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.

After creating this article, I have brought over the five allegations listed in the main article, since they are covered much better here, using even more and 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 place the contents here into 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)

Sources
References

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)

Hmmm... Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations. I have to run. See y'all later. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm...Matt Lauer sexual misconduct allegations was redirected.

Actually it was (very poorly) merged, leaving a redirect. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:01, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually none of the content was merged - it was deleted - and most of what was already in the main article prior to the AfD was also deleted. See the discussion Talk:Matt_Lauer/Archive_1#AfD_notice which became a rather controversial event that we hope to avoid in the future by removing ambiguities in the PAGs and improving the process. But that's a different project. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, and concerning that policy was violated. The decision was to merge, not delete. That's what your diff shows: "This article was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 9 December 2017 with a consensus to merge the content into the article Matt Lauer." -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: This article is currently being pushed for deletion as a fork of the main Dossier article. To the extent this article diverges from its legitimate purpose as a list article, per @MelanieN:'s discourse at the AfD, the existence of this article is jeopardized. Ironically, you are cited in the edit summary that summarily reinserted this inappropriate, pointless, and redundant content. It does not belong in this list, which already honors Trump's denial with a straighforward statement that he denies the allegation. SPECIFICO talk 16:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of the text, this is a pretty clear violation of discretionary sanctions by User:TheTimesAreAChanging and he should indeed self revert to avoid WP:AE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, VM...and the reason it's a violation of DS? ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Violation of required before restoring challenged edit restriction.. ​ Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Thx, Galobtter - I actually didn't look at the earlier edits and at first glance, it just appeared as though he added info. I see Coffee added a notice to the edit page view as well. I imagine most drive-by editors don't stop to look at the TP. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

This article was not under DS at the time of my edit. My edit was made at 07:19. After SPECIFICO inaccurately told Coffee that I had violated this article's non-existent DS at 17:39, Coffee added the template at 17:43. Coffee still decided to put me on "probation" (whatever that means) for a single normal revert that he retroactively considered sanctionable, but I will be appealing that admin's latest poor decision.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: Please look at this revision of this page and explain how This article was not under DS at the time of my edit. Sorry for my ignorance, if any. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Mandruss, once the talk page has been tagged, the warning remains visible on earlier revisions of the talk page, but that does not mean that the warning was actually there the whole time. Coffee already confirmed that "the page restrictions hadn't been added to that article yet."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: In that case, why isn't the warning visible in this revision and all prior revisions? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Those are two different templates. The current template does not show in the page history as of the time you reinserted w/o consensus. However, the "Consensus Required" template does show and it showed at the time you violated it. SPECIFICO talk 21:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: Notwithstanding what Coffee said, the remedies and DS were in place as of this revision -- four days ago. In my view you'd be wise to withdraw your appeal before it's converted to a topic ban. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Back to the issue here, about the comment from Schiller: I think it should be included simply because many people are citing it as a "debunking" or "denial" of the dossier's allegations (even though it really isn't). I think we have agreed on this page to include commentary, as well as things that have been pointed out as confirming the accusation; it's only right to also include things that have been pointed out as contradicting it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

But then how do we differentiate this reference tool -- a list -- from the Dossier article that explores its origins, evidence, and veracity? I think a handy list is more useful to our readers, just as we have timeline articles that omit significant detail that's found in the main articles. We should always include simple denials per BLP, but this is not the place for details. Otherwise we may as well merge into one article that will become unwieldy and useless to our readers. SPECIFICO talk 00:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I totally agree with MelanieN. That is exactly the type of content we should include to maintain NPOV. RS cover the allegations, and also countering arguments. We should include it.

