am totally open to the idea of renaming the article to List of Trump–Russia dossier allegations. I think I showed interest for this idea elsewhere. Was it you who suggested it? -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

BullRangifer, no. This is the first time I even thought of it. But - do what you think is best. Mine is just a suggestion. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I see it was My very best wishes right here. I suggest you read their comments at the AfD. They are quite insightful. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

This makes three of us who think this might be a good idea. Shall we just do it? I can do it, but if one of you wants to do the honors, I won't mind. It would indeed strengthen the case for keeping it as a separate list article, especially since it can easily double in size. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have been over that-a-way (the AfD discussion), and I read some of the comments. Maybe I saw MVBW's comments on a sub-concious level and repeated it here :>) :>) ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the move seems to have some support. I can do it in a little bit - no problem ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

BullRangifer  Done

So what I meant that it is all written in Wikipedia's voice is that every bullet point allegation is presented as fact with no attribution to the source. Which is why it looks like an attack page, everything listed is certainly in a negative tone with no counter. It also runs afowl of WP:BLPSOURCES "material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". Next, several of the sources have issues if they are RS for information like this.

1 - Business Insider written by Jeremy Blake. Who is part of the science team for energy, sustainability, and cannabis. Which is used as a reference for the dossier itself and that some parts might be classified. Not his field of expertise.

6 - The Guardian article is from their "The long read" section which looks like a news blog.

11 - Paste Magazine, I had not heard of them before but apparently they are a music and entertainment magazine. Probably not the best source for all the things listed to them

18 - Newsweek is reprinting an article from Just Security, which is a "online forum for the rigorous analysis of U.S. national security law and policy". Basically a blog.

19 - The Huffpost, it's their blog section.

20 - The Wall Street Journal, from their opinion and commentary section.

22 - Is the same article as 21 just re ported by AOL.

25 - The Cosmopolitan, it's Cosmopolitan... Also the writer Hannah Smothers, is their sex and relationships editors. Probably not the top person to analyse the dossier.

26 - Newsweek, the "Spytalk" section is a blog.

31 - Vanity Fair "Hive" section, I am not sure on this one. It might be fine or might be a podcast/blog. I cannot really tell.

32 - The Washington Post, "Fact Checker" which is is a political commentator column. Might be mistaken on that one though.

38 - Radio Free Europe, I had not heard of them but RSN seems to say they are iffy.

41 - Newsweek, an article from their opinion section.

42 - GQ, is written by Ben Roazen, a radio host from Hypebeast. Just re published by GQ. Not a RS.

44 - Vanity Fair "Hive" section again. Same as above, 31.

Finally not that it is necessarily bad but, how many articles are going to be by Business Insider's Natasha Bertrand? I count 8, not that she seems unreliable but some diversity would help since a little over one fifth of the article is sourced to her.

That is just a quick pass on the sources so far. I have not gone in depth to confirm the source to the text but even still there are issues. PackMecEng (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

PackMecEng, thank you for responding. I see your point about not linking directly to the dossier itself, and instead using secondary/tertiary sources to reproduce what the dossier says.

In just about any other article we would do just that, and I wish I could, but there is a reason for not doing it that way. Maybe you haven't noticed, but our external links policy forbids us from linking directly to the dossier source at BuzzFeed and DocumentCloud because it is copyrighted, and we have no evidence that they have permission to host it.

Yes, this is a VERY odd situation! That's why I have chosen other sources. They quote under "fair use" laws, and we can too. You are welcome to check the dossier[1] and compare to see if the sources used have misrepresented the actual allegations. Hint, most of the time they are quoting the dossier exactly. . When they aren't, they are paraphrasing accurately. We are allowed to do that. Believe me, I'd love to just quote directly, and add a link to the source, but I can't provide a URL link to the original dossier source.

To resolve this, I suspect it would be allowable to quote the dossier, but just use the refs to the other sources which are quoting it. That would be simpler than scrounging around (which isn't hard, since myriad very notable RS quote it) to find other sources which quote it.

