Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:10, 23 January 2018

Trump–Russia dossier allegations

Trump–Russia dossier allegations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:POVFORK spinoff of Trump-Russia dossier. Noncompliant with WP:PUBLICFIGURE as the unsubstantiated allegations are clearly defamatory against a BLP which subjects it to BLP policy. 21:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Note: - if this article is kept, then the main article, Trump-Russia dossier, should be deleted as it is only notable because of the allegations that comprise its context. This POVFORK is an exaggeration of the NPOV issues that have been challenged at the main article. 13:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, this is not a policy-based way to push your mission at Misplaced Pages to squash anything negative about Trump, regardless of how well sourced it is. It's odd that you mention WP:PUBLICFIGURE, when the article actually is protected by exactly that section of BLP. Have you even read it? Public figures have less protection than normal people:

• "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." (Emphasis added.)

Before mentioning BLP, you need to read it. BLP forbids "contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced", and this is extremely well sourced, every single day, in pretty much every major RS. It's the "road map" for the FBI and the Special Counsel investigation. That's pretty notable. Stop trying to squash it. This is a frivolous AfD. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a POVFORK that breaches BLP policy and should be speedy deleted. The material is not just contentious, it is highly defamatory based on unsubstantiated allegations in memos by anonymous sources that have spawned conspiracy theories. WP does not spread gossip to defame or discredit a BLP, and it does not promote political advocacies or conspiracy theories to defame a political opponent. You need to read the policy again, BullRangifer - "contentious", not defamatory, material belongs in the article" not deserves its own article. We already have the main article which is based entirely on the same unsubstantiated allegations. 08:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Merge clear POV fork. Billhpike (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

  To be clear - you think the content of this article should be included in the other article? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Most of the content does not belong, but there might be a few sentences worth keeping. Billhpike (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

So that's really a delete vote masquerading as a merge vote, because, given the extensive coverage in sources, "merge" sounds more reasonable? Why is it that "most of the content does not belong"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Neutral Is it a POVFORK, or is it a case of WP:Summary style? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• SarekOfVulcan, it's a WP:SPINOFF because its size may create an undue weight situation. Deletion is not the solution, but putting it into the main article might be, but then we'd have to spin it off fairly soon anyway. What we have had is an article about a document which did not describe the contents of the document. That's absurd. This resolves that problem. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Merge obvious fork is obvious Darkness Shines (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. This is all well sourced, notable, and perfectly compliant with WP:PUBLICFIGURE. We can not really judge if the allegations were "the truth" or very strongly substantiated. We can only judge if the allegations were published in multiple secondary RS and belong to the subject of the page. Hence this page should not be deleted. Should it be kept as a separate page or merged to Trump–Russia_dossier#Allegations? I think it should be kept separately simply because Trump–Russia dossier page is already large and and this page is also large and expected to grow because every individual allegation needs to be described as "disputed/admitted/denied/whatever" - as described in numerous RS on the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

A question: is this page actually a "WP:List"? Probably it should be. If so, this is an additional argument against merging. My very best wishes (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The main framework is definitely a bulleted list, and the choice is based on the MoS advice for this type of subject matter. It's the only way to do justice to each allegation, and it's much easier to work with as an editor and understand as a reader. Prose works fine under each bulleted item. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

OK. But then it should be probably renamed to the List of Trump–Russia dossier allegations? It should also provide criteria for inclusion, which is trivial in this case (simply all allegations noted in the dossier). You are probably using more strict criteria (an allegation should be also discussed in secondary RS), which is probably a good thing. My very best wishes (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keerge (keep the content but in the main article) - The article easily meets WP:GNG and given the international coverage of the subject does not appear to violate WP:NOT. On the other hand, I think it may serve our readers better if it were in the main article in collapsible sections. I know thats a bit of a deviation from convention, but let's let WP:IAR rule the day.- MrX 🖋 23:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

- a first MrX. 03:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete POV fork, poorly sourced, and several BLP issues. PackMecEng (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Could you point out the BLP violations you see here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

As discussed on the talk for Trump-Russia Dossier the golden shower accusations, especially in Misplaced Pages's voice. In fact since every allegation is in Wiki's voice that is a problem. Also going into the poor sources litter throughout for some of these crazy claims. PackMecEng (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Before you criticize it, you should read the dossier. We must document its allegations, and the "salacious" one seems crazy, but that's what it is. NPOV requires that we not censor or alter it. We must present it as it is. The majority of the allegations are not salacious, and it's not in Misplaced Pages's voice. Attribution is used for the small amount of commentary, and the rest, which is straight presentation of what the allegations actually are, is very well sourced to very RS.