I also agree with her that it isn't really a good defense, since Schiller admitted he then left Trump alone and didn't stay with him. Anything could have happened after he left, and multiple witnesses, including hotel employees, claim the allegations are correct. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The main article details on allegations have already been gutted, so there is no detail listed there. The list format is not the right format in many ways for this article if we are not going to have complete anywhere at this point. PackMecEng (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Still, this content should not have been restored because it was challenged by revert (or removal). The remedies and sanctions were in place at the time of SPECIFICO's edit, and therefore were in place at the time of TTAC's edit. It should be removed, along with my addition to it, until some sort of consensus is reached. Oh yeah, I added to this restored edit resulting in a more complete picture according to the CNN source---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Although I think it's good content and support whoever added it, there seems to be too much disagreement right now, and therefore I have removed it. Now get a consensus. Try more discussion, and if that doesn't work, an RfC. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

^^^^ Process before position, a good example for all Wikipedia editors. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Wisdom. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Some Trump defenders have argued that Schiller's statement debunks the salacious claims in the dossier. But in fact, his statement actually VERIFIES that the Russians did in fact offer to send prostitutes to Trump. Schiller simply says that on the occasion he knows about, Trump refused the offer. IMO this is all the more reason to include Schiller's statement, since it can be interpreted more than one way. (I'm not suggesting we put my interpretation into the article since I don't have a link for it; call it Original Research on my part.) --MelanieN (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

While I agree that facts should be included - Schiller's testimony being fact - I'm covering my eyes in an attempt to erase the remainder of your conspiracy theory and the fact that you planted an inappropriate seed, perhaps to germinate into the minds of editors? I can't begin to tell you the depth of my dismay over what I just read. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, don't feel bad. It's a big hotel. I'm sure here were other fields to plow. 👨‍🌾👨‍🌾 SPECIFICO talk 00:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Ha! Just keep in mind...it's not Hotel California. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Just perfect, Atsme. 😶 SPECIFICO talk 03:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

For the moment I agree with MelanieN, because this is a good reason to include. Leave it up to the reader to decide for themselves the veracity of Trump's denial. Then "One world approved your wisdom, another approved {SPECIFICO's}". But keep in mind, I'm just a "simple man"---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done Discussion indicates rough consensus for inclusion; I have restored the material. — JFG ^talk 16:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

We need specific, "fixable", suggestions

The removal of a lot of templates from the top of the article by My very best wishes was a good move. Large and general flags like that are unconstructive because they don't identify specific spots, wordings, or sources for improvement. They are so general as to be equal to a big "I Don't Like It" flag.

Specific and focused suggestions dealing with small amounts of content and sources are FIXABLE. We need that type of constructive criticism. Any article needs improvement, and we need fixable suggestions. Politrukki made several suggestions of that type during the AfD, and it resulted in improved content. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Cohen's travel to prague

from the WP-article "A Czech intelligence source told the Respekt magazine that there is no record of Cohen arriving in Prague by plane, although the news weekly pointed out he could have traveled by car or train from a nearby EU country, avoiding passport control under Schengen zone travel rules."

That is certainly true but it immediately begs the question: well, is there a record of Cohen traveling to any of the Schengen countries by plane then? Surely a "Czech intelligence source" with access to the Czech flight records has access to the Schengen area records, as well. So overall the above sentence appears to be a rather weak argument in favour of the possibility of Cohen being in Prague at that time and should be rephrased as such. --Felixkrull (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

That would be OR. Unless we have other RS commenting on it, we're stuck with this. Will you suggest better wording? Improvements are always welcome.

For all we know, intelligence services, the FBI, and Robert Mueller have this information and have already interviewed any witnesses. We just don't know, nor are we supposed to...at this point in the investigation. The same applies to the anonymous sources in the Trump–Russia dossier. Steele knows their names, and so do some other people in intelligence, and Mueller has probably interviewed them. We will never know who they are or their lives and jobs will be compromised. They will also be useless as sources in the future. That's how these things are supposed to work. Anonymous ≠ non-existent/unknown. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

