Talk:Steele dossier/Archive 1

This article is pure left-wing populism
Should I create a article about the Obama and Saudi Arabia connection? I know that the Wikimedia Foundation was founded by George Soros but this article is clear for deletion, one is enough. BerendWorst (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to comment at the existing AfD discussion, linked to at the top of the article. --MelanieN (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:POINT and WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * This editor should be blocked on grounds of WP:COMPETENCE. Please see my reply to his unreadable gibberish at the AFD page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.140.32.55 (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

"Critical observers"
Critical observers noted the amateurish character of the dossier. Paul Roderick Gregory, a Hoover Institution economist contends that it was written, not by the alleged author, Steele, but more likely by a Russian intelligence officer.Forbes was characterised by an editor as WP:UNDUE. While this is an opinion piece, it is the opinion of someone who is well qualified in Russian socioeconomic and political machinations. If we are to take Gregory at his word, he has participated in analysis for both the US Dept of State and the intelligence community. As such, I see his opinion is germane and worthy of inclusion, especially as the text in question is attributed to him directly and not in Wikipedia's voice. Perhaps the "Critical observers" part could be removed and reference this to only Gregory, bit in no way is this undue, as it is not a minority opinion (others have made note of the grammatical errors), nor does this short sentence unbalance this article. This text has been in the article in some form since Jan 17. Given this length of time (an eternity for heavily edited Wikipedia articles) and with 189 edits by 39 users since the removal today, I'm fairly confident the "consensus" version is the one with the Gregory analys. I would prefer that would restore this text in tn the spirit of WP:BRD, so that we may get on to the Discussion part. Thanks.That man from Nantucket (talk) 05:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Discussion is exactly what we do in previous thread. My very best wishes (talk) 05:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Literally right over my head. I'll read up.That man from Nantucket (talk) 05:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I welcome your input there. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

BLP and OR
Quoting the content of this document in addition to violating WP:BLP is also WP:OR. I have removed original research and BLP violations from the article. These types of tabloid materials don't belong on Wikipedia. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this is a misread of BLP and OR. We can state what reliable sources say about the dossier, even if it includes details that are unverified or salacious. We just need to be careful with the language. gobonobo  + c 20:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I am challenging the addition of salacious content as per WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. Please do not place it back into the article without discussion. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your reversion: "remove lewd unsourced OR and BLP violations as per WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. Do not replace content without discussion on talk page" While your edit summary said "unsourced" and "OR", it was clearly sourced and not original research. As to the names being lewd, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Reliable sources are referring to this incident by several different names. I really don't see how mentioning them in the article is a BLP violation, but would be open to an explanation. gobonobo + c 21:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * has clarified, above, that their concern is based on WP:NPOV@WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. I note that BLP does not only consist of WP:BLPDELETE, and that reliable sourcing, while necessary, is not always sufficient for compliance. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 21:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I concur with the removal of this. WP:NOTCENSORED does not apply; that's about not censoring because some people might be offended by off-color language. The issue here is BLP. These derogatory names, even if they are used by some (semi)reliable sources, are still based on unsupported defamatory material and thus have no place in Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * W.r.t. the "media have referred to this as XY-gate and Z-gate, the UNDUE aspects may include: we have only PRIMARY sources; and only two of those; the Malaysia Chronicle column is a reprint of a FinanceTwitter.com blog post, unlikely to be considered reliable. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't need to put in "XY-gate" into the article (unless it becomes really well established) but we do need to talk about what exactly caused the flurry of reports. And yeah, for better or worse it was probably the um, "salacious", parts which made people sit up and take notice (the damn thing was top trending on twitter for two days, ahead of Obama's farewell address and Dylan Roof's sentence!).Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Use of XY-gate is probably a WP:NEOLOGISM. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Gbonobo. It is what it is. Reliable sources are discussing it. I'm open to talking about HOW we phrase it, but removing any mention of the "salacious" parts is clearly POV, given how widely it has been covered. For now we could simply follow BBC in how they phrase it, something like "Steele's contacts within Russia's FSB told him that "Mr Trump had been filmed with a group of prostitutes in the presidential suite of Moscow's Ritz-Carlton hotel". It avoids the sensationalism but it actually describes what the fuss is about.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Source? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The BBC. It's been linked all over the place already.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The bit of text removed by Octoberwoodland here was neutral and accurate. The only problem was that whoever put it in didn't add a citation at the end. But that can be fixed. Bottom line is, we CANNOT avoid describing what is in the dossier else we look ... stupid. "There's this dossier... people are talking about it... it might be bad... lots of controversy... it's a dossier... it has to do with Russia... a British spy compiled it... it's a dossier... it's got info it... about Trump... yeah, info........" WHAT'S IN THE FREAKIN' DOSSIER??? That's how our article reads right now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We will include what policies, guidelines, sources & consensus decide we should include. While we work that out, I'm quite at home with looking stupid. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You can't have an article about Topic X and then not actually write what Topic X is. That's not even Wikipedia policy... that's like English Comp 101. And the info is perfectly acceptable by Wikipedia policies. Indeed, policies, such as NPOV require that it be included.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Claims by Intelligence Community that the Dossier is fake
''On Thursday, US Director of National Intelligence James Clapper released a rare statement, saying that he met with Trump to express his “profound dismay” over the dossier. “This document is not a US intelligence community (IC) product and… I do not believe the leaks came from within the IC,” Clapper said. It was then revealed that the dossier was put together by former intelligence UK officer Christopher Steele, who now heads the private Orbis Business Intelligence firm. Steele “has not worked for the UK government for years,” British Prime Minister Theresa May said. See  and Veteran intelligence officials familiar with Russian disinformation campaigns conclude the Trump “dossier” released by BuzzFeed earlier this week is fraudulent and its author violated basic standards for intelligence reporting, the Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group has learned.'' See  Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry, neither of these are reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Trump is a reliable source when quoted and his reported discussions with others. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Which part is a quote form Trump? Certainly not the Daily Caller stuff.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In fact, there's no quote from Trump in the above paragraph you wrote, so I have no idea what you're talking about. It's just wacky claims made by wacky sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In fact there is. You need to go look over his tweets on twitter -- they are linked to it. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, if there's a quote from Trump in what you wrote above, what is it? I really have no idea what you're talking about. I didn't ask about what Trump wrote on twitter, I asked what the quote was - since you claimed there was one - in the para above.
 * BTW, I see that you are a brand new account and that your third edit was nominating a page for deletion, pristine Wiki markup and all. Then you immediately jump into a contentious topic area. You're being sort of obvious, doncha think? Wanna disclose those previous accounts? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's called reading the instructions for MediaWiki and this project. You are free to request a sockpuppet investigation which will reveal I have no other accounts.  How about a little AGF since you apparently don't read anything unless it's handed and spoon fed to you on a silver platter. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Riiiiggghhhhtttt. So you learned "instructions for MediaWiki" and figured out within minutes how to nominate an article for deletion, how to insert invisible comments into articles, what AGF is, other mark up, how to log articles up for deletion. Oh, and your account was created just as a disruptive user with the same grammatical style as yourself was getting themselves indef banned for causing trouble in this very topic area. Don't worry, an SPI is coming.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I am quite a capable PHP Programmer and have been using MediaWiki for years, BFD. MediaWiki is an amazing piece of technology.  It's markup language is a powerful tool.  Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Even knowing some Wiki markup would not explain how you as a brand new account new the intricacies of the deletion process, including logging the deletions. Also use of terminology such as "COI", detailed knowledge of sourcing requirements (no SPS). If you're a new account then I'm a polka dotted rhinoceros.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Moscow reacted to the unverified report on Friday by saying that what was published by BuzzFeed and CNN “didn’t merit to be called a report.” “We have finished the discussion of this fabrication,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said. “This is far from being the first such falsehood published, and it is, moreover, really quite base. One simply shouldn’t pay any attention to it, as it is now appealing to the emotional frenzy that is dominating in America at the moment.” In the sources along with Trumps statements which are listed right in line in the article. Please don't waste everyones time with your vitriolic comments due to your failure to even read the sources provided.  Russia claims the report is bogus too.  Wow. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My comments are fine. You said "Trump is a reliable source when quoted" - but there was no quote from Trump in what you wrote. Just some bullshit from two unreliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

