User talk:Valjean/Rumor

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

Communication

If you want to discuss this draft:

• If it's sensitive, you can email me and we can decide where it's best to continue.
• If you know how to ping, then open a new thread here and ping me. If I don't reply soon, then try my user talk page.

I welcome civil comments and ideas that are directed at improvement. So please feel free to contact me with your thoughts and advice. I'd appreciate that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Stuff

My personal "userspace draft" sandbox

My personal "userspace draft" sandbox
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is my personal "userspace draft" sandbox where you'll see the incomplete and imperfect draft of an upcoming article. The topic can work like a lightning rod. I don't want this publicized or any attention drawn to it. I do not mention it anywhere else (except because of the MfD), and do not have links to it on my talk page, etc. It has always had the NOINDEX feature turned on. I am doing all I can to avoid the appearance of misuse of my userspace to push a POV. Different "namespaces" here at Wikipedia are governed by different rules. This page is governed by personal "userspace drafts", not Wikipedia:Drafts (which governs drafts in "draftspace"). Unlike a "personal userspace draft". "Articles in the Wikipedia:Draft namespace can be edited and moved into the main encyclopedia by anyone. So you can create the draft in your personal userspace, move it to the draft namespace to be edited by anyone, and later move it to the main encyclopedia."(Source: Help:Userspace draft) This implies that a user has nearly full control of a draft in their "personal userspace", both creation and publication, but not their work in draftspace. (That "nearly" implies that control is not absolute, as with all things at Wikipedia. There are exceptions to every rule.) When I'm ready for others to get involved in this draft process, per the instructions above, I'll "move it to the draft namespace to be edited by anyone, and later move it to the main encyclopedia." Those of us on the autistic spectrum may not react in typical ways, and I like to work quietly, without interference. That's just a personal preference. When this draft is at a certain point in its development, I will begin to seek the advice and help of others. Until then, view my userspace as my desk in the back room of a publishing house. What's on my desk is personal, and my personal space should be respected. Please leave my desk in the state I enjoy. I'm not breaking any rules. I just wish there were some protections afforded to editors when working in their personal userspace. In a publishing house, what happened at the MfD would not be allowed as it disrupts allowable actions. My article creation process

BLP violations in a negative draft? How to cover both sides of the issue.

BLP violations?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have been here since 2003, created many articles, and respect BLP, so you should not find any "unsourced negative" content here. If you do, just contact me and I'll fix it (see above). After repeated attempts in the MfD to get someone to provide evidence of any BLP violations in this draft, I finally got this honest answer: "Since Valjean wanted to know what the BLP violations were, I will try to answer, knowing that my answer will not resolve the controversy, and will not answer Valjean's question of how to resolve the BLP violations. There are no specific BLP violations in the draft or sandbox or whatever it is, so that the problem cannot be dealt with by editing. The problem is that the page in question is an entirely negative page about a living person..."[1] "There are no specific BLP violations in the draft..." So the rejection is based on other considerations. It's nice to at least have that cleared up. Policies happen to allow for entirely negative articles when that's what RS say, and when there is no other way to write it. Negative content that is properly sourced is allowed and does not violate our BLP and NPOV rules, sometimes even when it is the largest portion of the article. We have rules that expressly allow articles of that type, because articles on some topics cannot be otherwise. It's hard to write positively about negative allegations. For example, it would be hard to write an article about a violent rape that was not entirely negative. We do not include praise of the rapist just to balance things, but we do include their denial. That covers both sides of the issue. If there are conflicting POV, we document them, without taking sides, and that has been done here. We balance the accusation versus the denial. On one side we have sources that describe a proven rumor about an alleged salacious incident, and, on the other side, we have Trump's reaction, which was to deny the incident happened and to repeatedly lie about the timing. On one side, we document all the circumstantial evidence that an incident could have occurred, and, on the other side, we find no real attempt to counter that evidence, just lies. Those are the two sides to the story. So, although we allow articles that document only one POV, this draft does document both sides of the issue. It can be done without violating NPOV or Undue. Since there is no contrary circumstantial evidence that Trump used in his defense to make a positive impression (even his bodyguard could not provide an alibi for him), the story looks pretty negative. That does not make him guilty, but it does make people wonder, and many sources asked many questions of these types: Why does he act guilty? Why did he act as if the alleged "nonexistent" tapes existed? Why did he lie repeatedly when he didn't have to lie? Why did he lie so specifically about a specific time period, thus revealing he possessed knowledge of information that only a guilty party would know? (Child: "I didn't eat the last cookie in the cookie jar." Mother to herself: "With that one lie, he just told me a crime occurred, who knew about it, what the crime was, who did it, and where it happened.") His denials and actions raised more questions in people's minds while answering none.

Did you know this about the rumor?

Did you know this about the rumor?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
... that this topic easily meets all of our General notability guideline's criteria for its own article? "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." ... that Trump has known about the rumor since shortly after he left Moscow in 2013? ... that the rumor did not start with the Steele dossier? The dossier only repeats the original rumor. ... that Trump has repeatedly lied about this? He even dared do it to the Director of the FBI. ... that Trump's lies were so blatant and egregious that they got the Director of the FBI to change from a pee tape skeptic to a "maybe peeliever"? ... that many other notable people have strong suspicions that the rumor is true? ... that Trump's own actions cause them to think this way? ... that's Trump's bodyguard could not provide an alibi for Trump? ... that before anyone pinpointed the possible time of the alleged incident, Trump lied very specifically about exactly that time? At the time, only he would have known. ... that his actions are considered evidence of his consciousness of guilt? ... that Trump and others have acted as if the tapes were real and actually exist? ... that Michael Cohen, Trump's lawyer, testified about this to Congress in 2019 and revealed many of these facts? ... that Cohen testified that he and a group of allies have worked for many years to track down the tapes and suppress this rumor, and that he was willing to pay a lot of money for the tapes? ... that myriad RS, Congressional investigations, lawsuits, and other very reliable sources have written about this and analyzed it? ... that the fact that an actual tape has not been published means the rumor, true or not, remains unsubstantiated? ... that the real issues here are kompromat and national security issues, not Trump's alleged sexual proclivities? And one more: ... that editors are allowed, without harassment, to do what is being done here, which is to use their userspace to create articles, including potentially controversial ones?

A few thoughts

A few thoughts
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
When I started investigating the topic of the rumor (not the alleged incident, which would be a small stub article) I was surprised at how much material there was, how seriously many RS take this, and how notable it is. Much of that is because Trump has supercharged the topic by lying about it and constantly, without prompting, bringing it up. This habit has been identified as an expression of his "consciousness of guilt". Innocent people don't act this way. Because of its national security implications, it has been examined by the highest quality sources, Special Counsel investigations, Congressional committees, and is a topic in several court cases. Trump was rarely alone in Moscow for more than a few minutes. Even when he used the toilet, his bodyguard would be nearby. He was constantly surrounded, photographed, and monitored by hosts, journalists, and spies, and the amount of documentation is impressive. Nearly (!!) every minute is accounted for, except for the one fateful early morning of the only full night he stayed in Moscow, the very night he lied about and pretended he wasn't even in Moscow. Even shadows in pictures and videos have been examined by researchers to establish the correct time of day and location, and it makes a difference! Some pictures have been mistakenly identified as being of the wrong location and time, so researchers have sorted this out. That is a great help. Needless to say, many RS connect many dots, and yet it is the Senate Intelligence Committee (that goes much further than the Mueller report) that provides one of the most interesting pieces of concrete evidence pointing to more "social activity" in Trump's hotel room after his bodyguard left him alone there at the time identified by several RS as the most likely (and only) time the alleged golden showers incident could have happened. He apparently did not go to sleep and may have left the room and returned. For Trump, it was like 5:30 p.m. in Ashville, a time he would normally be wide awake. Researchers have been forced to examine every minute detail of the weekend in Moscow and how this topic is related to kompromat and national security. The real issue is not Trump's sexual proclivities but his vulnerability to blackmail. Even if it never happened, the fact he lied about it several times makes him vulnerable. People are free to be into golden showers if they wish, but when it's the person who becomes the President, that fact changes the game. Indiscretions committed by a private citizen become the tools used by the enemy to control the public official, and Trump has never criticized Putin, even though he never misses a chance to criticize other world leaders. References

MfD participants should read this.

