Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:22, 15 January 2017

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Template:WikiProject Donald TrumpPlease add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Elections and Referendums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Espionage Mid‑importance Steele dossier is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. International relations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Journalism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics: American Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Russia: Politics and law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Presidential elections / Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Mid-importance).

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information Enforcement procedures: Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance. Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established. The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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)

@Octoberwoodland: 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, Misplaced Pages 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 21:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Octoberwoodland 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 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 Misplaced Pages. --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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages policy... that's like English Comp 101. And the info is perfectly acceptable by Misplaced Pages 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'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)

(edit conflict) :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'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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages content rules and standards of conduct

Hey, @MelanieN:, @Volunteer Marek:, and @BullRangifer: 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.

@Volunteer Marek:, 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.

@MelanieN:, 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)

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)

@Frevangelion: There is an open deletion discussion here. - Ryk72 22:31, 14 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:External links § Restrictions on linking.

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)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Elections and Referendums articles
• WikiProject Elections and Referendums articles
• Start-Class Espionage articles
• Mid-importance Espionage articles
• Start-Class International relations articles
• Low-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• Start-Class Journalism articles
• Low-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• Start-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• Start-Class American politics articles
• Low-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Start-Class Russia articles
• Mid-importance Russia articles
• Mid-importance Start-Class Russia articles
• Start-Class Russia (politics and law) articles
• Politics and law of Russia task force articles
• WikiProject Russia articles with no associated task force
• WikiProject Russia articles
• Start-Class United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• Start-Class United States articles of Unknown-importance
• Start-Class United States presidential elections articles
• Low-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• Start-Class United States Government articles
• Mid-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Biography articles of living people