As usual, Trump was mis-stating what intelligence officials had told him. They said "it's not from us and it's not from MI-6". We already knew that; it's from a private British investigative agency. So Trump tweets that intelligence agencies say it is a complete fraud - he made that up. Of course he wants people to think it's fake. So do the Russians. Our reporting remains what our intelligence community actually says: unverified. --MelanieN (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Trump's tweet does not attribute the claim to the intelligence community, but to "insiders" quoted in the aforementioned media reports. That Steele "violated basic standards for intelligence reporting" should be obvious to any objective observer.You&#39;llNeverGuess (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, this tweet - "James Clapper called me yesterday to denounce the false and fictitious report that was illegally circulated. Made up, phony facts.Too bad!" - quotes James Clapper and is directly contradicted by what Clapper himself says. --MelanieN (talk) 03:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I am, attempting to locate sources which seem to verify what the intel community has to say about it. It's not in Russia's interest to put out false materials.  This is a wait and see.  Christopher Steele still has not publicly come out and taken credit for its content.  Whether that's due to his fears of Trump suing him (Trump is known to sue people and threaten to who publish materials he does not like), or because he knows the materials are false.   If these materials are genuine, then he should come forward, which he has not.  Until he does, the contents of this document is unsubstantiated gossip. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * :And OMG - look at the link we are given to support this - RT! The increasingly-obvious propaganda organ wholly owned by the Russian government! I think we can move on from this discussion; it has been debunked. --MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * (and his second sources is the Daily Caller!) Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Your dislike of RT is not an argument, let alone a "debunking." "OMG" indeed!You&#39;llNeverGuess (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not MelanieN's "dislike of RT" - it's the fact that RT is not a reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What part of "the source is RT" is not an argument, let alone a "debunking" do some of you not understand?4.34.62.251 (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course Steele hasn't confirmed that he wrote it; do you think spies ever publicly sign their work? Right now he is in hiding for his life, and that in itself suggests that his reporting is real. --MelanieN (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Then we may never be able to validate the documents contents if this is the case. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's right. That's why our article reports that a dossier exists - and says nothing about its contents. --MelanieN (talk) 23:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

OMG! Octoberwoodland, you've plunged headlong down the rabbit hole. For very obvious reasons, neither Trump nor the Russians are reliable sources on this topic, and The Daily Caller is generally a very poor source. Trump is not a RS on ANY topic, except to vouch for his own opinions, which he may deny a minute later. Fact checkers have never encountered a more deceptive person. I think you would do well to listen to MelanieN. Just drop this nonsense. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I can tell you at this point I don't consider any of it RS, even the Dossier. Have you read this document?  It does not appear to be the work of an intelligence professional, it reads like it was written by a reporter or some other person for sensationalist purposes, and I think its probably fake.   Russian Officials have denied it, Trump has denied it, and the document speaks for itself.  The only people who think its authentic are arm-chair wiki warrior editors and rumor mongers.  I am 62 years old, I was in the United States Army until I retired for many many years across many global conflicts.  I have handled lots of classified materials over many many years in the Military, from Top Secret on down, and this document does not match or even remotely resemble yellow or red cover materials in its style, content, etc.  I am not apparently as gullible as some folks.  If it were genuine, it would be on wikileaks not leaked to CNN and have cover sheets and or marks.  I think its a fake and nothing but salacious garbage intended to upend Trump and Russian relations.  It resembles the type of garbage that Anonymous publishes out of the UK. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You do realize that Joe Biden has confirmed that he and the president were briefed on this document, right? Your comments make so little sense and are so utterly irrelevant that it is making those who know anything about this scandal disregard everything you say, as grossly ignorant of what is going on here. The allegations within the report may or may not be true. But the idea that the document is "fake" does not even make sense. It exists and the president was briefed on it and we know exactly what its provenance was. It may or may not be false, but the claim that it is fake is effectively meaningless. Consider that you are the only one who holds the view that this is not a notable event worthy of Wikipedia coverage, and you undermine your own position by opining ignornantly about it with nonsensical assertions like its fakeness. Thanks for your military service; but of what relevance is that here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.143.204.138 (talk) 06:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Some portions of the document may have originated from legitimate sources, but if you follow the pattern of the document, it looks like it copies over and over again simple daily summaries -- It reads like a military blotter report.  I am certain the DNC emails leaked in Wikileaks were part of Joe Bidens security briefing, since intelligence folks monitor these types of things. Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Reminder of Wikipedia content rules and standards of conduct
Hey,, , and it's not very good form to reward diligent editing with insults and hostility. Actually I think there may be one or two WP policies on that subject.

The above-referenced comments by a former US Director of National Intelligence (James Clapper), a current British Prime Minister (Theresa May) and a current Russian Press Secretary (Dmitri Peskov) are so obviously appropriate for this article that I'm afraid I don't see why it is necessary to childishly insult User:Octoberwoodland, swear at him, dismiss the obviously relevant and proper commentary raised as "wacky claims made by wacky sources", accuse the editor of being a sock without evidence and for no obvious reason—and insultingly attempt to close the discussion by saying it has been "debunked" and telling the user to "just drop this nonsense", even though that discussion consisted of nothing more than Octoberwoodland bringing useful and relevant source commentary to the discussion.

, in particular it is painfully obvious that there is no point in making warnings and threats that you are going to open an SPI investigation, especially after the other user has already invited you to open the investigation. Either do an SPI, or don't, and don't bother with any continued theatrics here at the article talk page. Obviously, though, the fact that October told you to assume good faith must be evidence that he's a sock, so make sure you put that on the radar of the SPI folks.

, your comment about the "discussion" being "debunked" is simply nonsensical; it has no comprehensible reference to reality. It isn't even an intelligible use of the word "debunk", because you can only "debunk" a claim or belief, not a dialogue, and in any event you haven't debunked any claim or belief that has been presented here. And, as anybody could tell you, the comment was extremely rude, pointless and unconstructive and served no purpose relevant to improving the article.

I remind all of you that if you can't engage in civil, competent and constructive discussion of a particular article subject, you should stop editing that article immediately.

ANYWAY, shall we just go ahead and mention all the comments from Clapper, May and Peskov, or is there any legitimate reason whatsoever not to do so? Clapper says the document didn't originate from the intelligence community; May says the person credited with authoring the document had been out of government service for years; Peskov says the reports of a Kremlin file of compromising material on Trump are "complete fabrication and utter nonsense". All of this is widely reported, so I hope I won't hear one more word of blather about Russia Today. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)  (talk)  (contribs) 18:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed RT is just as reliable as any of the American corporate-controlled media. Arguably we need to include sources such as RT and Glenn Greenwald to have a balanced NPOV article. The corporate bias of mainstream media is demonstrated by programming such as The Big Picture with Thom Hartmann and Cenk Uygur's not being able to find a home on any of the "mainstream" corporate media outlets. wbm1058 (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, no it's not. You also need to read WP:RS again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You had better tell the U.S. intelligence community that you don't want to hear "one more word of blather about Russia Today" (let's call it by its actual name, RT America). The January 2016 declassified intelligence briefing devotes quote a bit of space to RT, describing it as a "messaging tool" for the Kremlin.. Wikipedia requires "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"; RT does not have such a reputation. As for the comments you think are relevant: yes, we already knew that the document didn't originate from the intelligence community, nobody claimed it did. We already knew that the author has been out of government service for years, nobody claimed otherwise. That leaves the denial by a spokesperson for the Kremlin. We can report that, and people can take it with whatever size portion of salt they feel is appropriate. --MelanieN (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * (removed personal attack by sockpuppet)
 * But as I said, these comments by the very clearly appropriate sources were all widely reported, and thus we don't need to use RT as a reference, so I hoped you wouldn't blather on about RT, as I mentioned.


 * But you don't seem to have gotten the message, so now I am going to explicitly say, "MelanieN, we don't need to use RT as a reference, so please stop blathering about it".