MfD participants should read this.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Valjean/Archive 32 Donald Trump pee tape rumor and kompromat: Scope and Notability The NOTABILITY requirements of GNG are fully satisfied for this rumor, so it qualifies for a stand-alone article. Scope The scope is the pee tape rumor and national security implications of a president who may be blackmailed. It has a neutral title that accurately reflects the topic and enjoys enormous "common name" support. Anyone, other than a newbie, who nominates this article at MfD or (after publication) AfD is acting in bad faith. GNG is satisfied, period. Any imperfections and errors should be fixed without deletion of the article, per PRESERVE. Any problems can be resolved by simple communication, without MfDs or AfDs. I hold no illusions that certain editors acting in bad faith won't nominate this for AfD. Of course they will, as they always have done. They demonstrate their NOTHERE attitudes and deliberate refusal to follow GNG. Their usual "I don't like it" arguments will not trump our PAG, and there will, once again, be a "SNOW keep" verdict to keep the article. They should be sanctioned for even trying, per "tendentious".

Thoughts on notability of topic

Thoughts on notability of topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Trump's extreme notability is inherently tied together with the degree of notability assigned to this rumor. It was deemed serious enough that all four of the top intelligence chiefs agreed that President Obama should be notified about it and that later FBI Director James Comey should privately orient President-elect Donald Trump about it. It has been covered in all mainstream RS and the Mueller report, Horowitz report, United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and other investigations. All types of RS covered it, so GNG is fully satisfied. It is very serious (blackmail of a president), very high profile, sensational, explosive, sexual, and salacious, all elements for a very notable topic. For the purposes of weighing an article's GNG notability, the topic's truth or falsity is an irrelevant consideration for a highly publicized and notable allegation about a public figure like Trump. We are instructed to cover it, and do it properly. The seriousness of the pee tape rumor also lends to its notability. Gossip and rumors flourish in response to the real or alleged "transgressional acts that start the scandal".[2] Even if the acts are only alleged, the gossip, rumors, and scandal are very real and can have real-world consequences. Trump is a very scandal-prone, very public figure, so his notability helped to make sure this rumor grabbed the public's attention. If it had happened to anyone less notable, it would have been brushed off and received short-lived attention. Much of its notability also stems from the natural human fascination with sex and scandal, and the media immediately satisfied the demand for such information. This rumor has been described as the "most notorious" of all the dossier's allegations, and this increases its notability. Several sources have described how Trump is a very good example of the Shakespearean saying "The lady doth protest too much." He seems to incriminate himself because he repeatedly, and unforced, keeps denying it at his campaign events. He very tellingly demonstrates what James Comey described as a "consciousness of guilt" when he repeatedly lied to Comey about exactly the only point in time when the incident could have happened. Trump's lies were specific. His denials told Comey exactly when the alleged deed happened. Normally, only the guilty party knows that information. He is like the child who lies by saying "I didn't take the last cookie." The child just told the parents that there are no more cookies and who ate the last one. Trump's lies told Comey that Trump knew what happened and when it happened. It is far from the most important allegation, unless true. If true, having a president who is being blackmailed by an enemy nation has enormous ramifications and consequences. Trump does act like a man who is being blackmailed, and the pee tape is far from the only type of salacious material presumably possessed by the Russians. Even if untrue, some other dossier allegations about the Russian interference were very serious, and the most important were confirmed by the FBI. Trump and his campaign did cooperate in myriad ways with the Russians in their election interference. It would be great if an investigation got testimony from those who first heard the pee tape rumor back in 2013‍–‍2014 and we learned exactly what version of the story they heard back then. Maybe some author will collect their versions and describe them for us in a book. A script writer could then include the info in the movie version. What we do know is that both Cohen and Rtskhiladze recognized the Steele report's description as a description of the tapes they had been pursuing for years. References

Closures at two drama boards

Closures at two drama boards
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
MfD... Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Valjean/Archive 32 was finally closed with this comment: "The result of the discussion was: no consensus. It's clear the community is closely divided at this time about the appropriateness of this user page and further discussion is unlikely to lead to consensus." ANI... Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Valjean Bludgeoning and personal attacks was finally closed, with this comment: "Clear that there won't be any consensus for sanctions in this thread, either against Valjean or against Nickps. This isn't the right venue to relitigate the MfD, nor to discuss general issues with what happens on certain other websites. Please chill out, everyone. Let's not make this ~100 days feel any longer." Now let's get back to creating an encyclopedia. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

PAG issues and complaints

PAG issues and complaints
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In the MfD, ANI, and on some user talk pages, there have been complaints about this draft article, even though it is far from finished. The following accusations have been leveled against it: BLP content fork. See: Wikipedia:Content forks POVFORK. See: Wikipedia:Content forks#Point of view (POV) forks BLP violations. See: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons ("no specific BLP violations" have been found[3]) "There are no specific BLP violations in the draft or sandbox or whatever it is, so that the problem cannot be dealt with by editing. The problem is that the page in question is an entirely negative page about a living person..."[4] WP:Attack page. See: Wikipedia:Attack page Entirely negative page about a living person. See: All of the above contain relevant principles.

Would you delete this if.....?

Would you delete this if.....?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Saving this here: You can read what I've already written on that page to see what debunks your misunderstandings. (It would be really nice if you used policy-based reasoning.) Then read Help:Userspace draft. (There is no rule that forbids an editor from choosing (nearly) any title/URL they want for their userspace draft as long as it's in their userspace. This is not a draft in draftspace, so different rules apply.) Also read WP:GNG. (This topic obviously passes GNG.) Also read this good essay Wikipedia:I just don't like it. Look in the mirror and ask yourself: Would I be doing this if the topic did not involve Trump, Russia, or kompromat? Would I be short-circuiting/sabotaging an official process used by myriad editors to create articles, including controversial ones, if the topic did not involve Trump? Would I be doing this if it was about a super well-known dog breed that was barely mentioned here? Literally everyone recognizes its name, and it is described in myriad RS, books, articles, genetic research, government investigations, legal documents, and court cases, but no one has yet written an article about it here. Would you sabotage the creation of such an article? I implore you to try to be a wikipedian for once and not a partisan warrior who tries to impede whatever you don't like. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion – why it's important to view

From: Article Rescue Squadron: Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion – why it's important to view

Wikipedia articles are based upon topic notability. Sometimes articles that are nominated for deletion simply need for the topic to be proven as notable and encyclopedic through the provision of reliable sources.

Every time an article is deleted the contributions that were made to it are lost, and then only Wikipedia administrators can access it, but they are not necessarily experts on the article's topic. After deletion, an article's content, value, and appropriateness can no longer be evaluated by the general public. In addition, the contributor who writes a poor article on a notable topic is likely to be inexperienced. If their first efforts are deleted, they may be discouraged and refrain from creating further articles, or even editing. Everyone starts somewhere, and we should encourage better writing and better articles. Good faith efforts to contribute should be met with encouragement to improve.