The advantage of doing it the way I have done is that it removes any doubt that I may have scurrilously performed OR by cherrypicking the allegations I wanted to highlight for some sort of partisan reason. On the contrary, I have not included a number of allegations because RS have also ignored them. Then I have included only those which have been commented on by multiple RS, and used those sources to nail the legitimacy of including that allegation firmly to a policy-based wall, especially WP:PUBLICFIGURE:

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. (Emphasis added.) Source: WP:PUBLICFIGURE

This policy actually follows American legal practice regarding libel/slander. Public figures have almost no protection in real life. They literally can almost never win a libel suit. At Wikipedia, they receive, according to BLP, less protection than relatively unknown persons. (See: WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE).

Note that all the conditions listed for inclusion are abundantly fulfilled. There is no legitimate, policy-based, reason for not documenting these allegations, including the most salacious. Per DUE WEIGHT, the most salacious should get the most weight(!) here, but because they are only an extremely small part of the dossier, and their inflated weight in the media has only been because of the tendency for media to sensationalize anything sexual, we don't want to honor such yellow journalism motives. Here we're just going to document the allegation, as it is, no more and no less. Yes, that's technically a violation of DUE WEIGHT policy, but in this case, common sense and IAR go hand in hand. I suspect that MelanieN will agree with me. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I have not asked to link to the dossier anywhere above, I was there for the discussion when it was decided we cannot link to it. That is not the issue I was talking about. WP:INTEXT attribution would be an example of a way to get it out of Wiki's voice.

Next lets look at your interpretation of public figure. First, several of the sources listed above do not meet the multiple RS standard. Second stating the allegations does not mean stating them as fact. Check the example stated in that section " A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported". So again it is not following the policy you stated. PackMecEng (talk) 13:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

PackMecEng, okay, now I'm getting a little better idea of how you're thinking. Not totally clear, but closer. That's good. I really appreciate this.

Let's take the first allegation listed and see the (1) raw data from the dossier, then look at (2) what is in the article, then (3) I'll write it as you propose, and then (4) let you show us how you'd rather do it, in case I have misunderstood you. This deserves its own section, so I'm going to copy this to below, and don't expect any response here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

As far as the sources, the ONE question to answer is, does the source accurately quote or paraphrase the allegation, without interpretation? (Any interpretation would be reserved for our commentary/opinion section, not in the allegation section.) The reliability of a source is determined by HOW it is being used. No source, even The New York Times, is considered a RS all of the time for every purpose, but even a junk article there can have a gem in it which can justify using it to document the existence of that gem, so to speak. That's why we even use extremely unreliable sources here (even blacklisted ones) to document their own POV in their own articles. So the purpose determines whether a source is "reliable" in a given situation. With that in mind, analyze how each source is used, and then get back to me if one has been misused for the purpose for which it was actually used. That would be easy to fix. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

No that is not how RS especially on a BLP work. We do not decide "hey this is not a RS but I think the info in there is right so lets use it". Useing opinion and unreliable sources in a BLP violates V and NPOV. But lets look at how some are used, every one listed above to blog or opinion is used incorrectly since they are stated as fact not to the author with in-text attribution. Again with the sources listed above it goes against WP:BLPSOURCE and technically "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion". PackMecEng (talk) 13:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I've said that any of the sources I used are considered unreliable, just that it depends on how they are being used. An opinion source will often have two elements: (1) statement of a fact or allegation, and then (2) opinion about it. I have only used the first part, and if I've used the second, it should be clear that it's the author's opinion, hence the attribution. We would not use their opinion to document a statement of fact, but we could use the source to document the existence of the fact or allegation, as long as we don't include any interpretation. Any interpretation would need inline attribution and be included as the author's opinion. We would also not use such a source at all to write a provenly false, BLP-violating, opinion that is not in harmony with the "(1) statement of fact or allegation".

The way we are allowed to use opinion articles, including about BLP content (and we are) is to provide the opinions of authors about the subject, as their opinions, not as statements of fact. If they lie and state that "Captain Cook said he was in the WH when he overheard the conversation", but in reality Captain Cook said "he was NOT in the WH, and had NOT overheard the conversation", we would not use that source at all. It's unreliable because it misrepresents the facts. There is a situation where we would still use it, and that was if that lie became a scandal and was widely reported. Then we'd document the scandal by including the false statement, identify it as a false allegation, and then document, using myriad RS, how it was false, created a scandal, and how other RS reacted to it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Allegations could be simplified?