 * Also: please refrain from any further childish insults and pointless hostility, and if you really want to go that extra mile, go ahead and apologize to Octoberwoodland. As a WP admin, you are expected to abide by the basic standards of conduct that are required of WP editors. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 20:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ummm... when you're telling people "not to blather" you really got no room to complain about "childish insults and pointless hostility" (neither of which was actually made).Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me put it more diplomatically, . Let's not waste all of our time arguing over pointlessly irrelevant straw men whose irrelevance has already been clearly pointed out.  Let's instead discuss actual substantive issues and avoid filling the Talk page with bloviation on obviously irrelevant details such as which publication we use as a reference for an easily verifiable direct quote from an important public figure whose commentary is obviously relevant to the article subject.  All of that, instead of mercilessly bashing the guy who brings the public figure commentary to the talk page in the first place.
 * And yes, the childish insults and pointless hostility were definitely right there, and it was you, Volunteer Marek supplying most of the pointless hostility, the repetitive and inane sock accusations obviously intended to avoid content discussion, not to mention a bit of gratuitous profanity which you used to try to smear the sources, and so forth. It's not even archived, the text is still just inches away on this page, so I don't recommend arguing too strenuously with reality. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 13:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Back to the point: yes, statements by James Clapper, Theresa May and Dmitri Peskov are relevant and notable. It doesn't really matter where they are sourced from: nobody seriously denied that they didn't say what they said about this affair. — JFG talk 20:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * (removed personal attack by sockpuppet)

I have added the Peskov denial to the article, since it is an actual denial and is relevant. The Clapper and May comments don't add anything to the reporting that we didn't already know. --MelanieN (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, are you saying we shouldn't include any mention of the commentary by James Clapper or Theresa May? Because, in your words, "we already know" about that stuff? Further explanation would seem to be called for. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 20:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there's a lot of verbiage about Clapper in the "Responses" section, which I can't make sense of. Can we just quote him properly instead of playing the "he said, she said" game with Trump and Buzzfeed? And sure, we may "already know" that Steele is no longer at MI6, but quoting this information from the Prime Minister would give it a tad more credibility. — JFG talk 21:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You know - if you two think it is somehow relevant to have Clapper point out that the intelligence service didn't create this document (which nobody has ever claimed that they did), and if you think it matters to have May point out that he no longer works for MI-6 (when that's been part of the reporting on him from the beginning) - then go ahead and add it, it won't HURT the article. I just don't see the point. It doesn't really add anything. --MelanieN (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither of these are necessary. The May thing more than the Clapper thing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If there are no further objections at this point, I'll go ahead and add these bits of commentary? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)  (talk)  (contribs) 13:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I thank the contributors for the hard work and angst that have gone in to this, and concur with the several general themes — (i) that once The POTUS is briefed by intel services that "pigs have been observed to fly," absurd though it might be or seem, the brief becomes notable (concurring, as well, that the notability extends to the content of the brief, to a degree);  (ii) that I place that degree measure at presenting an encyclopedic summary of the document themes and elements, as reliably reported; (iii) that by the previous, I do not mean our own summaries or analysis, which would violate WP:OR;  (iv) that by reliably reported I mean the very best of media sources, as this is a controversial matter (and these provides ample sourcing for a WP summary article such as this, and by these I include Reuters, BBC, NYT, Fox, WashPo, etc.  (v) that where this list ends might involve debate, but that we need get no where near the types of sources that appear nearer the end, there being so many that are clearly reputible;  (vi) that seems best to my mind that RT does not belong on this list, for this matter [and it has been argued to me, on any matter, see section 6.2 in the RT (TV network) article]; and finally,


 * (vii) that it helps us little, nay, it impedes us, to say anything belittling (really, anything at all) about the origins, motives, perceived views, etc. of opposing editors, especially when on this matter and issues, our policies and guidelines speak so clearly, and can be so clearly a basis for the discussion. I will look in to see if I can support any emerging concensus, but otherwise will leave the editing to this august group. However, I would suggest in closing...


 * Please consider creating a bullet section of this sort: ==Named individuals== The following individuals names appear repeatedly in the dossier, in various of its contained memos (with sources reporting them appearing with each): * Donald Trump citn1citn2[citn3]  * Vladimir Putin [citn1][citn2][citn3]  * Dmitry Peskov [citn1][citn4][citn5]  * Paul Manafort [citn1][citn2][citn6]  * Carter Page [citn1][citn2][citn7]  etc.  [I.e., I propose a sourced list, with each entry having multiple citations, so that its trajectory remains neutral, and here have presented two balancing citations with different persectives, one or both that contain all these and further regular names.]


 * That is, I believe an adequate, neutral, and so indeed good way to (in part) summarise what the document contains, is simply to name and wikilink to the individuals referred to on repeated occasions, as reported by others (where the terminal BLP article will almost certainly contain further more specific information and sources ). Connecting the related articles in this way is very valuable to any research that this and related articles will contribute to, among students, etc. (Brought your way, after finding that neither the Carter Page, nor this article, cross-references to the other.) Cheers, AGF, le patience, etc., and thanks to the admin for their presence. Le Prof [Leprof_7272] 73.210.155.96 (talk) 04:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Redundant
There is no basis for this article existing given that developments on the dossier are currently being depicted in subsection "Briefing on alleged Trump dossier" of 2016 United States election interference by Russia. I move for deletion. Frevangelion (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There is an open deletion discussion here. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , I think there is a need to open a fresh/separate merge request, to consider merging this article, Donald Trump Russia dossier, with Christopher Steele J mareeswaran (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Will join the deletion discussion elsewhere, but to state it simply here, at this stage, Christopher Steele, as an outed former intelligence officer responsible for a significant period for the Russia desk for a British intelligence service, is an individual notable apart from this event, and so should have a separate article. Cheers. 73.210.155.96 (talk) 04:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The document
Is even linking to the document a copyright violation, I think it is but may be wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * File:2017 Trump dossier by Christopher Steele, Ex-MI6 Russia Desk Intelligence Agent.pdf is up for deletion on commons.
 * See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:2017 Trump dossier by Christopher Steele, Ex-MI6 Russia Desk Intelligence Agent.pdf. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I was talking about including an external link.Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I would think that Copyright_law_of_the_European_Union should be the governing body of copyright law here for an E.U. State, though a lawyer or knowledgeable layman can correct me if this assumption is mistaken. Further, I would have thought that under such law that documents of this kind are not generally copyrighted, and I see no claim within the document or in any references to it that states otherwise. On my understanding, I also would have presumed that non-creative official works of this kind belong to the public domain without an explicit claim otherwise, and even if not, I would have thought  that fair use applies here, if it applies anywhere. (Anyway, it's not like Steele is actually going to make a claim against Wikipedia since he's not publicly coming forward as the document's author, and ir's being published elsewhere, so this is rather academic and pedantic, to my mind.) Beyond all of this, if we are merely discussing LINKING rather than hosting, it just seems to be OBVIOUSLY not a copyright violation, unless the link itself is somehiw copyrighted. Correct me if I'm wrong, but can anyone recall a case where posting a link to content legally hosted by others constituted a copyright violation? I have never heard of a such a case, and anyway, why would we need to worry about such a bizarre contingency? Does anyone plausibly fear this?


 * As I understand it Wikipedia is governed by US laws.Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Right. But under U.S. Law and treaties,isn't the relevant copyright determined by where the work was published? Surely their system of copyright law should matter since its their supposed copyright, no? Anyway, the point is moot if we are just talking about linking, not hosting, unless you have grounds to think the link itself is copyrighted, all of the sources we reference are copyrighted; we are allowed to post the links because the links are not. Do you know of some case where posting a link was considered a violation of a copyright?70.214.75.159 (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * External links states "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright".
 * See also.
 * However, the source of this document is DocumentCloud, an open-source software as a service platform that allows users to upload, analyze, annotate, collaborate on and publish primary source documents. Per their FAQ DocumentCloud is intended to be a repository of public documents. Their Terms of Service prohibits uploading copyrighted material that is not yours. The document itself does not name its author or state that it is a copyrighted document.
 * In other words, if this document is indeed copyrighted, that is a violation of DocumentCloud's terms of service, and they should take it down. That they haven't done that seems to imply that DocumentCloud does not view that file as a copyvio.
 * My understanding from various news reports is that this document was freely released to multiple "reliable source" news organizations, including CNN. One of those news organizations to which the document was freely released has apparently uploaded it to DocumentCloud. I suppose it might be reasonable to require that one of those news organizations upload it here as well, and take responsibility for it, if we don't trust DocumentCloud to adequately patrol its uploads (in other words, if DocumentCloud is no more reliable in patrolling for violations than Wikimedia is). It's a matter of whether we trust that DocumentCloud is a "reliable source" of freely released public documents. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * i agree with this view, no assertion has been made anywhere of copyright. The work is effectively being treated as if in the public domain. Linking to it cannot constitute a copyvio. We link to copyrighted materials, which does not create a copyvio, and this is not even claimed anywhere to be copyvioed. The argument for not including the external link is tortured, please revert to the consensus for inclusion,70.214.75.159 (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Presumably, if the author of this document was paid for creating it by some political organization (both Trump's Republican opponents and the Democrats have been purported to be the author's clients by some "reliable source" news organizations), then the organization(s) who paid for this opposition research would be the "owners" of the document, and they would be the ones who have freely released it. Not the author, who is apparently scared for his life. Connect the dots to guess the motivations behind the free release of the document. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not for us to speculate, but as ownership has not been determined it might be best to avoid any potential issues.17:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think linking to an external site constitutes a copyright violation. What IS a copyright violation is actually posting the thing in the article. That has been tried here multiple times (in the form of a 35-page PDF) and IMO should not be allowed. I'm glad to hear Commons may delete that file. (I actually object to including it here for BLP reasons, as well as PRIMARYSOURCE, but copyvio could be another reason.) --MelanieN (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree. It is NEVER a copyright violation to link to a source. So we should link to it, and link to a hosting site which is known as a RS, IOW a stable site. This link was "Contributed by: Mark Schoofs, BuzzFeed," (he is a Pulitzer-prize winner), and this is the "Related Article". It's great because we can view it in three different versions. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And you'd be wrong about that. If the source is hosting the material in violation of copyright, then linking to it can be contributory infringement. Which may or may not be relevant in this specific instance, but to say linking to a source is NEVER a copyright infringement, is simply not accurate. Guy (Help!) 09:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * is correct here. Contributory infringement is explicitly mentioned in our policy - External links, which states: material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked, whether in an external-links section or in a citation ... Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright might be considered contributory copyright infringement. Editors should also note that copyright does not need to be asserted, either in the document or elsewhere. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 20:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