thanks for the feedback. we are left in a dark that only Mr. Mueller can lift. :-) I just think the whereabouts of Cohen are a pivotal point and the phrasing should be clear. The Schengen system, with all it's weakness and failures does provide the opportunity to provide data to "competent authorities, such as police and border guards"SIS from the Schengen countries or EU bodies. So my suggestion would be, to put the Czech statement in proper perspective, we should add "In the latter case a record of Cohen entering the Schengen area via another country must exist." after "under Schengen zone travel rules". --Felixkrull (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I have lived and traveled in Europe for many years, and, although there are usually cameras, and sometimes the old, and now often unmanned, border crossing buildings, one can easily travel into countries without anyone checking or seeing who is in a car, especially if one travels at night. That's also the nicest time to travel long distances because one avoids the traffic, and in the summer the heat. It takes no special effort to avoid detection by literally anyone, including police and secret services, and no such record "must exist". There may be some countries where it's a bit more difficult, but the rules for Schengen zone countries tend to preclude too tight security controls and checks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Felixkrull is correct: while travel within the Schengen area requires no border checks, any entry into or exit from the Schengen area is tightly policed. Records must and do exist, and they are shared instantly among all member countries. See our article on the Schengen Information System. — JFG ^talk 08:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Duh! (Slapping myself upside the head!) Of course. I got fixated on travel "within" the area. Yes, travel into any country in the area from outside the area would normally be recorded. We don't have any information of that type in this case, only Cohen's denial, which we do mention. The reason that there is any question about this at all is that the word of a suspect is always suspect. Felix makes a good point, so I'm going to add his suggested wording immediately. -- BullRangifer (talk) 08:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Oops! Following some advice on cleaning up the article to make it a bare list, possibly for merging back into the main article, I have moved that content to the main article. I'll put it there. Soon this may all be in one place, as I originally intended. This weekend may be a good time to work on that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 09:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks for the updates. — JFG ^talk 09:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

thanks for the effort from my side, as well! --Felixkrull (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Merge This article → Trump–Russia dossier

This article doesn't really have a good reason to stand alone other than length, and length is a problem that can be addressed with formatting and proper prose integration. If we merged this article into the main article, we could trim out all but the dry text outlining the allegation (a step that would, I believe, address many of the NPOV complaints made here), leaving the commentary to the main parts of the article. This could be formatted in a number of ways that would not make that article over-long. Indeed, much of the dry text describing the allegations could be trimmed significantly, as the details will have been given in the main body already. I mean, this article is about the contents of the dossier. I don't see any need to fork that off from the main article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Resolved process discussion

NOTE TO CLOSER. If this succeeds, please leave a redirect, but do not delete the history. Not only for the sake of attribution, but there are also things there that may come in handy later. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC) Unnecessary request: preserving history is standard process when merging. You'd need a good reason to erase it, such as slanderous BLPVIO. — JFG talk 08:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC) Thanks. I thought that was the case, but didn't want to risk it. I've seen it happen. -- BullRangifer (talk) 08:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Pinging all recent commenters on this page so we can get more responses: JFG, Felixkrull, Steve Quinn, SPECIFICO, MelanieN, Mandruss,PackMecEng, TheTimesAreAChanging, Galobtter, Volunteer Marek, My very best wishes, DHeyward -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Support as nom. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support it just doesn't make sense to have the allegations separate from Trump–Russia dossier - allegations are what comprises the dossier. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support. This was originally my intent, and now that most all of the commentary and denials are moved to the main article, the entire list of allegations can be moved.