It's not a forbidden POVFORK, but a standard WP:SPINOFF because its size may create an undue weight situation. This is completely normal procedure. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I must say, all the statements appear to be well-sourced and attributed, so I don't see a BLP violation. The Dossier has attracted enormous attention and is of unquestioned significance, so an article that documents its contents is more likely to clarify the public discussion of it for our readers. SPECIFICO talk 17:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Per my comment immediately above. Gives our readers a good detailed summary. The main Dossier article gives larger context, history, and related events. SPECIFICO talk 17:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. 01:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 01:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. 01:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. Yes, most of the claims in the dossier (particularly the Rosneft bribe) are obviously false on their face, and the "golden showers" allegation in particular has been convincingly debunked by Trump's longtime bodyguard Keith Schiller (cf. this very compelling explanation of how it ended up in the dossier), but it's still better to keep this stuff off the main page.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources that debunk specific allegations should be included on the page, and it should be clearly stated which allegations have been debunked. My very best wishes (talk) 04:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

My very best wishes, I agree. That will be coming. The confirmation status of each allegation will be added as soon as RS reveal it. The ongoing Special Counsel investigation takes these allegations seriously, treating them as a national security threat which risks impeaching Trump. There is already enough evidence to have resulted in the convictions and indictments of several of his closest advisors. Trump supporters attempt to treat these as frivolous allegations but they aren't. This isn't gossip from the National Enquirer. It's intelligence from top experts in these areas and is treated seriously by American and foreign intelligence agencies. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps "debunked" is incorrect word. "Disputed" or "denied" would be more appropriate. For example, I do not think that sources by TTAAC actually prove, disprove or debunk anything. But the controversial and frequently opposite views from these sources should be included per WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

What in the article is worth keeping? For example if this ended with merge, what material would be worth merging? PackMecEng (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete POV fork with little, if any, redeeming value. Lepricavark (talk) 03:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Lepricavark, your !vote will be discounted because you lack the competence to don't seem to understand the difference between a forbidden POV fork and a totally normal WP:SPINOFF. Deletion is not a solution, but merging might be. If you used legitimate arguments you'd have a chance of getting your !vote counted. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Your bludgeoning and personal attacks notwithstanding, I'll let the closing admin decide how to view my !vote. Lepricavark (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Lepricavark, my sincerest apologies. You didn't deserve that. Stricken. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Apologies accepted, and I have accordingly struck the relevant portion of my response. Lepricavark (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you. I'm so sorry. I got a bit carried away there. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Happens to all of us from time to time. Lepricavark (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. Satisfies NOTABLE and RS coverage every single day. The article is still growing as there are at least two types of content which will be added: (1) Commentary, which of course must be attributed, and (2) Confirmation status, since each allegation has its own status. The subject is extremely notable, receiving coverage in major RS literally every day for a year now, and the Special Counsel investigation is literally using this dossier as their "road map". Those are the words they use. This isn't going away. Our job is to document it, and the allegations are very important in that regard. That's what the dossier contains, and RS are constantly discussing them. We must document that.

Deletion is NOT the solution, but putting it into the main article might be, but then we'd have to spin it off fairly soon (again) anyway. What we have had is an article about a document which did not describe the contents of the document. That's absurd. This resolves that problem. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC) -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Merge A fork, and just how many article do we need related to this subject?Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• Merge This article looks like a section from another. In fact it should be a section of the Trump-Russia dossier.Ravenanation (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ravenanation, that's exactly what it is, and it was indeed originally intended to be in that article. Now it's a legitimate WP:SPINOFF due to size constraints, and, per the proper SPINOFF method, has a section there pointing to the sub-article.

This subarticle is kept separate from the main article, Trump–Russia dossier, due to size or style considerations.

This is growing and will quickly create an undue weight situation. Deletion is not a legitimate option, but merging might be. We can then deal with size issues later. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

BullRangifer, these articles have to be merged and the allegations could be simplified. (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Ravenanation, whose comment above? Something went wrong with the signature. See discrepancy between signature and who made the comment. Just remove this comment when it's fixed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Reluctant keep It seems like it should go into the main article about the dossier, but then that article would be huge with all the content from this one added. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 20:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Society topics)
• AfD debates