We now have in the article an image of the first page of the document: File:Steele dossier.png. How is that not a copyright violation? --MelanieN (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ping Because it's WP:Fair use for this article only, the image is hosted on Wikipedia rather than Wikimedia Commons and abides by all the criteria set forth for fair use images.  Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 21:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Trump Alleges Outgoing CIA director source of "fake news"
President-elect Donald Trump appeared to suggest that outgoing CIA Director John Brennan may have been behind the publication last week of unverified and salacious intelligence connecting the president-elect to Russia. See   Trump on outgoing CIA director: ‘Was this the leaker of Fake News?’  President-elect Donald Trump tweeted Sunday night about outgoing CIA Director John Brennan, questioning if he’s the “leaker of Fake News?” See  Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * If we had an article on Stuff Trump says on Twitter then *maybe* it could go in there. We are just not going to include every single of Trump's twits somewhere on Wikipedia. Especially since in this case we would also need to add Brennan's response for balance, as well as McDonough's response - indeed, most of that source is about the *response* to Trump's twit, not about it itself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You are helping me learn from my mistakes and the mistakes of others. Please help keep me on my toes.  Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a notable denial from him and it's from RS. I have no idea if Trump even knows what he is talking about, but given the fact he is the next President of the United States, his views and quotes are all notable at this point just because of that fact.  So that being said, I have observed some folks have anti-Trump views -- it matters not -- he is the next President and its time folks accepted that fact.  Any interested editor who feels this quote from Trump needs to be reinstated be my guest.  That's your 1RR for today my friend.  :-) Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:FART and WP:NPOV Twitbookspacetube (talk) 05:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, I read it. He is the next President of the United States, just about everything he does from now on is notable and covered by legions of reporters who are reliable sources.   Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So, if he rapes someone, would you consider that notable? Twitbookspacetube (talk) 05:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, as it turns out, there are women who claim he did. Yes, that would be notable for the President of the United States to have raped someone.  How about 15 women who claim various forms of sexual misconduct -- we even have an article on it.  Wow.  Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations. Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, because of who he is, everything he does is notable. It might be trivial, but it's notable trivia, and he's constantly spouting spontaneous, fact-free, reactions which have nothing to do with reality. They are just an expression of his mood at the moment.
 * We could easily create an enormous, like YUGE!!!, article consisting only of his lies. One newspaper has cataloged hundreds of them. Because he's notable, it would have to be allowed. He keeps numerous fact checkers busy all the time. He's a rather new phenomena. None of them have ever dealt with a more deceptive person.
 * Some may think the above is hyperbole, but when it comes to Trump and dishonesty, that is not possible. We haven't reached the bottom yet:


 * "For critics, this poses a conundrum. Too often they deal with Trump as if he is a normal politician, constrained by the usual conventions, including embarrassment at being caught in a lie. But Trump is not a normal politician. He has no shame. While most politicians blush if exposed as inconsistent, let alone dishonest, Trump is unembarrassable. Even Nixon tried to squirm and wriggle his way into a sentence that could be parsed as truth. Trump, hailed as the God Emperor by his supporters, simply attacks whichever little boy dares say he’s wearing no clothes – before going on to accuse the child of being a “failing pile of garbage”.


 * "There is no precedent to guide the media or policymakers, because there has been no US president remotely comparable to Trump." "Don’t treat Donald Trump as if he’s a normal president. He’s not", Jonathan Freedland


 * Trump is almost never a RS for facts, but is always a RS for his own clear statements of opinion, which he may deny having ever said a few minutes later, even if millions saw and heard him say it. We have never had to deal with someone like him, but we'll have to do it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 08:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a good point: we need to figure out how to approach his tweets. IMO we need to be be careful NOT to treat every one of his tweets as something we have to report. He tweets multiple times a day. For one thing, he almost always tweets in response to anyone who has criticized him (whether it's Saturday Night Live or Meryl Streep). For another, it's clear that many of his tweets are offhand, spur-of-the-moment, almost stream-of-consciousness - and are not meant to be taken as some kind of serious charge or statement of policy. It's also true that his tweets come so thick and fast that any given tweet can be overwhelmed in the news cycle within hours. I would suggest one approach could be that we generally don't report something he says on Twitter, unless he follows it up with some kind of verbal or official statement, or unless its coverage in the news cycle lasts longer than 24 hours. --MelanieN (talk) 08:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. Only if RS make a big deal out of his tweets should we deal with them. Otherwise they are often meaningless or deceptive fluff. RS will then tell us what it is and how to interpret it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

We should include this and it's rebuttal.Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Since RS comment on it, we should do that. RS become the debunkers and fact checkers, and they are always welcome here as RS. His tweets should never be allowed to stand alone as if they are fact. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, the press and intelligence community are finally looking over this document and applying extreme scrutiny and the story is unraveling. No matter what anyone's negative opinions of Trump are with regard to his veracity, the fact remains that he is the next President of the United States, and like it or not, we are obliged to take some of his statements at face value.  Not everything that he says is a lie, and while others would advise caution in dealing with his public statements, we are obliged to report those that have RS behind them.  We cannot just brand Trump a serial liar and ignore everything he has to say.  What MelanieN says makes some sense -- if he tweets, wait for RS to fact check his comments, then if they pass muster they can be included. Octoberwoodland (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That wasn't what I said. I did not say we should include his tweets if they turn out to be true and omit them if they turn out to be false - not at all. I said we should include a tweet (including rebuttal if appropriate, for example if it fails the fact-check test or is strongly contested by other sources) only if he repeats its content in some other venue (such as a written statement or multiple verbal repetitions, something to establish that it is something he means as an actual position of his), or if significant RS coverage of it in the news cycle lasts longer than 24 hours. --MelanieN (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

NPOV
Although the lead section calls the document unsubstantiated, pretty much every other part of the article is uncritical despite several reliable sources being critical of the dossier. Especially the "Public release" section only has hand-picked positive responses.
 * It could be made clearer that the dossier was offered to several journalists who decided not to publish because it was unverifiable, including The New York Times stating that "the paper would not publish the document because the allegations were “totally unsubstantiated.” The New York Times
 * Buzzfeed themselves stated that the dossier "includes some clear errors" The Atlantic
 * "The Trump Dossier Is Fake -- And Here Are The Reasons Why" Paul Roderick Gregory at Forbes
 * Bob Woodward calls Trump dossier ‘garbage’ NY Post
 * Thirteen Things That Don’t Add Up in the Russia-Trump Intelligence Dossier Newsweek

Hopefully this critical reaction can be added to the article as well. --Pudeo (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * We make pretty liberal use of "unsubstantiated" and "alleged" in the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * That doesn't respond to his objection that this WP article puts a hugely positive "spin" on the pedigree and credibility of the document, emphasizing details that bolster the claims, and somehow we have accidentally forgotten to mention all of the very extensive mainstream commentary saying that it is garbage that never should have seen the light of day or even the President's desk. Instead, we have a bizarre collection of prose that focuses on making the document sound legitimate, even grossly distorting sources to achieve that incredibly improper result.


 * For example instead of noting the actual reported commentary whose absence is complained of above, we've got statements like the following: "James Clapper described the leaks as damaging to US national security but his statement also confirmed the original report by CNN.[31] This also contradicted Trump's previous claim that Clapper said the information was false; Clapper's statement actually said the intelligence community has made no judgement on the truth or falsity of the information."