The current lead and the current content in the Allegations section of the main article are largely duplicative, and any differences can be merged. The allegations themselves only fill 21,815 bytes, plus the current 103,366 bytes. 125,181 is not too large an article. There is plenty of room for more content, including some allegations that are getting more attention in RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC) (Numbers updated. BullRangifer (talk) 07:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC))

• Support – The main dossier article is not overly long, and it should be trimmed of all the early speculations about its existence and initial media circus. Merged content should remain terse and devoid of opinion. — JFG ^talk 08:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Oppose (my apologies). One should check Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Bulleted_and_numbered_lists and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists. The list should not be simply copy-pasted to main page. But perhaps making the list of claims as a Table in main page might work. However, after looking at the actual Tables below, I think that bullet format is actually much better, thinking simply in terms of web design. My very best wishes (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

That was actually the exact formatting I had in mind. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I had originally proposed a table format, and have done quite a bit of work with it. Unfortunately that example would involve OR. Since we're basing our content on what multiple RS cover, it ends up looking different, but a table might still work. If you're interested, I have just moved a prepared table here, based on our current list of allegations. It gives an idea of what it can look like, and can be changed in many ways. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC) Pinging My very best wishes & MjolnirPants

@BR. Sorry, but I do not like it; this is simply unaestetic, in my opinion. But whatever decision, you made good work, and it is going to be included somewhere. My very best wishes (talk) 02:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I too prefer the bulleted version, but it's interesting to actually see how it looks in a table. The community here can decide on the format. Whatever will be, will be. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Malarkey - The article title is bunk - it's way too POV. The actual known facts about this so-called "dossier" are that Hillary paid the law firm, the law firm paid GPS, GPS paid Steele and Steele was fed gibberish by Podesta Blumenthal [3], et al. If there actually is any bona fide Russia-sourced information in it, it's because Steele paid some people in/from/who know some things about Russia to invent some lies about Trump. The entire article is junk and should be trashed. Xerton (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• I would advise you to completely remove (and stop believing) two very serious BLP violations: (1) "Steele was fed gibberish by Podesta, et al." No, Steele did not even know that the DNC and Clinton were the clients. Nothing came from them or Podesta. (2) "Steele paid some people in/from/who know some things about Russia to invent some lies about Trump." No, there is no evidence he did that. He does very serious work, trusts his sources, and intelligence agencies believe in his integrity. Everything he's done indicates he takes the allegations seriously and thinks that America is under attack. So much of what he wrote has proven true that intelligence agencies use the dossier as their "road map". Some of the allegations have been independently confirmed by other means (electronic eavesdropping of Trump people and Russians) and by foreign intelligence gathering. If the allegations were being proven false, they would not trust it, and there is no indication they have lost faith in it. It's not perfect, but as raw humint, not a finished product, he believes it's "70-90% accurate". -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an allowed argument in this situation. Neither is this a forum. Use policy-based arguments. WP:NOTHERE may also apply. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say that I don't like the article. Rather, what I was trying to say is that this article is lopsided against the known facts. It's an established fact that this "dossier" was paid for as opposition research by the HRC campaign and that none of the salacious/bad accusations against Trump in it have been verified. It's also an established fact that the FBI, in the FIS Court warrants (FISA), were virtually silent on the true source of the funding for this. As I see it, by calling this article the "Trump-Russia" dossier allegations, instead of something more accurate, such as the "Steele Opposition Research" dossier allegations, we are using a naming convention which totally shifts the focus from a neutral examination, to a biased tone by default. And no, I have not been force-feeding a bad perspective into the article. Instead, I've been trying to reasonably comment here. My aim is to get a discussion going here, not be chastised on my talk page, like this [4] Xerton (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

You'll find that many do not consider those views you express to be "established fact". Those ideas are from (1) suspects in an ongoing special counsel criminal investigation (suspects cannot be trusted); from Putin's Russia (even as they laugh on Russian TV about how they successfully interfered in our election and "chose America's president"); from RT and Sputnik; and from fringe websites which are not considered RS here. Intelligence agencies, MSM RS, and the majority of Americans do no share your POV.

Those are your POV, but they are misplaced in this section. Here we are trying to decide whether or not to merge the list of allegations. Either this article remains here, or we blank it and move the allegations. Those are the choices. We aren't discussing the title either.