This makes Articles for Deletion (AfD) a very important place; one that deserves everyone's attention.

A common axiom is that "AFD is not cleanup". Wikipedia is a work in progress, and articles should not be deleted because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet. Remember, Wikipedia has no deadline. If there's good, sourceable content in the article, it should be preserved, developed and improved, not deleted. The Wikipedia policy of trying to correct problems in articles through editing improvements, expansion and adding reliable sources, located at Try to fix problems, is often more appropriate than the entire deletion of articles.

The question on whether a poor but improvable article ought to be deleted is a major point of contention, and has given rise to the wiki-philosophies immediatism and eventualism. The Article Rescue Squadron was highlighted in a July 2007 Wikipedia Signpost, and has grown with many processes to tag, track, and list tagged articles.

Articles proposed for deletion (prod)

Sometimes articles are proposed for deletion (prod, prodded) without being sent to AfD, some of which are notable per Wikipedia's General notability guideline.

• Refer to Category: Proposed deletion and Category: All articles proposed for deletion to browse these articles.
• You may wish to consider joining WP:PRODPATROL.

Tryptofish's suggestions

I'm starting this talk section as a place where I can make suggestions for improving the draft. (For me, this is going to be a slow process, so for now, I'm just getting started.)

For now, I have two suggestions. I feel strongly about both of them. They will involve a lot of changes, but I think they will improve it.

1. I think we should remove anything having to do with Trump's psychology. This page should focus more narrowly on what he has done, as opposed to what sources speculate was going on in his mind while he was doing it. (It actually makes more sense to cover his psychology at False or misleading statements by Donald Trump, even though that page is already too long, because that page is more about his thinking, whereas this page should be about things he may have done.) Presenting information about the possible problems with his psychology plays a big role in the POV problems with the page, because it goes to things that might be "wrong" with him as a person. Better to remove all of it.
2. I also want to make the page strictly compliant with WP:BLPPRIMARY. That means removing sources such as court documents or Congressional committee reports. Maybe there could be a few places where such sources could be cited for direct quotes from what those sources say, but they should never be used for statements of fact about what did or did not happen. Reliable journalists who tell us what was significant about those primary sources should be used instead.

Tryptofish (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds reasonable. Quite obviously my style of covering every aspect of what RS say won't be accepted, but, as a thorough researcher, I had to start with all the source material that exists in all the RS I could track down (other people will no doubt find more), so now comes the process of condensing it. That's how I usually work.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the final product should not misrepresent the facts as revealed by all the reliable sources available. They present the big picture and full story. By cherry-picking from the existing sources, we risk presenting a false picture. It's possible to tell part of a story without actually lying, but it's difficult. Sins of omission can be as serious as sins of commission. What I'm saying is to first read everything. With that in mind, one is less likely to make mistakes.

Let's do this in small bites at User:Valjean/Rumor2 and I'll remove the main draft from sight. It's all still NOINDEXed so the outside world doesn't see it. Then we can discuss changes at User talk:Valjean/Rumor2. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Good, that sounds like a good plan. I read your userspace essay about your method of content creation, and I'm trying to work within that framework. I understand what you say about not cherry-picking and not misrepresenting, and I can assure you that I'm not going to try to do that. But that does not mean that it's encyclopedic to include every single bit of verifiable information (so I disagree with where you said that Wikipedia is by nature inclusionist), because it's also necessary to consider due weight in order to achieve NPOV. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

We don't have to agree on every little interpretation. I totally trust your good faith efforts and will likely only object if I see what I consider a really serious issue. I'm sure I can learn a lot from you. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

BLP primary

Regarding BLP primary, we can't get around the Senate Intelligence Committee and Mueller reports, as secondary sources have cited them so much, but we could reduce some of the direct citations and only use the way the secondary sources cite them. That is fully compliant with BLP primary, and the way I usually write content. (The current version still contains more primary stuff than I would have ended up using, so we think alike.) The Senate report went much further than Mueller (who wasn't interested in doing more with the topic) and discusses lots of stuff about the pee tape rumor and alleged sexual kompromat, as well as many different allegations about Trump's alleged "adventures" in Moscow and Saint Petersburg over the years. Many witnesses have been cited by them. I only mention a few. We should not engage in censorship by going further than required by BLP primary, but your point is well taken. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Kompromat and national security

Some RS say the real reason this allegedly happened was to exploit Trump's hatred of Obama and create kompromat that could be used to manipulate and control him. Therefore, this is really about national security, so I have covered what RS say about that topic. There is also a lot of well-known content from RS about Trump as a national security risk that also qualifies as a separate topic, apart from this rumor, and that could be covered in a whole article Donald Trump and national security or Donald Trump's relations to intelligence agencies. We could peel most of that stuff off as it serves as a distraction here. That would also make this article smaller. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:23, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Disrespect, not salacious stuff

This also touches on a change of emphasis I was planning. There are sources that points to Trump's alleged actions as not a sexual perversion, even though the Russians and many sources describe it as such. The thing is, there is no allegation that Trump engaged in sexual relations with the prostitutes, or that he was engaged in actual golden showers sex play, and therefore this draft article makes no such allegation. He allegedly only instructed what allegedly happened and watched it. The sources say it was an act of disrespect to the sitting president (Obama), motivated by Trump's well-known hatred of Obama. He has indeed sought to undo and erase everything Obama has done. By letting those sources get their due weight, the emphasis becomes more about disrespect of Obama and less on alleged sexually salacious stuff. That change of focus is important. It lessens the "ick" factor, although that must also be mentioned because so many RS do it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Time to go out and get some sun & exercise 😊

Per WP:RUMOR, “Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, you are absolutely right, and I am not collecting unverifiable rumors, but writing about what RS say about a very well-documented and verifiable one. I hope you are not reviving the harassment I previously experienced over this. Why not let me work in peace? You do realize that we document literally every type of topic, no exceptions, that is covered in multiple RS, right? That includes facts, opinions, conspiracy theories, lies, and rumors. There is no exception in our rules for the proper documentation of GNG rumors. Wikipedia even allows articles that cover only one POV about a topic, 'when done properly (and that cannot always be done, but sometimes it happens.). You also realize that what I'm doing here is a proper use of userspace, and that a spurious MfD was unsuccessful? This is my article creation process, and along the way some of it has already been used in established articles, which is also a proper use of userspace. This happens to be a super GNG topic with abundant RS that cover it. Congressional investigations have covered it, and several lawsuits are ONLY about it. Feel free to continue by emailing me. I'd rather not draw attention to this page or this topic. That is not my intention. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know anything about the previous harassment to which you refer. Let’s consider the policy’s phrase “unverifiable speculation, rumors”. Does this mean that (1) all speculation and rumors have to be well-documented in reliable sources to be included in Wikipedia? Or does it mean that (2) speculation and rumors that have not been verified as accurate by reliable sources cannot be included in Wikipedia? Apparently you believe (1) whereas I believe (2). Right? Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. I've been here since 2003 and never heard that interpretation. I'm not even sure it makes sense in the context of an encyclopedia that documents literally anything that is mentioned in several RS, especially this topic that is known by literally everyone, is covered by myriad RS, often in depth, covered in government investigations and inquiries, and several lawsuits devoted to only this topic.

So I obviously don't think WP:RUMOR applies to VERIFIABLE topics, IOW any friggin' topic that's existence is verifiable in multiple RS. WP:RUMOR applies to editors' personal, unsourced, and unverifiable speculations and such like. This rumor is covered by WP:Public figure, where the topic, allegation, scandal, or crime doesn't even have to be proven true. It can be the nastiest gossip, and we write about it here using multiple RS. It can be an unproven rumor or gossip, but if it's covered in multiple RS, it usually becomes fair game for inclusion, at a minimum for passing mention, and with attribution and proper framing (lots of use of "alleged"). With this topic, it deserves far more than just mention as it is clearly GNG enough for a standalone article.