 * None of the above about "confirm[ing] the original report by CNN" or "contradicting Trump's previous claim" is actually stated in the source, thus the WP prose itself ranks somewhere between unalloyed fabrication and total synth garbage distortion of underlying source material. So not only are there serious POV problems here, but it looks for all the world like editors are engaging in sanctionable conduct in order to achieve a desired spin.  Nor do I doubt that additional serious problems would be revealed by further inspection. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 16:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I disagree with Pudeo's comment, and with the "neutrality" tag. Here's what is actually in the article: The lede is 3 sentences. The first sentence says "unsubstantiated" and "alleged". The second sentence says "claimed". The third sentence says "further alleges". It seems like one such word per sentence could be enough! The next section, "Dossier", says "alleged" or "allegations" three times, as well as "according to" attributions twice. The "British authorship" section says "has been named" and "according to" in its single four-sentence paragraph. The "Public release" section, the one Pudeo finds to be lacking in NPOV, says "allegations", "not independently confirmed" and "unverified" in the first paragraph. All three paragraphs in that section cite sources in text for almost every sentence: "CNN reported," "CNN stated," "Buzzfeed published",  "reported by CNN," "The Telegraph asserted", "The Independent reported", "The BBC has claimed". The "Responses" sections reports Trump's reaction ("false," "fake news") as well as repeating "unsubstantiated" in Wikipedia's voice. And it includes Russia's denial. Bottom line, this article is bending over backwards to be NPOV and I think the tag should be removed. --MelanieN (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, not even close. By failing to mention the analytical conclusion, widely reached by experts, that this material is garbage, we're not even living up to basic NPOV, much less "bending over backwards" for it.  A few textual attributions and anodyne uses of the word "alleged" do nothing to cure the defect. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 17:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no such "analytical conclusion, widely reached by experts". See WP:OR.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure there is, and some of the relevant figures are mentioned in the article now. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)  (talk)  (contribs) 13:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Centrify, please moderate your language; no matter what you think of this article, it is not "unalloyed fabrication" or "total synth garbage distortion". Let's work together politely and make whatever corrections you think need to be made. For example, we could add a section on the people who are casting doubt on the contents using some of Pudeo's references. That would definitely bend over backwards, since there is absolutely NOTHING in the article suggesting that the contents are true or verified. --MelanieN (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please don't respond to my comments unless you've read them carefully. I didn't call the whole article a fabrication.  If a WP prose sentence is a fabrication or SYNTH, I'll use English words to call it that.  I'll apologize for my use of the accurate but unnecessary word "garbage" once I see a scintilla of remorse or apology out of those who have been hostile, insulting, and profane to User:Octoberwoodland to punish him for discussing source material.
 * You're now urging me to be polite, but I note that the need for politeness was, for some reason, not on the radar when you were personally being insultingly dismissive of User:Octoberwoodland, or when User:Volunteer Marek was using profanity and threats of administrative action to avoid a content discussion, or when User:BullRangifer snidely said he should "Just drop this nonsense" while complaining that he had "plunged headlong down the rabbit hole".
 * Let's be clear, none of the objections any of you raised had any merit whatsoever, which you’ve since admitted; rather you were just bullying a user for raising source material you didn't like.  So I'm all in favor of politeness; let it begin with you, since that's where the impoliteness began.
 * Back to the article content: There's no need to segregate the commentary casting doubt into its own section. It must be featured much more prominently than that in order to satisfy NPOV, because frankly the fact of the total dubiousness of the "dossier" is the main takeaway from RS's—we're supposed to reflect that fact, not hide it. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 17:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Where do you think it should go, then? To me it would gain ADDED emphasis by putting it in its own section, wouldn't it? I disagree that "the dubiousness of the dossier is the main takeaway from RS's" - the main takeaway from RS's is still the scandalous nature and potential security implications of the dossier, if it is correct or even partially correct. But enough RS's have now been proposed here to suggest that challenges to the credibility of the dossier have become worth mentioning. A sentence could even go in the lede, if you think necessary, and if it is properly reported in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That is what I was getting at. Substantial discussion in the body, and a mention in the lead.  In my opinion, the standard for including RS commentary should be that we include essentially everything that anybody with substantially relevant influence or expertise has said (one way or the other).  Over time, and with assistance from more in-depth source commentary as it arises, we'll be able to develop the perspective needed to prune away unnecessary commentary and summarize redundant commentary. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 18:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I certainly disagree with the notion that we have to include "essentially everything that anybody with substantially relevant influence or expertise has said", and maybe that wasn't what you meant. As encyclopedists we need to judge HOW relevant various information is. Once we decide that something is relevant we need to select a couple of representative Reliable Sources (which can include expert commentary) to support it or explain it in sufficient detail. I assume that was what you meant - not that we need to cite every comment by everyone who arguably has some basis for what they are saying, which could have been an interpretation of your comment. --MelanieN (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I meant essentially what I said although I suppose I should have said that "very substantial" expertise or influence were required. What I want to avoid is a lot of dubious weight arguments precipitated by removals of commentary by people who appear to be experts on the subject, so I think we should lean towards inclusion, especially where a pithy or illustrative direct quote is involved. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 13:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Centrify, again, you are giving credibility to a denial by Trump. He doesn't deserve an iota of trust when he speaks. His reactions are gut reflexes and usually fact free. We know that quite well by now.
 * Clapper is a RS, unlike Trump, and regardless of what we think of either of them, we document what RS say about this whole issue. You can think what you will about Clapper, who knows a whole lot more than any of us, but your opinion is not a RS.
 * Clapper is a RS – No way. A guy who lied under oath to Congress about mass surveillance of US citizens is not and cannot ever be a RS. He is at best a primary source, quotable with attribution. — JFG talk 09:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As a relatively inexperienced editor, you sure like to berate much more experienced editors who know their way around here much better. You'd have more success if you sought to work with, rather than be condescending to, other editors who know much more than you. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't said anything about a denial by Trump, so I guess some more verbiage is required to explain what you mean by saying I am "giving credibility" to one. But more importantly, your comments about how he is, essentially, not to be trusted do nothing other than exhibit that you are having a hard time fairly analyzing and discussing this particular article subject.
 * WP doesn't have a policy on censoring content from specific persons because they're unpopular among WP editors, or for any other set of reasons. WP's ordinary sourcing policies apply here.  Given that you seem to be claiming expertise on matters of Wikipedia policy, it's puzzling that you have posted a completely incomprehensible comment that doesn't argue or even assert anything about any WP policies or how they might apply here.  If you're trying to say something about policy, please try again.
 * Comments like "you can think what you want about Clapper" are also deeply unconstructive because you're not saying anything explicit and I can't even guess at what you might possibly mean. I haven't said anything about James Clapper at all.  I haven't presented my own opinion as a source.   Your comments don't even make sense. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 17:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This article discussion should be posted to the NPOV noticeboard and allow an independent editor to review the claims of POV then close the discussion. I vote for MelanieN to post it there and oversee the process to purge the article of POV. Octoberwoodland (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I opened a ticket as the NPOV noticeboard Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard. Octoberwoodland (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Man, you must've read that Wiki Media manual backwards and forwards a dozen times and memorized it... all since October of last year.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think its what happens when you read through materials on the site and have good social skills as well. You can pickup things quickly.  The prerequisite is that you can read and comprehend quickly.  Listing an article is easy since there are excellent instructions.  There are also very amazing tools which help you with this site.  Thanks for noticing my progress.  You should read this book when you have the chance How to Win Friends and Influence People, all of us need better social skills, its something we should all work at. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * one more childish accusation about this other user's identity will earn you a trip to ANI.


 * note also that October's post at the noticeboard demonstrates he doesn't even quite know how noticeboards work—he seemed to think that an editor would be "assigned" to handle the dispute—thus undermining your theory that he is a sock. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)  (talk)  (contribs) 12:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Include materials from these Sources to balance the article

 * It could be made clearer that the dossier was offered to several journalists who decided not to publish because it was unverifiable, including The New York Times stating that "the paper would not publish the document because the allegations were “totally unsubstantiated.” The New York Times
 * Buzzfeed themselves stated that the dossier "includes some clear errors" The Atlantic
 * "The Trump Dossier Is Fake -- And Here Are The Reasons Why" Paul Roderick Gregory at Forbes
 * Bob Woodward calls Trump dossier ‘garbage’ NY Post
 * Thirteen Things That Don’t Add Up in the Russia-Trump Intelligence Dossier Newsweek