So please just stay on topic: "Stay here or move there?" -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support per my previous comments in the AfD.- MrX 🖋 22:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - All the relevant arguments for a merge were covered at the AfD and they were unpersuasive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - a few reasons that occur... may never fit but at this time just not at all ready

• WP:UNDUE - the Trump-Russia dossier is a narrative that follows the WP:WEIGHT of what coverage is, many events and comments but not about the text itself. This amount of material specific to the text would be wildly excessive for that article. In that article what would be better match seems under 50 words total or a couple lines describing allegations quality overall so-so (with a couple good sources) and identify the top 5 allegations (in 4 words or less each) and a couple discredited bits (in 4 words or less). The articles actually presenting the whole text or describing some analysis of it overall is fairly tiny. A couple that might link to seem the Washington Post fact-checker opinion article, or the Bump article walk thru of each section of the document.
• WP:POV - this lacks WP:BALANCE, in sources used and in lack of the significant coverage on widespread handling as a 'dodgy' item and of right-wing crowing over items discredited, plus it's nature of the bulk being one-sided allegations with occasional flawed wording for what is presented. (Really this article should either be tagged on concerns or moved to draft space for work.) For example, in sources I'll note that there is Mother Jones and Vanity Fair and Buzzfeed ... but nothing from the much-larger/prominent FoxNews.
• WP:INDISCRIMINATE and/or WP:OR appearance - it does not follow WP:LISTDD to provide context and criteria in the lead section. In particular the article sectioning seems ad hoc, content is not related back to title/place within the dossier and has not stated in the article what the selection basis is.
• WP:Dispute resolution - some editors above went further and voiced the view this is a WP:POVFORK, where WP:POVFORK indicates 'Criticism of' collection of negatives is suspect or the WP:CFORK "highlight negative" description of WP:POVFORK. Maybe the article is inherently POV. But at any rate, a significant number of concerns should be further discussed and addressed, and it seems hasty to try and add the material accused of being half-baked to another article.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Mark, this is not an AfD, so let's not rehash that. Many of your concerns would be resolved if this list were placed where the stuff you feel is missing is located. The dossier IS these allegations. The main article describes the history, veracity, controversies, criticisms, etc, but that's only the "covers" and "appendices" of the book. The actual contents are located right here, and this is what all the other stuff is about. The contents belong within the covers of the book, where the appendices are located. By placing the picture back in the frame, it becomes a whole which makes more sense. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• User:BullRangifer - my comments were about the reasons not to merge, read them again -- e.g. This article content is too big to fit there without being an WP:UNDUE amount to the subtopic, the WP:WEIGHT is supposed to be in proportion to the prominence of the viewpoint or aspect and by FAR most of the coverage is about the twists and turns of events and not about the content. In a separate article specifically about content it's not an issue, but in a combined article the major amount of text here would be a problem and would then need to lose something like 90% of the verbiage. Better that the other article just have a para and point here, or maybe it have a link to the dossier PDF itself. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Markbassett, I totally understand your thinking. It was that thinking, suggested by someone else, that convinced me to deviate from my original plan to use the allegations as the Contents section, and to instead make it a separate article. Then someone suggested it should be renamed, without any change of content, to a List article, and that's why that happened.

The reasons I used for justifying a separate list were primarily size and growth potential, but others have convinced me that it's not as big an issue after all. I think they're right. The main article can easily incorporate this list, without any problem. It has even been suggested that the list can be in a foldable(?) format. (I don't remember the exact term that was used.)

To get an idea of how this will look, I'll do an experiment. I'll actually place the allegations in the main article's contents section, and then immediately self-revert. Then we can look at the diff and make a more informed decision. It will also give us an idea of the size, but since many of the refs are used in both articles (often with different ref names), the total size will be larger than it will be after a proper merge.

We can't lose much of the verbiage because we must stick to the actual allegations which are mentioned in RS. Most entries are pretty exact, with only a bit of introduction and connecting words, and that amount is insignificant. We are not a paper encyclopedia.