So "yes", I believe it means #1. The #2 interpretation doesn't exist anywhere except in your comment on this page. I've never seen it before. "Verifiability" does not mean "confirmed true". It means "verifiably proven to exist". Does the allegation, true or false, exist, as shown by several RS? Yes, it does. End of discussion. A lie can be proven to exist by using RS. So can a rumor. This rumor is proven to exist by myriad RS. No one questions that the rumor exists. It is the alleged incident in the hotel suite and the alleged pee tapes that are unproven allegations, hence the use of "alleged" when describing them. We do not take sides by asserting the golden showers incident is a proven event. No, it's an unproven allegation that may be true or may be false. It is only the rumor, true or false, that is proven to exist. That is the topic here.

Read the draft and learn some interesting facts, such as that Trump and Cohen learned of the rumor shortly after the Miss Universe pageant in Nov. 2013, long before the Steele dossier mentioned it. Cohen testified to that. Steele and his sources did not invent this rumor. Then the hunt began to track it down and stop it. That allegedly happened in October 2016. Also, why did Trump repeatedly lie about the rumor? We can document he did that, but the "why" is "blowin' in the wind". We don't directly answer that question, but some RS speculate why, and we document what they say. It's interesting stuff. I had no idea before I starting reading all these RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know if your interpretation of WP:RUMOR is correct or not, you may well be right. But there’s also WP:GOSSIP to consider. This recently came up at BLPN regarding JD Vance and couches.[5]. I don’t think perpetuating false and derogatory gossip helps Wikipedia much, and a brief explanation that it’s bullshit is usually sufficient. By the way, this particular “rumor” about peeing was likely concocted by a man named Charles Dolan whom you mention, according to the Durham Report (or for a more lively account see this non-RS). Is it still a “rumor” if Durham debunked it? Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no comparison between the world famous pee tape rumor and the gossip about Vance. We are not "perpetuating false and derogatory gossip". Durham has been debunked pretty well. He lost all his cases. He had no evidence that Dolan shared salacious information with Danchenko or Steele, but he did share the information about Manafort. Please don't read unreliable and deprecated sources like the Daily Mail. That article is full of falsehoods.

No, you reveal you are criticizing a rumor without reading what it's about. Read this draft! The evidence, especially from Cohen's sworn testimony in 2019, shows the rumor started long before Steele and Dolan in 2016, and Trump and Cohen knew of it back in 2013. It started shortly after Trump left the Ritz-Carlton Hotel and the Miss Universe Pageant in November 2013. The dossier wasn't even a twinkle in Steele's eye back then.

Neither Steele nor Danchenko's sources had anything to do with starting or creating that rumor. They just repeated it, and they did it so accurately (that allegation in the dossier is the one with the most independent sources) that both Michael Cohen and Giorgi Rtskhiladze recognized that the rumor described in the Steele dossier described the tapes Rtskhiladze said he "stopped". As Judge Cooper put it: "Rtskhiladze's own words as reproduced in the Senate Report show that he, at the very least, suspected in 2017 that the tapes referred to in his texts with Cohen and the tapes mentioned in the Steele Dossier were one and the same." Rtskhiladze later tried to change his story to Mueller and claimed those tapes were fake, but Judge Cooper didn't believe him, because Rtskhiladze's own words and actions showed he treated them like real tapes that he actually "stopped". His own words showed that he knew who had them and who could stop them. Then he claimed he stopped them. You should read this draft before saying anymore. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd suggest changing the word from "rumor" to "controversy" as the revision process goes along. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Well....sources call it a "rumor", never a "controversy". It's true that some people contest the alleged occurrence of the incident and the existence of the alleged tapes, but there is no controversy that a rumor exists. This is about that rumor. The intelligence community tends to believe it may have happened and that tapes exist (even more tapes than just the pee tape), while Trump and his cohorts deny it. What we are left with is the rumor. What do RS say about it? That's a topic worth documenting because myriad RS do discuss it, often in depth. There are even scholarly papers about it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it boils down to there being a controversy over whether or not the rumor is true. It seems to me that what we should be doing here, and I think we are doing here, is not simply repeating a rumor (which of course would be unencyclopedic), but covering the reliable source evidence for and against the putative truth of that rumor. In that sense, the actual page topic is really the controversy over the rumor, and I want to be very careful not to give editors any reason to claim that we are just repeating a rumor. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's any danger that anyone would think we are "simply repeating a rumor". They are poor readers if they think that, but unfortunately most of those skeptical of what I'm doing haven't even bothered to read it or the sources, or consider GNG. They just "don't like it".

We are indeed "covering the reliable source evidence for and against the putative truth of that rumor." Some content is of that nature, and other not so much, but still related. We're also documenting the history/timeline of the rumor, and that story is very revealing, because if Trump and his people didn't react to the rumor as if it was true (as pointed out by Judge Cooper), the rumor would have likely died out if it wasn't true. Yet it lives on, as pointed out by Representative Jackie Speier.

While there is some "for and against" type content, I try to just document what RS say about it and see if there is a clear narrative about what allegedly happened and when. I don't see that RS paint one clear narrative, with no twists and turns, but there does seem to be a red thread throughout. We are supposed to document any different sides and different POV in the sources (as long as they are all from RS), so we are following NPOV by covering the differing views. There are sources that present circumstantial evidence for why the rumor might be true, and there are sources on the other side that present denials, but no circumstantial evidence. There is nothing that speaks against it happening, which, by itself, is not evidence that it did happen. "Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack." Even Trump's denials are contradicted. In fact, Trump lied about very solid circumstantial evidence for the time when it could have happened, and his own people didn't back him up. That denial was odd! I hope that helps, or have I misunderstood you? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Would it be problematic if we actually framed the whole thing as "for or against" it being true? I'm sort of afraid to do that. I tend to let the sources speak for themselves, even if that leaves a muddy picture. Maybe it can be done. Hmmm... -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

To answer that last question first, we definitely should not frame it as being true. Let the sources speak for themselves.

For the more difficult issue, I really do think there is a very significant risk that good faith editors, even those who do read the page before making up their minds, will construe it as simply repeating a rumor. I can say that with confidence, because it's a significant part of my own reaction to the draft. The reason that WP:RUMOR redirects to where it does – and that's a policy! – is that Wikipedia has a firm consensus against writing content that takes a position on what sources will decide in the future. A rumor (other than those rumors that have already been proven to be untrue) is necessarily something where we have to wait for secondary sources to tell us whether it is true or untrue. We are obviously not going to say that this rumor is known to be untrue, so if we treat it simply as a rumor, then we are trying to write an encyclopedia article about something that quite possibly is false. Please note that Category:Rumors is a red link, whereas Category:Controversies has a huge number of entries, within multiple subcategories. My biggest concern here is indeed about how editors will react to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, I try to be very careful not to state that it is true, only document the opinions expressed in RS. Some people think it is true, might be true, or is not true, and we should just document that. That's what we always do, and we attribute opinions. I don't see how documenting the existence of the most well-known and infamous political rumor in recent history can be construed as "repeating the rumor". That could only happen if we do it in wikivoice, without attribution, as the opinion of the editor. That's a big no no. There is no crystal ball activity here, no editor, who represents Wikipedia, who is taking "a position on what sources will decide in the future". We don't know if it's true or false. It's an allegation, an alleged incident and alleged tapes. Everything must be couched in such language. There are clear statements throughout that we don't know if it's true or not. It just exists as a rumor that some people assert, repeat, believe, or not believe. The RS tell us what to write, in their voice, with attribution. Isn't that what we are supposed to do?