 * Support - Vet and add more balanced sources such as the sources above that challenge the Dossier as a reliable source for this article. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * One and two (NY Times and Atlantic) can be mentioned, but not in the lede. PRG is not notable enough to be included, especially in the lead. NYPost is not a reliable source. Newsweek source... borderline, it's an opinion piece, so at the very least it needs to be attributed, but really in the same category as the PRG piece. Unless you can show that somehow the PRG and the Newsweek opinion pieces are themselves notable, I don't think they should be included.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you need to take a break from this topic. You have been repeatedly inserting negative materials and removing neutral, balanced content.  Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Gee that sounds familiar. My editing has been fine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The Forbes and Newsweek articles are perfectly adequate. Notability is not a sourcing guideline, and even if it were, these sources would easily pass.   you can safely ignore these comments by Volunteer Marek. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 12:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No he can't actually.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And please keep in mind that discretionary sanctions are in effect on this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please explain what you mean by either of those statements. Why should a baseless policy assertion not be ignored? What sanctions do you think I am running afoul of? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 14:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You can't instruct a user to ignore talk page discussion. I mean, you can, but it's bad advice, since if they follow it, they're not following Wikipedia practice and policy. And discretionary sanctions means that he or you or anyone needs to get consensus to include the material from PRG or Newsweek if it's been challenged.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I wasn't telling him to ignore discussion, I told him to ignore an incorrect policy statement that you made. He's inexperienced and so he might otherwise take your bald assertion at face value.  And it goes without saying that a challenge must have some sort of basis in policy, it's not just carte blanche to remove stuff you don't like. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 14:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As soon as an editor starts resorting to threats, it's time to just ignore them completely. Volunteer Marek is a very passionate editor who writes before thinking and is constantly looking for chinks in people's armor to jab them until he gets the response he wants.  His user logs tell the whole story -- when I encounter contentious editors who harass other editors, I just ignore them and steer clear of them if possible if for some reason they "fixate" on me.  All of us, including myself, should be constantly trying to improve our social skills.  Let's just all try to get along. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The policy is WP:DUEWEIGHT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not an argument. Use your words. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 14:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "The". "policy". "is". "DUEWEIGHT".Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Recent additions
The recent additions by Octoberwoodly are a mix of UNDUE material (*especially* for the lede) as well as OR-ish misrepresentation of sources. A single opinion here or there does not justify the statement being included (without attribution!). Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And your removal of the NPOV edits and continuously inserting negative materials is Negative POV. You already used your 1RR for  today.  Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * These materials are in response to the consensus by editors the article is POV slanted and needs a more balanced, neutral tone. Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * These additions include BLP accusations that CIA Director John O. Brennan is the "leaker of Fake News" and heavily push the POV that the whole document is fake using WP:CITATIONOVERKILL. A proper discussion of the veracity of the dossier's claims is in order, but pushing a POV in the lede is not productive FallingGravity 03:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, be my guest to start a discussion on it. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The discussion is already in the article under the "Responses" section, though it needs to be expanded. FallingGravity 03:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The additions by Octoberwoodland were improperly formatted and did not belong in the lede, but they were valid information and valid sources. I have been rewriting the material into proper Wikipedia format (a mention in the lede, details and references in the text) and will be adding it to the article shortly. I intend to leave out the Brennan accusation by Trump, because it wasn't even really clear what he was accusing Brennan of - certainly not authorship of the document although some have included it here as if it was part of the case for it being "fake". We can't include everyone Trump has ever tweeted about or the article will consist of nothing else. --MelanieN (talk) 05:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * NY Post is generally not a RS so I replaced it by Fox News Insider where Woodward made the statement. I also think we need to be careful about undue weight here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, I have added the sourced information about the veracity (or not) of the dossier. The article still needs major work to get it into Wikipedia shape and I will see what I can do over the next day or two. For those who are new to editing articles, here are some tips.
 * What NOT to do: don't write a paragraph and then throw in a half dozen references at the end of the paragraph. That makes it almost impossible to use the sources to verify what the paragraph says - and can easily lead to assertions in the text that are not supported by the sources at all. What TO do: use the references to source individual facts in the paragraph - usually at the end of that sentence.
 * What NOT to do: don't put lots of details and sources into the lede. What TO do: the lede should be a general summary of what is in the text of the article. The lede usually does not contain references; the references should be used in the text. The lede should generally not contain anything that is not spelled out in the text. --MelanieN (talk) 05:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Your additions were fabulous and extremely well written. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I noticed in the lead section you did not reference the sources for that paragraph, but they are referenced in the body of the article. Is this normally what is expected for lead sentences? Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your recent addition, Melanie: I've added a significant amount of expert opinion as well, in the same vein. Neutralitytalk 05:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Name change
User:Falling Gravity has just renamed this article from Donald Trump Russia dossier to Donald Trump–Russia dossier - adding an en-dash. In general it is best to discuss this kind of change rather than unilaterally doing it. Personally I don't think this was an improvement; what do others think? --MelanieN (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The article might as well be titled Russia Donald Trump dossier if this isn't an improvement. Whenever I'd see the article's title I'd think it was about a person named "Donald Trump Russia" until I remembered it was an article about a dossier that discusses Donald Trump and Russia. I decided to boldly add the en dash in the style of international relations articles, such as Russia–United States relations. FallingGravity 05:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is still a weird name. This is not quite a Russian dossier, nor does the dossier talk specifically about Russia. On the other hand, this is more of a dossier on the relationship between Donald Trump and Russia, so the current name does make sense. epicgenius (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with . I don't think the addition of a en-dash improves clarity.- MrX 14:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

What about Dossier on Donald Trump. It is short and WP:N. The information was about Trump. Seems simple enough. Casprings (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Is it going to be the only one?Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Who knows. But right now it is the only one that is notable and it is called that in WP:RS. If other ones come, we change the title.Casprings (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, all! I totally disagree with "Dossier on Donald Trump". I have proposed "Trump dossier" since, having done a brief survey of what the sources are calling it, I find this usage to be the most common. I have compiled a brief list of examples of the three usages "Donald Trump-Russia dossier", "Trump dossier", and "Donald Trump Russia dossier." I will check more systematically later which is most common, but usages of "Trump dossier", on a quick and dirty early search, appear to vastly outnumber other usages. Please would all of you be so good as to comment on my proposal below, where I have listed evidence of the various usages for comparison. 2600:1017:B403:2668:DD5F:DD80:E09B:B6F2 (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I now no longer think just listing the raw number of hits is useful for various reasons. As such, I've gathered some sources, and sorted them according to what they call the document. By far, the most common usage is 'the Trump dossier', and it is often placed in quotations, indicating it has already acquired something like the status as the unofficial name of the document, like the Pentagon Papers. Having reviewed some 200 sources, which I reproduce below, I think it is clear that this is the general use. Some notes:
 * it is definitely less common among newspaper sources that we count as RS to call it the "Donald Trump dossier" since this is clunky;
 * usage of "Dossier on Donald Trump" is almost always used by tabloids and preceeded by an adjective, generally "dirty", but sometimes "salacious" or "explosive", so I think this would be a poor title, not in conformity with usage by RS;
 * use of the present title and close variants seems to be diminishing, having some initial usage, but it appears to be increasingly more common to simply refer to it as "the Trump dossier" now that its existence is very widely known.
 * I submit on the basis of this evidence that "The Trump dossier" is effectively functioning as a common name for this document. We should not re-invent the wheel, and just follow this usage. I'd take "Trump dossier" or "the Trump dossier" and would disprefer "Donald Trump dossier" due to its inelegance and lack of use, and the other optioons for the same reasons. Here you are. That will be all for me here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.196.124 (talk) 21:28, January 17, 2017‎ (UTC)

Requested move 17 January 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. WP:SNOW close per 's comment below. This particular move is clearly not succeeding. Note, however, that this close does not endorse the current title per se. I say this because this title was established by a bold move from on 17 January, one day before the RM was started. If anyone wants to start a move request back to, then please go ahead and do so, without prejudice, noting that a no consensus outcome in such a request would result in a move back to the previous title, not a no move as is usual. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump–Russia dossier → Trump dossier – Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears! I come to propose a new title for the present article.

Points:

1. The current em-dash title is an unlovely mouthful, whether or not it is clarifying.

2. The majority of sources appear to have by now, settled upon the name of "the Trump dossier" for this document. We should follow their lead.