Ravenanation, you suggested that "the allegations could be simplified". I'm intrigued. How could we do this? Before answering, you may want to look at the previous section, especially my proposed development framework: Allegation, Commentary, Confirmation status.

Many, but not all, of the allegations will fit into this framework because they have received a lot of coverage in myriad RS, often daily. (I use Google alerts to keep up with this, and it's overwhelming.) Since the Special Counsel is investigating all of the allegations, already leading to indictments and arrests, we too must take them seriously. That's how the American and foreign intelligence communities treat them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

BullRangifer, you're right. But there are many topics of allegations, I think they could be united in one. I do not think they would get confused or lose relevance in a single paragraph. I support the suggested format below. Ravenanation (talk) 12:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The lede

A couple of comments about the lede. First, as I mentioned above, it is really jarring to have the second sentence be an extended quote from a non-notable person. The natural reaction is "Who? Why is she quoted here?" That belongs in the text IMO.

Second, summarizing the contents is a good idea, but quoting the section headings is not the way to do it. Give a try at a prose summary of what is covered. --MelanieN (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Maybe I'll take a shot at it. --MelanieN (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Go for it! You're good at that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Some of the relevant parts of the lead in the main article can be used. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I started, but I'm going to be away for two days so maybe somebody else better take it on. --MelanieN (talk) 06:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

See below. I managed to come up with a preliminary rewrite for people to work on and improve. --MelanieN (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

You rock!! It's a privilege to work with people like you. Thanks for the great improvements. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, I have taken the relevant part of your lead here (IOW most of it) and used it as the content of the Allegations section in the main article. It serves the purpose very well there. I made a few minor copy edits and added some wikilinks in both places. For now, it looks good. As this article develops, we may need to tweak the lead here, and we can then add those tweaks there. Does that sound good to you? -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the lead for a list must be: (a) sufficiently brief, and (b) be consistent with main page on the subject. So, I re-wrote it a little. Yes, I removed the quotation of Natasha Bertrand. My very best wishes (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Suggested format

Here's a possible format I've been toying with, here illustrated with a fictive example:

• Allegation: That the Trump campaign has been conspiring with Russian leadership to.... (followed by what the RS say when they quote or paraphrase the dossier.) Ideally we'd just quote the primary source here, but instead we're letting secondary sources do it, so in the end we still provide the reader with the actual allegation.

• Commentary: Captain Cook, writing in The New York Times, has described a history of such interactions ... (attributed comment followed by reference(s) which make the comment in the context of the dossier.)

• Confirmation status: According to the FBI, confirmation of this allegation was provided by allied foreign intelligence agencies which incidentally picked up conversations between Russian nationals and Trump campaign members discussing plans to .... (followed by proper sourcing.)

This article is the type which could provide content for this last level regarding evidence and confirmation status. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I have just tried it to see how it looks. It's super easy to edit, rearrange, expand, add sourcing, etc, and it's very easy to read. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

BullRangifer I noticed. It looks really good to me. I think we should stick with this format. Especially as a list article. So here we go with that... (stay tuned)...---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the move -  Done

Steve Quinn, great move! This makes total sense. I don't know why I didn't do it in the first place. It's been too long since I've worked with lists. Now will you add the new link to the top of the AfD? -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Now we just need MelanieN to create a better lead. She's good at that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Creating this type of link at an AfD is one thing I haven't done before. I will give a try ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Go for it. I'm not sure there is only one "right" way to do it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, I have done a rewrite of the first two paragraphs (we needed to say a little more about what the dossier is if this is to be a standalone article). I replaced the list of section titles with a prose summary of allegations. I regard this rewrite as preliminary, and I will be away for two days so I can't do the usual polishing. Please, everybody, feel free to tweak or rewrite as needed. By the way I would still like to see that quote from whats-her-name removed from the lede paragraph. --MelanieN (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Reply to PackMecEng

This comment has been copied from above for further comment here:

I have not asked to link to the dossier anywhere above, I was there for the discussion when it was decided we cannot link to it. That is not the issue I was talking about. WP:INTEXT attribution would be an example of a way to get it out of Wiki's voice.