If you can find problematic wording, please point it out, because it can be fixed. In the MfD, it was finally admitted that "There are no specific BLP violations in the draft..."[6]. The objections were really what we are specifically told not to do in AfD and MfD discussions. IDONTLIKEIT doesn't count.

As the official draft template at the top of this page says: "This is not a Wikipedia article: It is an individual user's work-in-progress page, and may be incomplete and/or unreliable." Talk pages and userspace can be "incomplete and/or unreliable" and are allowed to contain OR and SYNTH content, as they are necessary for the process of discussion and figuring out the best way forward, but BLP violations are not allowed anywhere at Wikipedia, so I really try to be careful. There is no "unsourced negative content" here, AFAIK. That would violate BLP.

You write: "A rumor (other than those rumors that have already been proven to be untrue) is necessarily something where we have to wait for secondary sources to tell us whether it is true or untrue." That is basically true, but is not relevant to whether we cover it at Wikipedia. IF you are referring to whether we can or cannot cover it, then the phrase "wait for secondary sources to tell us whether it is true or untrue" is not policy, and we have a policy that contradicts that idea. This is where BLP's WP:Public figure applies. We do not have to wait for proof one way or the other with such a notable rumor. Documenting properly-sourced negative content about WP:Public figures, true or false, proven or unproven, is not only allowed, but is described as the way we are supposed to deal with such content. We do not ignore it, whitewash it, or refuse to cover it when it's very notable, especially so GNG notable as this rumor is. No, we document it properly.

This is not some whispering in a corner that no one knows about. Everyone knows about the "pee tape" rumor, and myriad RS, investigations, and court cases have documented the shit out of it. Not writing an article about this would violate many of the fundamental principles for why Wikipedia exists. Our job is to answer readers' questions by providing what is known about it from RS. Our purpose here is to give free access to "the sum of all human knowledge" that is mentioned in reliable sources. That literally means ALL information, not just facts. That includes notable opinions, beliefs, lies, rumors, gossip, conspiracy theories, pseudoscientific nonsense, etc. We document the existence of it all. "If I go looking for info, and Wikipedia doesn't have it, then Wikipedia has failed." — Baseball Bugs. I agree with Baseball Bugs. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Checking back

Hi Valjean. I think this might be a good time for me to check back with you about this draft. I've been quietly watching the edits you've been making. I want to leave you with the space to do the editing your way, and I don't want to get in the way or to rush you.

But I am thinking that we should discuss a time frame for when you (we) will start to shorten the draft page, and remove those things that will not be appropriate for main space. I consider an important part of allowing this to be kept in user space is the expectation that you will work actively to improve it to the point of being usable in main space, and that you will not just keep it here so you can add things you personally find interesting, for an unlimited amount of time. So, what are you thinking about when we can start making serious removals of content from the draft? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Already now right here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Would it be OK with you if (sometime in the near future) I start removing large sections of the Rumor2 page? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure. The history is always there if anything needs to be restored. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Chronology is backward

This draft says:

The Durham special counsel investigation says: "[T]he Office obtained records from the Ritz Carlton Moscow that reveal that Trump was a guest at the hotel in 2013, but did not stay in the Presidential Suite then or at any other time."[88] Hotel staff contradicted those records: When Charles Dolan Jr. was given a tour of the Presidential Suite in June 2016,[89] a "staff member informed them that Donald Trump had stayed in the Suite, but did not mention any sexual or salacious activity".[88][90]

This chronology seems backward. First a tour guide said Trump stayed in the Presidential Suite. Then years later an examination of hotel records confirmed that Trump had stayed at the hotel, but contradicted that he stayed in that suite. Here are Durham excerpts….

Durham p. 145: “a hotel staff member told the [tour] participants that Trump had previously been a guest in the presidential suite.”

Durham p. 146: “the Office obtained records from the Ritz Carlton Moscow that reveal that Trump was a guest at the hotel in 2013, but did not stay in the Presidential Suite then or at any other time.”

So examination of the hotel records partially contradicted what the tour guide had said, not vice versa. Written hotel records are of course more reliable than a tour guide, I would think, but in any event no one ever says that “Person A said something that was previously contradicted by person B.” You could argue that the hotel records pre-dated the tour, but it’s the examination of the hotel records that contradicted the tour guide. Saying that the tour guide contradicted the hotel records is misleading because there’s no reason to believe the tour guide ever looked at or referred to the hotel records. Was anyone aware of this contradiction before Durham’s team examined the hotel records? Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

You may be right that some rewording is in order, so after this explanation, I'll ask you about it. Let's look at this and figure out what's going on.

You write: "This chronology seems backward. First a tour guide said Trump stayed in the Presidential Suite. Then years later an examination of hotel records..." The tour guide spoke in June 2016, and said nothing about salacious activity (that would be highly inappropriate and unprofessional), and the Durham "investigation" started in 2019, with the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation happening in between. Were those records falsified to protect the hotel? I don't know, but there is a discrepancy between them and what the tour guide and all other sources say. The earlier Senate Intelligence Committee investigated those hotel records and said nothing about a change of rooms. On the contrary, they found "social activity" in the presidential suite.

What you're referring to shows there is another discrepancy between the hotel records and what several employees had said, including what the tour guide said in 2016 and what the employees who were there in 2013 witnessed or heard about in 2013 and told Danchenko in the summer of 2016, during his half-dozen trips to Russia doing research for Steele. All these employees and witnesses say Trump stayed in the presidential suite, and it was indeed reserved for him. In fact, Emin Agalarov demanded it. Does that mean Trump could not have been moved from that suite later? No. Regardless if he was moved, all reliable sources and witnesses (with Durham being the lone exception) claim the incident happened in the presidential suite, so which room he slept in is a minor matter, yet, for historical purposes, we want to "get it right". Our articles should be accurate. If the incident really happened in the presidential suite, as alleged, then he might not have wanted to sleep in a bed that had been peed on, so he moved to another room. That would make sense, even though his claim to be a germaphobe has been contradicted by his own words. I wouldn't want to sleep in that bed, and I am no germaphobe.

Another thing that speaks for the incident happening in the presidential suite, 'if it happened at all, is the finding in hotel records by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee (unlike the very partisan and defective Durham "investigation(?)"), that there was "social activity" in the presidential suite during the early morning hours (of a night where Trump clearly lied that he wasn't even in Moscow), apparently (and doubt has been raised by RS about the truthfulness of Schiller's testimony) after Trump's bodyguard had left his post outside the suite and could not give Trump an alibi (per his own testimony). Schiller's own testimony was just part of the abundant proof that Trump lied repeatedly about this alleged incident.

The Senate Committee's report was a three year investigation. The first volume was released on July 25, 2019, and the last volume on August 18, 2020. They did not mention anything in the hotel records that said that Trump stayed in a different room, even though they looked at those hotel records. On the contrary, they found "social activity" in his suite, the presidential suite. The Durham special counsel investigation began in 2019, and the report was submitted on May 12, 2023. It was a thoroughly partisan and embarrassingly amateurish investigation that has been described as part of a cover-up to protect Trump. It was a disaster that totally failed, but MAGA and unreliable sources love to cite it. All of Durham's charges against Danchenko were thrown out. Reading his report is painful. It's hard to imagine a real lawyer wrote it, one that had more than a fifth grade education.