Hear, hear! Who's with me?2600:1017:B403:2668:DD5F:DD80:E09B:B6F2 (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Here is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of examples of the usage of my proposed title to refer to the document:

I can find some, but not many, examples of "Trump Russia dossier", the prior title of this page. For instance, see here:

I also find some usage of the present title, or close variants, such as Vice, NYTimes (I've emended my original post in light of this information): >

It is still my distinct impression, albeit unscientific, that "Trump dossier" is the more common usage, and I think it is indisputably more melliflioius and concise than the present title. I see the only argument against it as the fact that it is highly probable that further incriminating dossiers on Trump may come to light in the future, subsequently requiring the use of a retronym, but I say we cross that bridge when we come to it, and not before. 2600:1017:B403:2668:DD5F:DD80:E09B:B6F2 (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Works for me. I like it.Casprings (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

1. "Trump dossier"-- 2.0 million results 2. "Donald Trump dossier"-- 1.11 million results 3. "Trump Russia dossier"-- 0.704 million results 4. "Trump-Russia dossier"-- 0.697 million results 5. "Dossier on Donald Trump"-- 0.175 million results Note that it is unclear to me whether results for 2 and 3 are simply counting the same articles, since I don't know how Google treats em-dashes in a Boolean search. If they are not, an argument could plausibly be made (to my surprise) that a Russia-inclusive variant is actually more common. But I would imagine it to be quite probable that these are the very same results given that they are otherwise suspiciously close in number. (Somewhat O/T Addendum: I could not help but notice an exceedingly delicious detail when conducting this search: namely, that Vladimir Putin, in issuing his denial that Trump had visited Russian prostitutes, made sure to add the disclaimer "even though they are the best in the world, of course." How delightful! Perhaps a registered user could add this notable tidbit to the portion of the article that concerns Russia's denial? Such a good turn would earn you my eternal gratitude. Here's the ref: 2600:1017:B403:2668:89B2:55C1:A3F7:3B8D (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - I could also get on board with this. It seems to meet the criteria of WP:TITLE.- MrX 19:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This one is too short. Donald Trump dossier is better. "Trump dossier" is only mentioned because it's unwieldy to mention Trump as "Donald Trump" after the first mention of him. epicgenius (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Comment" I already voted, but I've come back with a bit more objective evidence on the relative rates of usages (unscientifically, but more objective than simply grabbing a bunch of headlines.) Things are actually quite a bit closer than I thought on further examination. I had initially surmised that "Trump dossier" would be preferred 5 to 1, but the results reveal it bests its nearest competitor (the original title) by a margin of only about 2 to 1. Here are the results I found:
 * I assume you are joking. Of course we are not going to add this. --MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Although the OP's title change proposal has merit, it's unfortunate that he is a IP-sock of . Sad! - MrX 20:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: And "Donald Trump dossier" returns 1.21 million results. So "Donald Trump dossier" and "Trump dossier" are about even, with a slight preference for the former result. epicgenius (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Oops. You just helped me notice that I actually, I made a significant mistake earlier (since the result you report could not logically possibly be consistent with the result I reported, since "Trump dossier" automatically will have more hits than "Donald Trump dossier" just as Trump will automatically have more hits than "Trump dossier.". The previously reported results were for "Donald Trump dossier", not for "Trump dossier." (If the prior logic isn't clear, just note that, logically speaking, "Trump dossier" will automatically contain more hits than "Donald Trump dossier" because it will include all instances of the former, and thus any hit for "Donald Trump dossier" also counts as a hit for "Trump dossier" . The correct results have 2 million hits for "Trump dossier" and  1.11 million for "Donald Trump dossier."  Arguably, however, your point stands since this should imply that there are 1.11 million hits for "Donald Trump dossier" and another 0.89 million for "Trump dossier." But this is a fairly narrow difference. **(I've emended the results above now that I noticed my mistake, and also added the additional proposal someone made of "Dossier on Donald Trump, which has relatively few usages..)** 2600:1017:B403:2668:1C7F:F947:B5A6:3576 (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * By your reasoning, "Trump" has more results (900 million) than "Donald Trump" (355 million). However, our article on Donald Trump is not at "Trump" (it could be, but it's not because "Trump" refers to many different things like an elevated-rank playing card, a magazine, or a video gamer). That's why I suggested alternate name "Donald Trump dossier" to remove ambiguity. epicgenius (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I could possibly go with "Donald Trump dossier" (not "Trump dossier") but I don't really like it; it suggests that the dossier is his, i.e., he wrote or owns it. Maybe "Dossier on Donald Trump"? Also, "Trump dossier" does not really explain what the subject is; newspapers may use "Trump dossier" in headlines but that is for brevity and because they assume the public is already aware of what it's about. BTW I think it is too early for a requested move. I suggest you revert the formal move request until we have reached consensus here what the title should be. --MelanieN (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, and for the record (since this is currently a requested move) I oppose a move to "Trump dossier". --MelanieN (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think it implies that at all. Most persons of significant political interest will have had dossiers compiled on them by intelligence sources; it would be absurd if they were all to be titled "FBI Dossier" because that's who compiled them. Generally, works take the title of what they are about, not who they are by, do they not? The title of Hamlet, the Prince of Denmark' is, after all, Hamlet, the Prince of Denmark, and not William Shakespeare, the Bard of Stratford-upon-Avon on Hamlet, the Prince of Denmark.'''2600:1017:B403:2668:89B2:55C1:A3F7:3B8D (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * " Comment Everyone please note the original results contained a mix-up, which I noticed when someone else posted results that could not logically be reconciled with them: I had listed the number of hits for "Donald Trump dossier" as the results for "Trump dossier." (Logically, the shorter result which contains the latter must contain more hits, since any instance of "Donald Trump dossier" should also count as an instance of "Trump dossier."-- though someone please correct me if search does not work like this, somehow. ) The actual figures are 2.0 million for "Trump dossier" and 1.11 million for "Donald Trump dossier". I also checked the results for "Dossier on Donald Trump." Note also that everyone's number of hits will slightly vary in ways that depend on Google's undisclosed algorithims, so do not place much stock in the exactitude of the figures, but the general pattern should be the same for all. Note that the above emendation should, if I am not mistaken, impply that "Donald Trump dossier" is slightly preferred to "Trump dossier", if we subtract the number of "Donald Trump dossier" from that of "Trump dossier" to arrive at the total of mentions of "Trump dossier" without the use of "Donald". But the preference seems to be small, and I am not 100 percent certain this procedure is justifiable. 2600:1017:B403:2668:1C7F:F947:B5A6:3576 (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Name change makes sense, however, there is rumored to be another unreleased Russian dossier in several sources, so what happens when the second dossier shows up, if it exists as alleged, a title of "Trump Dossier Number 2". We may need to make it a generic title to accommodate this possiblity. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * On second thought, we should leave the title the way it is. The suggested title is already a redirect and that would prove useful if a second dossier turns up. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The proposed title, "Trump dossier" is less clear than the current title, despite the WP:CRYSTAL rule. Even the "Donald Trump dossier", while slightly better than the proposed title, is even as unclear as the proposed one. George Ho (talk) 03:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Another title could be "2016 Donald Trump dossier" since it was written in 2016. FallingGravity 04:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a good one to use for this article, I think we should leave the redirect "Trump Dossier" and use it as a disambiguation if more ghost written dossiers turn up. Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I'm okay with any of the current title and any of the proposed titles. The only thing I would oppose is the previous "Donald Trump Russia" title. FallingGravity 04:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I will acknowledge that, at present the term "Trump dossier" is one favored by a short-term 24 hour news cycle, with a known record of having a poor short-term memory.  But as a topic for an encyclopedia, we must take the longer-term perspective, in which a year down the line (or possibly even a much shorter period than that), the world is plunged into its next crisis (or whatever), and no one recalls what a "Trump dossier" is.  Was it, perhaps, some Trump-branded briefcase, in which you could order your Trump-branded steaks?  Or was it something of political consequence?  The present title "Trump–Russia dossier" appropriately takes this longer view, and clearly articulates the subject of this article in a way that will be recognizable to both readers and editors further down the timeline.  Ah yes!  That Trump dossier!
 * Although, possibly 2016 Donald Trump–Russia dossier would be an even better title in keeping with Wikipedia's usual conventions of encouraging very specific titles for events like this.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 14:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The present name, Donald Trump–Russia dossier, is concise, clear, and accurate. Google searches for other shorter names will always return high numbers of results because newspapers prefer brief headlines. We prefer accurate ones. This is a dossier about the connection between Donald Trump and Russia, and in Wikipedia parlance we use an en-dash to represent that connection. If another one shows up, we may need to rename this to 2016 Donald Trump–Russia dossier, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it. Brad  v  14:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Question Would it be all right with people if I snow-close this Requested Move? I don't mean to shortcut the discussion about the title, which should continue. I just mean to get rid of the particular move target suggested by the IP, which doesn't seem to have gained any support here. I earlier suggested to the IP that they close it themselves, but they are no longer able to edit, so it will have to be done by one of us. --MelanieN (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As one of the few supporters (excluding socks), no objection., how 'bout you? - MrX 22:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please go ahead and close it MelanieN, I think the consensus is no move. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Trump dossier". It sounds like a type of dossier, not a dossier associated with Donald Trump. If you want to call it "Donald Trump dossier", or keep the current name, or anything else, I have no opinion.  Nyttend (talk) 23:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dealing with false statements from Trump and his surrogates
Food for thought, with implications for how our policies apply to Trump (and others):


 * "We believe there is an objective truth, and we will hold you to that.