BTW, we are not allowed to link to the dossier PDF because it's a copyrighted work hosted without permission. It would be great if Fusion GPS hosted it on their website. That would solve the problem, assuming that they or Steele own the copyright. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I found the term. MelanieN called it a "show-hide button" in the AfD, where she !voted to save the article from deletion. Now that she can see the test of the list incorporated into the main article (see experiment below), I wonder what she'll say. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Experiment done. See here. The allegations themselves are only 21,815 bytes, and when added to the existing 103,366 bytes we get 125,181 bytes. Both visually and by bytes, the allegations are actually a small part of the article, and the TOC can be fixed so they aren't all listed there.

It's odd that the "book covers" fill more than the "pages" (allegations) of the "book". We really do need to place the allegations there. An isolated and bare list of allegations isn't NPOV because it lacks context and commentary. There it will all be together.

So size is not an issue. Look at the actual test results. Yes, even I am surprised. After a proper merge, there will be even less because there is a lot of duplication of refs.-- BullRangifer (talk) 04:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I would definitely favor placing the Allegations section down after the Authorship section. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

BullRangifer Size is an issue - for the article topic of the Steele dossier, googling shows me only a few percent into the text itself - the vast bulk of it is the events such as where it came from, what the FBI did, what Trump tweeted, what a CIA expert said about it, Congress having testimony from Fusion GPS, Nunes memo about it, and so on. Mentions of the content are largely characterizing it e.g. 'salacious' or paraphrasing/characterizing an allegation is -- e.g. parts disproven, parts verified, 'salacious' -- and not the text itself. If I select a RS like site:BBC.com, I get about the same, plus that that Steele involvement with World Cup. Text on this should be about 5% to 2% depending on sources ... adding 8 screens to the 32 here in a 20-25% insert is far too much, and there were mentions to add more about the status on items. And again, it is just not ready. Besides the quantity issue, bits were mentioned as still coming; plus the quality concerns of it is POV and that a bare list appears as INDISCRIINATE/OR has not been addressed; and finally -- I think you have not yet had the MERGE Talk at the destination article per WP guidance ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Markbassett:I just read your !vote and it's -quite frankly- the most backwards argument I've ever read. You essentially call this article a blatant BLP violating POV fork with bad sourcing (claims I'm not entirely in disagreement with), then say that's a reason not to get rid of this article and get the contents into a more visible article. I can't make heads or tails of that. It's like you say my name attached to the RfC and immediately decided to oppose it. If this article is so bad, why the hell would you want to keep it? The AfD didn't pass, and another one is just going to get the same result. So it's either merge or edit, and clearly you don't want to edit it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

MjolnirPants and Markbassett, I've had the same thoughts. If this were an improper POV fork (which it isn't), the solution is to put it back in the main article where it is in its proper context. (Put the pages back in the book. Put the picture back in its frame.) Even in the AfD, the nominator recognized that "the allegations are the dossier - the two are inseparable". Many who objected to this list at the AfD argued FOR putting it in the main article.

As far as "poor sources" "bad sourcing" goes, keep in mind that a source's reliability is determined by how we use it. No source is reliable for all purposes. In this article, sources are strictly used to document the "existence" of the allegation, and only that, preferably if they actually quote or closely paraphrase it. For opinions, the source may or may not be good, but those opinions have been moved to the main article, so that's no longer an issue here. If anyone finds that a source has been improperly used here, by all means fix it, discuss it, etc. Because of the DS restrictions, it would probably be safest to discuss first. There are plenty of sources in the article, and usually multiple ones can be substituted for a questionable one. Many excellent sources cover most of the allegations included here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

BullRangifer - what "poor sources" issue are you talking of and/or from who ? I am citing UNDUE and Just Not Ready ... As to POVFORK, note that deletion is another option it states, and if not deleted then see WP:POVFORK "Any daughter article that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article must include suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the split article." (If it's decided that it was not a POVFORK does not mean it was proven NPOV or gets to be exempt from NPOV.) Markbassett (talk) 02:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Markbassett, so sorry about the confusion. I meant "bad sourcing". I was referring to what MjolnirPants wrote, but apparently you didn't write about sources. My bad.