Do you still feel a rewording would be in order? I have gone ahead and changed the wording to "There is a discrepancy between those records and what staff have said." Is that okay? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

In my initial comment above, I quoted two excerpts from the Durham Report. If you’re relying (in your response to me above) upon further excerpts from that report (or another), would you please blockquote them for me? For example, when you say the hotel records reviewed by Durham may have been falsified, has any report speculated about that? Can you blockquote the whole sentence where the Senate Intel Committee discussed “social activity" in the presidential suite? Did Durham say that hotel employees who spoke with Danchenko about this matter were credible and confirmed the Steele Dossier? I thought Danchenko’s alleged “Source E” later told Durham that he didn’t recognize Danchenko and didn’t say what Danchenko said he said. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

To make sure there's no misunderstanding, as I said, I don't know if there has been any falsification (so I have stricken that above), but there is a discrepancy. Something's not right there. Many RS and those who were there in 2013 say it was the presidential suite, and there are records that it was reserved for Trump.

About "social activity": "Several items on the hotel room bill may indicate additional social activity following the birthday party." (p. 292) Then, "At about 1:30 a.m., Trump left the party and headed to the Ritz-Carlton hotel a few blocks from the Kremlin. This would be his only night in Moscow. According to Schiller, on the way to the hotel, he told Trump about the earlier offer of women, and he and Trump laughed about it. In Schiller’s account, after Trump was in his room, he stood guard outside for a while and then left."[7] During his testimony, Schiller was unable to provide an alibi for Trump's activities the rest of that night: He testified that after Trump went to bed alone, he "eventually left Trump's hotel room door and could not say for sure what happened during the remainder of the night". Some say this left "open the possibility that the encounter may have occurred after Schiller left".

And now I see I remembered wrong. (Don't get old!) The Senate Committee also found the hotel records said there was a room change, so forget about everything above on that. I got confused and forgot both reports said that, so I have stricken the incorrect part. Sorry about that. The discrepancy is only between the hotel records and what witnesses and myriad RS said, so I have documented all about that. There is still the fact that the Senate Committee found social activity in his room. Schiller implied he left Trump alone, and some of the billing for that social activity was tobacco products. Trump does not smoke. (He also does not drink alcohol. That's just a little factoid.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Lead sentence

The lead sentence says: “The Donald Trump pee tape rumor relates to kompromat, Donald Trump's vulnerability to blackmail by Vladimir Putin and others, and to allegations that Trump is a threat to national security.”

I do not think we should be saying that such vulnerability exists, and only using the word “allegation” regarding whether he’s a security threat. I suggest we insert before the word “kompromat” the words “infamous and unproven”. See Cohen, Marshall. “Final expected trial of Durham investigation returns spotlight to flawed Trump-Russia dossier”, CNN (Oct 11, 2022). Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd go with "unproven", although there are indications in RS, especially from the intelligence community, that some of it is proven, so there's that..... They assert that Russia does have kompromat on Trump. That's in the body, and the lead follows the body. I haven't read that source yet, but I'm cautious as it is tainted things said in the Durham trial and his witnesses, which weren't very useful. Their job was to trash the dossier. I'd be careful about using it. Much of it is one journalist's opinions, so anything would have to be attributed if we use it. We already have a lot of similar trash talk claims about the dossier in the Steele dossier article, even though they contradict the fact that little, if anything, has been proven untrue, and most is just uncorroborated yet. Unfortunately, after the Mueller investigation started, the FBI turned everything over to him and they stopped all attempts to verify the allegations and just left it hanging. Nothing has been done about that since then, so many of those allegations are still in limbo. They hang there as unproven, but likely true. Nothing indicates they are apocryphal or untrue, even if some sources use such words. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Uh oh. I discovered that the CNN uses those words, not about 'kompromat' in general, but about the pee tape itself: "infamous and unproven "pee tape" claims". That is okay, and we already do that with this wording that includes "infamous pee tape" as a quote from the source, with the addition of the word "rumor" that means it's unproven. The lead already says "unproven incident". I'll go ahead and add "unproven" in the lead at that spot. I thought you were talking about 'kompromat' in general, as the pee tape allegation is just one little part of that. There's a lot more.

Now it looks like this: "The locally well-known, unproven, and "infamous pee tape" rumor,..." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The lead sentence is unchanged: “The Donald Trump pee tape rumor relates to kompromat, Donald Trump's vulnerability to blackmail[1][2] by Vladimir Putin and others….” There needs to be an adjective before the word “kompromat” because there is no consensus among reliable sources that kompromat on Trump exists. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

BTW, just to inform you of something.... This is not an article talk page, or even a talk page in draftspace, which is open to the public, so to speak. This is my personal userspace, where I control everything until I make it an article or move it to draftspace. These conversations are interesting, but please slow down. I'd like to do other things and work on this at my own pace. As an aspie, I need to avoid stress. I still want to know of specific errors in the draft. This is not necessarily the final format, or size. Things may change a lot as I learn more from my research and reading sources. This is a huge topic. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

From my perspective, watching here, the request to reduce sources of stress is an entirely valid one, and one that should be respected. I also think that everything Anythingyouwant has been saying has been in good faith, and offered with a constructive intention. Wikipedia being Wikipedia, there really is no such thing as "I control everything", even in user space, nor should there be. If comments are coming too fast to be comfortable, there is nothing wrong with not replying right away, and coming back with a reply a day or two later. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I’m glad to slow down. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I do AGF. AYW sometimes makes good suggestions. As you know, personal essays are controlled by their creator, and so it is here. This does not have the function of a user talk page, where it must be kept open for necessary communication from all editors to keep Wikipedia functioning. This is a draft article and a bit early for too much intervention from others. If it were in draftspace it would be a different matter. When it's ready, I can move it into WP:Draftspace for further review. There anyone is welcome to edit it and even make it an article. That would not be theft of my article as I would have put it there. That is not the case with userspace. We show respect for other's efforts and work here. To interfere in that process discourages editors and drives them away. For some, it robs their life of significant meaning. I'm just asking for some space and respect. I invite those who can actually edit the draft, as I have done with you, and you have shown me respect. It's much appreciated. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

References

How to approach this topic.

How should we approach this topic? Neutrally, not taking a position that it is a true rumor or a false rumor. We don't really know if it's true or false. If it were clearly false, it would be easier to dismiss it and maybe end up with a stub of an article, but that is not the case. That's why all serious sources have written about it, and we have to respect that fact. Sources don't treat it as clearly false. We just know that the rumor exists and is notable enough to have been covered by every RS, often in depth, with Congressional investigations dealing with it and several lawsuits devoted solely to it. It is known by nearly everyone in the English speaking world who pays any attention to news and politics. Just ask people if they have heard of Trump and a "pee tape". Most recognize it, even if they don't know much.

The rumor must be treated as (1) unproven but (2) possibly true, with the full due weight of each possibility. There is lots of circumstantial evidence that something happened, and no evidence to lend weight to it not having happened. It is certainly possible it happened, and is totally in harmony with Trump's character. He even lied repeatedly about it, and those lies have added more weight to the tendency to believe it might well be true: "This footage is Schrödinger's video. It simultaneously exists and doesn't exist."

It must still be treated as unproven and framed that way, yet the framing should leave open the possibility it's true. If it is true, it has huge significance, and thus the article should be treated as if it potentially has huge significance:

This footage is Schrödinger's video. It simultaneously exists and doesn't exist. Each story about Trump's alleged dealings with Moscow or Kremlin agents reminds us that this video could be out there....

It is not known what happened in that hotel room after Schiller went to bed. Maybe Trump went to sleep. Maybe one of the Russian nationals who were escorting him came by or sent visitors.