 * "When you or your surrogates say or tweet something that is demonstrably wrong, we will say so, repeatedly. Facts are what we do, and we have no obligation to repeat false assertions; the fact that you or someone on your team said them is newsworthy, but so is the fact that they don’t stand up to scrutiny. Both aspects should receive equal weight." - An open letter to Trump from the US press corps, CJR

BullRangifer (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No it's not, as truth has sod all to do with it, for us it is verifiability.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

The lede is confusing - What dossier?
Is the dossier the document published by Buzzfeed or is it the Russian "kompromat"? Some clarification is needed and I'd rather not dive into it without clarification of what is meant. Carl Fredrik  💌 📧 16:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's explained in the second sentence: "It [dossier] was allegedly written by British ex-spy Christopher Steele."- MrX 16:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Doesn't it seem weird then that the first sentence says: "the media started reported on the existence of a dossier", when the entire dossier is available on the internet? It also seems odd that the potential funders of the dossier are mentioned (Steele has been reported to have worked "pro bono"), but nothing as to what it contains? Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 16:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your questions. 1) The dossier is available on the internet now, but it wasn't then. 2) As explained in the article, Steele's investigation was funded - first by a Republican, later by a Democrat. After the election the funding stopped, but Steele kept working on it without pay. 3) We are reporting the contents of the dossier only in generalities, because it would be a violation of Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy to post details about claims that are scandalous or highly derogatory. Yes, even though they are available on the internet. We have higher standards than the internet does. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That does not excuse us for not reporting anything in the lede, and BLP doesn't stop us from reporting what reliable sources are saying. Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 17:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can see how that is confusing. It needs some wordsmithing.- MrX 17:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've done some minor work adding a contents paragraph with some very general details. The article could likely use more information, but this will have to do as a start. Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 17:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the material you added to the lede. I'm not sure the paragraphs are in the best order and will take a look at that. --MelanieN (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm looking into sources, I hope we don't run into too many edit conflicts. Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 17:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

"Allegedly"?
The following sentence re-added here is not an accurate reflection of the sources - Allegedly this material concerns Trump's sexual and financial dealings in Russia. - and needs re-work to be compliant with V & BLP. This may be as simple as moving the "allegedly" to the right place. The sources, as I read them, confirm that the dossier does contain claims of sexual & financial dealings (That the dossier contains this is not alleged); The sources also confirm that the contents of the dossier are unverified allegations (The sexual and financial dealings are alleged). Suggest (in context): The document alleges the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) has compiled a kompromat on Trump - a collection of damaging or embarrassing material which could possibly be used to blackmail him - and includes allegations of sexual and financial dealings in Russia. or similar. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 18:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I can live with this, as it stands, yes it dose seem to say that the dossier is alleged to exist.Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I like this change and have added it to the lede. I love the way we are all working together to make this article better! --MelanieN (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ryk72, good work. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Moving unverified paragraph to the top
To say I'm not a fan of Trump is kind of like saying Genghis Khan dabbled in real estate. But we must follow BLP, and we must bend over backwards in order to be fair. I moved the paragraph stating that the contents of the dossier are unverifiable before the paragraph stating what is in the dossier. If the reader learns anything from this article, it should be that A) a dossier exists B) the contents have not been confirmed by any reputable organization. Only then should we discuss the contents. I hope that editors have been keen on making sure articles like PizzaGate are debunked conspiracy theories will show the same exact enthusiasm for ensuring that the dossier is so far unverified.--That man from Nantucket (talk) 05:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Please adequately parse the issues in play
Having read the above arguments, I am alarmed (less with the article than with where it might go as a result of some threads of the discussion). Parts of the foregoing discussion fail to distinguish between journalistic expectations and standards, which includes matters of the ethics and the controversy engendered by the original BuzzFeed and CNN disclosures/reports, versus the forms and expectations associated with the work of intelligence operatives and of a raw intelligence document.

Succinctly parsing these, my perception is that one might represent the state of this matter as: That is to say, there is no simple conclusion available to allow round rejection, or full acceptance of this material.
 * the document has been recognised as a series of raw intelligence communiques,
 * the operative associated with them has been recognised as a career intelligence professional and esteemed for prior work,
 * their publication, as journalistically unsubstantiated material, has been broadly condemned,
 * the mass of communiques has been recognised as containing inaccuracies at its face, but
 * this last observation is not necessarily considered a broad indictment of the dossier, as a raw intelligence source useful in some part (in the same way that it was rejected as journalistic source material).

So as the WP dossier article still appears, and will continue to appear, we need to be clear on the basis or criteria we attempt argue for incorporation or rejection of editor's proposals going forward. The journalistic rejection was near to uniform for the initial reports, but also universal in its conclusion that once the matter broke it was the responsibility of all to report on it and its impacts. As I said above, once The POTUS is briefed by [an] intel servic[e] that "pigs have been observed to fly," absurd though it might be or seem, the brief becomes notable (...[with] the notability extend[ing] to the content of the brief, to a degree)....

These journalistic discussions and conclusions, many now appearing published, are utterly separate from whether this is a useful raw intelligence document. On this last matter, all that we should do is present what the most authoritative and reliable of others are saying, in affirmation or rejection. But we should not confound the journalistic rejection of a source with significant unsubstantiated content with the intelligence acceptance or rejection of such material as valuable intelligence. Raw intelligence is always cross-correlated; masses of it are never without incongruities. It is enough that we know this, and know that none of us writing are in the business (at least here on these pages) of processing or evaluating raw intelligence. One clear statement we have on this last matter is that the dossier's existence and content was summarised in a POTUS brief, by the American services. We can report this, and things like this—precise, accurately represented published comments by current (especially) and former intelligence experts, included.

Our safety is in reporting what the best available sources say, and leaving our opinions and judgements out of the matter, as far as possible. But, we need to take care not to further convolute the published, citation-worthy judgments that have appeared and are continuing to appear, on the separate issues of the journalistic and intelligence merits of the dossier. Cheers. 73.210.155.96 (talk) 05:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

article
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html

Just to give you a taste of the unholy, mother of all shit-storms of a tsunami about to erupt in the Trump camp, in perhaps the greatest political scandal of all time, one which will dwarf Watergate, invite obvious analogies to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, make the Iran-Contra scandal seem to be but mere child's play by comparison, and even make the legendary fabrications of the George W. Bush appear to be just white lies next to these brazen acts of treason: "American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, current and former senior American officials said."

The traditional penalty for treason in common law countries was quartering; I daresay that we, the people, ought make an example of the quisling, and punish him according to our ancient custom.

Thoughts on how we can incorporate these shocking reveals into the article? 70.214.65.108 (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The end has been nigh for the past 18+months, yet here we are. Have some respect for our precedent!- MrX 03:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Once he has some respect for people, then I will have respect for him. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 07:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * and this is related to the dossier how?That man from Nantucket (talk) 07:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * must I spell it out for you? this is an investigation into claims which are explicitly made in the dossier--namely, that there was contact and coordination between the Trump campaign and the government of Russia during the campaign. The dossier wasn't just about watersports with "unduobtedly the best prostitutes in the world" but contains essentially the same allegations which are now being investigated and which Steele claimed that James Comey and the FBI ignored. An investigation into claims made within a dossier is obviously closely related to the dossier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.214.65.108 (talk) 08:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The decision to open the investigations was not based on a dossier of salacious, uncorroborated allegations that were compiled by a former British spy working for a Washington research firm. The F.B.I. is also examining the allegations in that dossier, and a summary of its contents was provided to Mr. Trump earlier this month. . This is the only mention of the dossier, so I don't see much use this is for this article.That man from Nantucket (talk) 13:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I think we can mention this, as yes this does cover material in the dossier. But in truth we might need an new article (or rename this one) of "Donny's links to Russia".Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As Nantucket correctly says, the article specifically states the investigation is not based on the dossier. If this article is mentioned the proper page might be this. PackMecEng (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hence my comment about an over view article or rename.Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Write up a draft for a new article. A rename would not be appropriate. PackMecEng (talk) 14:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually Slatersteven's suggestion to rename the article isn't bad at all. It's becoming more and more necessary because this situation involves more than the dossier. It just happens to be the central player, so to speak, but intelligence sources say there are several other sources of information and other videos in multiple cities which deal with Donald Trump's inappropriate relations with Russia. Let's hear some suggestions based on the actual content, which happens to be more than the dossier. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)