Next lets look at your interpretation of public figure. First, several of the sources listed above do not meet the multiple RS standard. Second stating the allegations does not mean stating them as fact. Check the example stated in that section " A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported". So again it is not following the policy you stated. PackMecEng (talk) 13:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

PackMecEng, okay, now I'm getting a little better idea of how you're thinking. Not totally clear, but closer. That's good. I really appreciate this.

Let's take the first allegation listed and see the (1) raw data from the dossier, then look at (2) what is in the article, (3) add the denial (which does exist a few times, then (4) I'll write it as you propose, and then (5) let you show us how you'd rather do it, in case I have misunderstood you.

BTW, have you noticed that multiple other editors and admins, with many more years and experience here, have not raised these objections? You seem to have some novel interpretations of policy.

The dossier is formatted with a summary and then details. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Dossier summary: "Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years. Aim, endorsed by PUTIN, has been to encourage splits and divisions in western alliance."
• Dossier detail explanation: "the Russian authorities had been cultivating and supporting US Republican presidential candidate, Donald TRUMP for at least 5 years. Source B asserted that the TRUMP operation was both supported and directed by Russian President Vladimir PUTIN. Its aim was to sow discord and disunity both within the US itself, but more especially within the Transatlantic alliance which was viewed as inimical to Russia’s interests."

• Allegation: That Russia has been "cultivating, supporting and assisting" Trump for at least five years.

Note that there is no inline attribution since the author's opinions and interpretations are not used. The citations at the end is enough.

• With inline attribution: It has been alleged by Withnall and Sengupta, Sumter, Harding, and Price, that the dossier alleges that Russia has been "cultivating, supporting and assisting" Trump for at least five years.

Note: Is that what you mean by including inline attribution? Normally it's only used for opinions and interpretation.

• Denial: Donald Trump has denied this allegation.

Note: We may not have a source which says that, but he has disavowed the dossier as a whole, so we could say that, and use the same quote used in the lead. This would be OR, because his general denial can be an evasion. If questioned about the specific allegation, he might not be so emphatic, but he'd probably deny anyway, no matter how much reliable evidence is piled up in front of him proving he's lying. That's his style. I'm not referring to this specific allegation, but in general about his approach to all allegations against him.:

• Denial: Donald Trump has repeatedly denied the allegations, labeling the dossier as a "witch hunt", "discredited", "debunked", "fictitious", and "fake news".

• Commentary goes here. This is where opinions and interpretations belong, and they must have inline attribution.

• Confirmation status goes here.

Now, please explain your opinions on the above and show us what you mean. If I've gotten it wrong, please explain. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Excessive detail RE: bodyguard/hookers

In this edit [2] I removed excessive detail as to Trump's bodyguard's statement supporting Trump's denial concerning Russian hookers. I left a simple statement that Trump denies the allegation.

This is a list article, and the content concerning Trump's bodyguard's statement is undue detail, not relevant to the list - as a list - and adds nothing to the substantive fact of Trump's denial. Furthermore, the testimony of Trump's employees and former employees is of weak and limited use in these matters.

To my surprise, my edit challenging this text was reinserted without consensus. If anyone wishes to argue for consensus to include this, please respond to my challenge stated above. SPECIFICO talk 12:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll have to admit I don't see any problem with this content. It's properly sourced. The "list" argument doesn't prevent more development and detail. It's only the main framework that's a list, otherwise prose is the content, and, for balance, the observations in multiple RS that Schiller's account fails to mention that he left, and really couldn't speak about what might have happened to those five women when he was gone. His attempted denial is seen as confirmation that the allegation isn't totally without some merit, and the denial does not remove the possibility that it still happened after he left. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO - bypassing DS is another reason this is a POVFORK. If it's not deleted based on the obvious policy violations, there may be a rash of articles created based only on unsubstantiated allegations including opposition research results of past presidents, not to mention other public figures. Thinking back on the articles that were deleted for some of the reasons I mentioned in the AfD may also result in recreations if it passes - a new precedent will have been set. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)