This isn't to say that we suddenly have more evidence that a lurid tape actually exists, because we don't. But this news won't make Trump-Russia collusion deniers too excited. Schiller's interview offers a small but important acknowledgement that during Trump's 2013 visit to Russia, an offer was made. Trump may not have taken anyone up on the offer when Schiller was around, but Schiller effectively admitted that there was a potential opportunity....

This hypothetical video may sound like pure, trashy media candy — a sugar high that would make the Lewinsky scandal seem like a town council debate on library funding — but there is some potential substance here too. As special counsel Robert Mueller goes through Trump's inner circle, searching for evidence that members of his campaign colluded with Russia to dig dirt on Hillary Clinton — whether it be by hacking her emails or members of her campaign — the dossier gives Americans an unverified cheat sheet as to what may have happened.

Of course the existence of such a video would also mean that the president of the United States was a total liar. Then again, we knew that already.

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC) Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The overall tone of that quote from the Binkes source is that we really don't know, and that a certain cautious skepticism is needed – and that was written before the Mueller report came out without particularly endorsing the truth of the rumor. As Wikipedia editors, we need to be especially zealous about that caution, and not going any farther than that. I see a big part of my role here as providing a "second opinion" in making sure that the writing is indeed cautious in that regard. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely, on all counts!!! That's my opinion too, and I appreciate that you provide your opinions. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

The Mueller report didn't go deep on that subject, as it wasn't of interest to Mueller, whose criminal investigation was only interested in clearly illegal behavior, but Mueller's "Footnote 112" opened the door by revealing that there was more to the story than the dossier told. (Then Cohen's 2019 testimony blew the door off the whole thing by implicating Trump in a cover-up which Cohen would have been willing to use lots of Trump's money to fund.)

"Footnote 112" said: "During the 2016 presidential campaign, a similar claim may have reached candidate Trump. On October 30, 2016,..." That footnote revealed what the Senate Intelligence Committee did go into a whole lot, because it was a national security and counterintelligence matter, which was their focus. It revealed there was a lot of previous knowledge of this rumor, before the dossier, but that knowledge was largely a closely-guarded secret among Trump insiders. So we are on the right track by going back and telling the whole story from where it really started, right after Trump left Moscow in early November 2013. 99.9999% of people who know about the dossier and the alleged pee tape do not know that the rumor existed independently of the dossier and was not started or created by Steele's and Danchenko's sources. That's important information. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

References

I don't think...

Hey Valjean. Sorry for the long message, but just signalling that I don't think the article in the current state you have it is really tenable. If/when you publish it into draft space, I'd probably intend to cut the size of it's content to maybe less than 1/10th its size and try and rewrite a lot of it. Just signalling to you that that will likely happen, so that you don't get a shock if you draftify it largely as-is.

I have two main gripes with it. I am going to sound overly negative here but I think it's better I say this now than you be shocked when you draftify it and I try and delete most of it. Also, for clarity I've read much of what you've written but obviously not the whole thing. (I read the lead, section intros, and skimmed bits and pieces from the sections).

The first issue I have is the framing. The article is generally framed as an argument for why the pee tape is likely to be real, despite that not being how RS generally discuss it. In the lead for example, notwithstanding the insertion of the word "unproven" or "alleged", as far as I can tell almost every single fact offered in the lead is given as an argument in support of the pee tape being real. The single sentence in the entire lead which states a neutral fact and does not argue in favour of the pee tape's existence (or the other argument below), is the mention of the pee tape being publicized by the Steele dossier. That is it. By the looks of it, the entire third section is the same. It's titled "credibility", though from what I've read there, I haven't actually found a single sentence that is not written in support of your argument that the pee tape is likely true. Again, that is completely unlike how RS talk about this, who usually go to pains to explain that there has not been any corrorbating evidence found.

The other, I guess secondary argument this article presents, is that the pee tape means Trump is unfit due to his vulnerability to blackmail (mentioned by Anythingyouwant above). As a result of the writing trying to present that argument, the article ends up including a lot of (IMO) coatrack material, which is in support of that argument but not really related to the pee tape. The #Vulnerability to blackmail section and #National security risk is a hodgepodge of things generally unrelated to the pee tape. For example you include every mention in the Steele dossier of things in general related to Trump being allegedly vulnerable to blackmail. Or for a sillier example you dedicate an entire paragraph to a youtube music video diss track the son of Aras Agalarov made about Trump. These aren't really about the pee tape, and are more just offered as evidence in support of the secondary argument you present in your writing, I guess?

The second gripe I had was around sourcing. Mostly I think the issue involves OR.

• A lot of this article is novel analyses of primary sources. For example, by my count, the senate intelligence committee report is cited 55 times. More commonly though what you're analysing is court documents. Usually when you cite these primary sources you use the document as the only source of information for the argument you are presenting. I think there's lot of OR in that, and also I see for example in a couple places where you've written a really long paragraph, explaining why so and so was wrong because of something else that was mentioned in the senate intelligence committee report, which I think is synth.
• A lot of this article is quoting what a random person said as fact in wikivoice. For an example, in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead, you quote as fact in Wikipedia's voice that that pee tape was locally "well-known". The source of course is just something that Danchenko said that somebody told him. As you know, that is the same source of the pee tape rumour itself, so we obviously cannot quote this as fact. (You reference I think the primary source Cohen deposition where Cohen says he knew about the rumour, though I assume that was a mistake? If it was not, your own analysis of Cohen's words in his deposition would be a much worse source, given both who Cohen is and the OR involved).
• Another concerning example of this, is seemingly quoting the words of a Yuri Shvets as fact. Or, quite puzzlingly, you quote his words as the opinions of "intelligence agencies" (a couple of times? see the snopes source e.g. in the fourth paragraph of the lead). I think you've referenced him around 14 times? (I'm probably missing some). It is important to note that Yuri Shvets is a conspiracy theorist. Google like, anything he's said about corruption with US aid to Ukraine. Among his recent ramblings on Youtube, he recently said that the reasons for Biden's recent debate performance was that a member from the crowd was probably attacking him with a Russian direct-energy microwave weapon (mentioned briefly in English here). I wish I was kidding, lol. This is not an individual who you can treat as a prima facie reliable source.

At this point I got bored and this message is already too long, so I'll leave it there.

Cheers, Endwise (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Endwise. Let's see now. Where to start? At the beginning! I can assure you that this is far from ready for "publication" ("in the current state you have it") and is also far from its final form or size. I start by examining all the evidence in RS that exists, as far as I can manage to do that. Then I boil it down. That "boiled down" version is not what you see here. You can look at any part of the draft and not know if that part will be part of what is left out. This draft needs lots of work, and that is happening elsewhere with help. This is the source pile. More attribution is just one thing that would be good. BTW, the failed MfD and ANI thread found no BLP violations. I try to be very careful about that, as BLP applies everywhere at Wikipedia.

The focus here is on the proven rumor, not so much on the alleged pee tape. We don't even know if it exists, just that many people, especially in the intelligence community, think it might exist. That is not proof of existence, but that belief is a documented fact. We just know there is a rumor that was kept quiet by a small group of people around Trump and Cohen for several years, and the unfortunate and totally unauthorized publication of the Steele dossier blew it open. Suddenly the whole world learned of allegations about a pee tape and learned about urolagnia and golden showers. Ouch! Steele never intended for that collection of unfinished raw intelligence memos to ever be published. Even his partners and Danchenko thought it was a mistake to include that, but like the trained MI6 agent he was, he includes every single thing his sources bring back. He didn't even know that the story already existed before the dossier was a twinkle in his eye. He just thought sources were telling a story, and he was duty bound to include it, even though it's a yucky topic (like much other stuff about Trump's ways).