Your other concerns would be solved by putting the list together with what's missing. Those things were here, but have been moved there. If this goes against merging, they will be restored here. The solution is to merge, because much more of the balancing information is in the main article than was here.

I analyzed some of the objections to merging expressed in the AfD and tried to satisfy them, and by moving that stuff, I strengthened the argument for merging. We just need to get it done. That would meet the needs expressed by several in the AfD.

The relative percentage of what types of content should go where is an artificial idea created by you. For example, if we all look at a book, what percentage does the cover take up in thickness, compared to the total? Well, we obviously don't write articles that way, and neither you nor I are suggesting that. We can also look at the relative amounts of coverage given to the cover versus the amounts of coverage given to the contents (allegations). (It seems to me you're advocating for that idea, but I could be wrong.) Well, we don't write articles that way either. We just document what is written about each element and let the chips fall where they may percentage wise. We can't dictate that coverage fit some artificial ideal (about which no one here would be able to agree upon anyway).

Many of the sources I use are also used in the main article, and that's because they write about the allegations AND the surrounding controversies and other things. It's all in RS, and we simply must document all of it. Don't make it so complicated.

The complications will tend to simplify and fade away after a merge. The balance will also be easier to deal with there. It's harder to deal with each in isolation from each other, and fixing some of your concerns would mean a whole lot of duplication. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

BullRangifer - WP:UNDUE remains undue -- the vast bulk of coverage on the dossier lies more in things other than the content. More events happened, and keep happening so it's only getting more so. There are just so many events that happened after the dossier and just keep happening. The salacious bits, how it was made, Clinton team 'funded' dirty dossier, the Nunes memo, who said it's credible and who said it's junk, Steele in hiding, Fusion GPS testifying to Congress, Russia denying the allegations as pulp fiction, Carter Page that he had not even left the country, Steele hired for England World Cup bid, previous work of Fusion for a conservative website, Lawmakers vote to release Democrats response to Nunes memo, Trump blocks releasing Democrats response, guide to the dossier and the Uranium deal, what you need to know about Steele, how the dossier was compiled, part of the dossier verified, part of the dossier disproven, release of interview transcript, Buzzfeed is suing DNC over the dossier, Nunes claim Hillary colluded with Russians to get dirt on Trump, GOP spin is disingenuous, timeline behind the memo, the difference between the dossier and collusion, Steele helped the FBI bust FIFA, etcetera etcetera. If you have questions on my input feel free to ask back -- otherwise I believe Over & out Markbassett (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Read. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

MjolnirPants - think you're confusing me with someone elses remarks as I said nothing re BLP here, this is not a BLP article. As to the RFC, the question is merge or not to the Trump–Russia dossier and I said Strong oppose to merge. There is noo dichotomy to edit it, just a RFC re a proposed merge saying that this is not appropriate to merge in. This would be an WP:UNDUE amount to the subtopic if it was in the overall article, seems 10+ times too much. I also said just not ready because of work still proposed or ongoing, of the issues of it is POV, that it lacks LISTDD context so appears INDISCRIMINATE and/or OR, and it has unresolved plausible pings to POVFORK/CFORK by multiple editors. A response of "no it isn't" is not enough. A response of counter-accusing 'justdontlikeit' is worse. The POVFORK claims and the reasons pointed to remains unchanged and undiscussed with the editors citing them. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Markbasset: For starters, the sourcing problems I mentioned was your bullet point headed WP:NPOV, which you inexplicably used to complain about the sourcing, instead. And this entire article is about a dossier compiled on a BLP; I presumed you were getting at that, though you're now acting surprised that I even mentioned BLP. You really should have figured out the BLP connection on your own without requiring me to explain it to you.

