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.

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)