Cohen testified in 2019 that he and Trump learned of the rumor shortly after Trump left Moscow in early November 2013, so it's an old rumor that predates the dossier by several years. Cohen is not the only proof for that assertion. The Senate Intelligence Committee says confirms it, and the Mueller report also alludes to knowledge previous to the dossier. I have collected the names of about 20 people who knew of it before the dossier, all from RS. So the dossier is not the source for the allegation; it just repeats the rumor.

You write: "there has not been any corrorbating evidence found". True, and I'm pretty clear about that. There is only circumstantial evidence it might have happened, and no circumstantial evidence it didn't or couldn't have happened. Trump, Cohen, and some others acted as if it was real. You don't hunt for a tape that you know doesn't exist, and you can't "stop" a tape that doesn't exist. Trump's blatant and repeated lies about the rumor only made Comey and some others change from pee tape skeptics to "maybe peelievers", IOW his denials served as circumstantial evidence in favor of its existence. That's a strange situation! In fact, that may be the strongest evidence there is. Consciousness of guilt is admissible evidence in court.

You mention synth. Yes, this is a draft and currently contains some of my own thoughts and speculations about how things are connected. That would be totally inappropriate in an article. This is a draft in userspace, and at the top, the official template says this: "This is not a Wikipedia article: It is an individual user's work-in-progress page, and may be incomplete and/or unreliable." (Bold added.) It's out of reach of search engines, and, just like the rules for all of userspace and talk pages, OR and SYNTH are allowed as they are part of the process of discussions and analyzing evidence and sources, IOW part of the process of trying to figure out what's going on and what the narrative, or narratives, really are. The size of the pile of evidence is always much larger than the final product. Some stuff will end up being left out because it lacks due weight, but that can only be determined after comparison with all the evidence in the big pile and its role in that pile. It's like a huge puzzle, and we don't even know what the final picture really is. Only after all evidence has been considered can one begin to see the picture. I don't guess at what that picture might be. The picture you see in the draft is the picture revealed by RS. If I find more information, that may change the picture.

Use of primary sources is only appropriate for documentation of certain facts, not for editorial synthesis. Those facts can tell a story or add important supplementary information related to what other RS say. A secondary source writes something and a primary sources has more information about exactly that point, and therefore it's legitimate to add the primary source. It's a touchy thing. I've been here since 2003 and know my way around the rules here. I don't intend to use primary sources as much in the final product, but they are the most reliable sources that exist for much of this, so it's important to understand what they say and compare it to what secondary sources say. Sometimes we reject secondary sources because they are inaccurate, and we know that because of the primary sources.

The sources used by Danchenko and Steele are not all the same as the original sources for the rumor. Yet, the dossier's description was so accurate that those who heard the original story long before the dossier could recognize that the dossier's sources were telling the same story. As Judge Cooper put it: "Rtskhiladze's own words as reproduced in the Senate Report show that he, at the very least, suspected in 2017 that the tapes referred to in his texts with Cohen and the tapes mentioned in the Steele Dossier were one and the same." Both Michael Cohen and Giorgi Rtskhiladze revealed the dossier described the pee tape(s) they had been chasing since shortly after the rumor started; that it described the tapes Rtskhiladze had stopped; and that Rtskhiladze suspected the pee tape(s) and the stopped tapes to be "one and the same" tape(s).

Yuri Shvets may be a conspiracy theorist now, but several RS cite his knowledge of Russian intelligence operations related to the cultivation of Trump, and I cite them. What he says is uncontroversial and unsurprising knowledge. Russian intelligence agencies cast a wide net and tried to cultivate many American business people, and Trump was just one of them. There is about zero chance they didn't do that. We don't need Yuri Shvets to tell us that to know it, but RS cite him, so he's fair game. His story harmonizes with what other intelligence people say.

Are you in doubt that this thing predates the dossier by several years? It has a life of its own independent from the dossier. BTW, I have changed your heading, as is my right on my own page. Let's keep it simple. I don't want lots of people coming here as it just takes up my time. This is not a topic for journalists to discover and publicize. Some of them lurk here and may notice that heading appearing in page histories and edit summaries. I'd appreciate your help in that matter. Please don't talk about this elsewhere. The MfD and ANI already affirmed that what I'm doing here, while sensitive, is not improper. It would only be improper to publicize this in its current state, and I don't do that. I'd really appreciate that you use my email. Make a list of very specific quotes from the draft, add your thoughts about the issues you see, and then send that to me. I'd really like that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the national security stuff, I have written about it above at #Kompromat and national security. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

My view of what needs to be changed in the draft tracks quite closely with what Endwise has said, and I appreciate Enwise's comments as something that I hope will help me in working to improve the draft. I'm trying to stay out of Valjean's way for now, but I plan eventually to dramatically prune the draft much as Endwise has recommended. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I suggest starting with the national security stuff. That which does not mention the rumor or alleged tapes can be removed without any danger of whitewashing. Removal of content that does mention them is risky and could be wrong. That would require some discussion about relevant policies. That will quickly reduce the size, and that stuff can be used in other articles and a new article, as it's still a very GNG-relevant topic on its own. He is still seen as the greatest threat to national security and democracy internationally at the present time. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm thinking a lot about how I want to approach my own role in this, and I see myself as having taken on a responsibility to help make the draft into an article that will be good for main space. And I hope that I have earned your trust enough that you will take me seriously when I say that I think something-or-other needs to be changed.

I want you to understand that my opinion is that a lot more than just the national security stuff is where I'm going to want to remove material, and rewrite how the remaining material is emphasized. My view of a main space-ready article will be very different from what we have now.

I am, of course, happy to discuss relevant polices and how they might apply to changes to the draft. But there will be a limit to how much I'm going to be willing to go back-and-forth with you on any given disagreement. I will expect you to go along with what I will want to do. Of course, I don't want to dictate anything, but if I come to feel that you will not accept what I think is necessary, I would end up having to change my position of supporting this draft.

I'd also like to start to pin down a time-course for making the draft article-ready. I feel uncomfortable with me making big changes to Draft2 while you are still revising Draft1. If there are some sources where you would like to have more time to digest what they say, that's fine. But that cannot go on indefinitely, because at some point this has to be readied for main space. So I'd like some guidance from you, about when, specifically, you will feel comfortable stepping back from frequent edits to the draft, and having me deal with a version that is "ready" for me to work on. Of course, if you need more time for that, that's fine for now. It just cannot be for an indefinite period of time. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

What do you think about getting rid of the non-pee tape rumor national security stuff, as I suggested? That will make it easier to see "what's left" to work with. Sources that don't mention the rumor in some way can be deleted, and some of the content they source can also be deleted or a {{cn}} tag left in place. I'll notice those and see if that content can be deleted or sourced with better sources. If you start working on that, I won't make updates to that stuff from Rumor1. It will still be the place where everything can always be found.

I have been updating so you could start with the fullest understanding of the topic there is on Earth. I hope you do read everything so you don't weed out stuff, the importance of which you don't understand because you haven't read everything. Due diligence and all.... Don't treat this like an AfD or MfD, where most participants haven't a clue what they are really dealing with because they haven't read all the content. They just find something they like or don't like and !vote accordingly, and that's just reckless behavior. They delete instead of following the WP:Preserve policy.

You mention a time factor, but there is no rush. As long as work tends to continue, there is no time limit. We are volunteers who do not work under forced time constraints. Only if all work stops does a six month(?) rule of thumb come into play. Content that has been left alone for six months often gets deleted. So the time limit only starts counting after work stops. Then the hammer might fall six months later.

So feel free to start on that stuff after you've read those parts of the draft. It's by far the easiest stuff to deal with. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)