And your unbelievably bizarre assertion that I have insisted this is not a POV fork is just more inexplicable nonsense. I've stated quite clearly elsewhere that I think this article really is a de facto POV fork, and I've never hinted at anything here to suggest otherwise. Once again, your comments make zero sense in context. I'm not sure why you're even bothering to participate here, unless you're looking for an argument.

Listen, I'm sorry if I'm coming down on you like a ton of bricks here. But your comments are literally completely nonsensical, and I'm trying to stress that. I don't know what you're reading or thinking to make this make sense, but it's not making any sense to anyone but you, here. If you want to strike your comments and try again (or just try again, really), please do. I have no idea how to engage with someone when their comments are are like this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

User:MPants at work - you're not coming down on me, none of those seem like what I wrote. Try ereading my input at top as being simply response to RFC sayins strong oppose to a merge on basis of too to fit appropriately and a few issues so too soon to do. Then ping back if you still have questions about my input Markbassett (talk) 01:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

strong oppose to a merge on basis of too to fit appropriately and a few issues so too soon to do I think you may need to fix some typos. I can't make heads or tails of this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

User:MPants at work - you're not coming down on me, none of those seem like what I wrote. Try rereading my input at top as being simply response to RFC saying strong oppose to a merge on basis of too big to fit appropriately and a few issues so too soon to do a merge. Then ping back if you still have questions about my input. Markbassett (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support Doesn't make sense to separate the contents of the dossier from the article on the dossier. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support Xerton (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Are you trying to !vote twice? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The first comment "Malarkey" was not a legitimate !vote in any sense, but an opinion about the subject. The above is an actual !vote. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support - I have been trying to stay away from this article because my goodness. I think a merge done carefully as Mr. Pants describes would be a improvement. PackMecEng (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: Would you accept an early close per WP:SNOW? Consensus looks obvious, and I don't see the need to drag this out for 30 days. — JFG ^talk 03:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Uh, what? Consensus does not look obvious at all (and that's even ignoring the editor who voted twice). And it's not up to MjolnirPants to decide.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

8 support, 3 oppose. The double vote wasn't. The first was an "I don't like it" comment. The second was their real vote. Just sayin' I'll have to admit I'm surprised that you are opposing. I'm supporting this one. This was the original intention, and there is plenty of room after all. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. No. Snow closes are for when a proposal doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of passing or failing. This could still go either way, even if there's more support than opposition. Also, as VM points out, it's not up to me at all, but up to the closer. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support Having looked at the test insertion of the bulleted format by BullRangifer, I think it would be an improvement over the current situation. I do think (as I think someone proposed above) that it should go after the "History" section rather than before. --MelanieN (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• MelanieN, I agree. It makes more sense to have the Allegations after the History (and Authorship) sections. Right now it's located there. Now we just need to move this list to that location. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with this, as well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dossier page numbers

Where possible, would adding the page numbers to the relevant allegations be acceptable OR? We do it all the time when quoting from books. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I think there's no problem for a cite -- might say which section as well as what overall page number. Markbassett (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

That makes sense. There are 17 reports and 35 pages. What's a good format? Would R3P6 or r3p6 work? -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm... Maybe just page number is good enough. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I have added page numbers. Let's see if that works. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

'Cite' meant as in a normal reference, and using the document markers - cite Report 80, Date 20 June 2016, Title "US Presidential Election: Republican Donald Trump's Activities in Russia and Compromising Relationship with the Kremlin", and if one wanted to specify further then "Detail 4" perhaps. Markbassett (talk) 02:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Timeline: The making of the Christopher Steele Trump-Russia dossier

This is a rich source of information:

• Timeline: The making of the Christopher Steele Trump-Russia dossier, The Washington Post, February 6, 2018

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 07:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

References