User talk:Valjean

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

Talk page negotiation table

"The best content is developed through civil collaboration between editors who hold opposing points of view."
by Valjean. From WP:NEUTRALEDIT

"The quality of Wikipedia articles rises with the number of editors per article as well as a greater diversity among them."[1]

When all else fails, AGF and remember that

We Just Disagree
So let's leave it alone, 'cause we can't see eye to eye.
There ain't no good guy, there ain't no bad guy.
There's only you and me, and we just disagree.
by Dave Mason (Listen)

Special:Impact

Out of the Shadows: The Man Behind the Steele Dossier

Out of the Shadows: The Man Behind the Steele Dossier, an ABC News documentary with George Stephanopoulos and Christopher Steele.

On October 18, 2021, this ABC News documentary aired on Hulu. It is a legitimate primary reliable source that contains content usable at the Steele dossier and Christopher Steele articles. That which is primarily about Steele would only be used at his biographical article, while some other content may be used at both articles. While most content should be sourced to secondary reliable sources which comment on the documentary, our rules for the use of primary sources allow the careful use of the documentary for some details. I suspect the right place for some of the content would be in the "Legacy" section (maybe after changing it to "Legacy and later developments"), possibly as a subsection for the documentary. We'll see out it works out, as the topic dictates the location. It may end up being nothing. The documentary revealed little real news of consequence, but it does reveal info about methods, motivations, attitudes and consequences.

• ABC News, full trailer
• On Hulu

I am starting a list of RS for possible use. -- Valjean (talk) 15:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

ABC News coverage

• Out of the Shadows: Christopher Steele defiant on dossier, says Trump still 'potential' threat
• Behind the dossier: Steele dismisses James Bond comparisons -- but dossier did leave his life shaken, stirred

The four pillars

In defending his work, Steele describes his intelligence reports as resting on "four pillars" of information that he believes have held up over time as accurate.

"One was, there was a large-scale Russian interference campaign in the American election in 2016," he said.

"The second was that this had been authorized and ordered at the highest levels, including Putin," he said.

"The third had been that the objective of this was to damage Hillary Clinton and to try and get this rather unorthodox candidate, Donald Trump, elected," Steele said. "And the fourth was, there was evidence of collusion between people around Trump and the Russians."

• Behind the dossier: How Christopher Steele penned his reports -- and the fallout from his unmasking
• Behind the dossier: Christopher Steele not worried about facing charges in Durham investigation
• Confronting his critics, Christopher Steele defends controversial dossier in first major interview
  • "Steele continues to defend ... a claim that Michael Cohen ... traveled to Prague in 2016.... 'I'm prepared to accept that not everything in the dossier is 100% accurate," Steele said. "I have yet to be convinced that that is one of them.'"
  • Regarding one of his major sources for the pee tape allegation (there were others), "Steele, in response, told Stephanopoulos that his collector may have "taken fright" at having his cover blown and tried to "downplay and underestimate" his own reporting when he spoke to the FBI." This view is also mirrored by the FBI in the Inspector General's report. Here's what we already have in this article: "The Supervisory Intel Analyst believed this key sub-source "may have been attempting to minimize his/her role in the [dossier's] election reporting following its release to the public".

Other coverage

• Christopher Steele, author of Trump dossier, defends report

While the tape itself has never been revealed, Steele said he thinks it “probably does (exist), but I wouldn't put 100% certainty on it.”

When asked why Russia has never released said tape, Steele said: "Well, it hasn't needed to be released. I think the Russians felt they'd got pretty good value out of Donald Trump when he was president of the U.S." ...

Steele said Mueller's overall report reinforced the contents of his dossier.

“There was a wholesale campaign that was organized by the leadership in Russia, that its aim was to get Donald Trump elected,” he said. “And there was a lot of evidence of contacts between the Trump campaign and Russians, which they didn't report on and didn't admit, and in fact lied about.” ...

When asked why Cohen would not admit to the alleged meeting despite already being convicted of other crimes, Steele replied: "I think it's so incriminating and demeaning. … And the other reason is he might be scared of the consequences."

• Ex-intel official who created controversial Trump Russia dossier speaks out
• Christopher Steele Defends Russia Dossier, Says Trump Golden Shower Tape "Probably Does" Exist
• Ex-spy Christopher Steele stands behind the thrust of his Trump-Russia dossier, even the salacious 'kompromat'
• https://www.axios.com/steele-defends-trump-russia-dossier-abc-interview-5bedc6db-254a-4979-9d82-0ac8041c2398.html
  • "I stand by the work we did, the sources that we had," he tells ABC News

Trump's "golden showers" reaction

• Trump's "golden showers" reaction to news of the documentary was a seemingly unprovoked rant that he "wasn't into golden showers". Several RS made the connection; his rant wasn't something "out of the blue". Sources, with attribution, for that event and connection....
• https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-golden-showers-denial.html
• https://news.yahoo.com/trump-shares-thoughts-golden-showers-080306066.html
• https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/10/donald-trump-golden-showers-denial
• https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-golden-showers-republican-donor-event-1242797/
• https://www.salon.com/2021/10/15/brings-up-golden-showers-unprompted-during-private-event-with-donors/
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-gop-fraud-claims/2021/10/14/f37887fe-2cfc-11ec-985d-3150f7e106b2_story.html
  • "Unprompted, he brought up an unsubstantiated claim he had interactions with prostitutes in Moscow before he ran for president.
    “I’m not into golden showers,” he told the crowd. “You know the great thing, our great first lady — ‘That one,’ she said, ‘I don’t believe that one.’ ”

Own thoughts

A major objection to the golden showers allegation has been that some of the reports alluded to by Danchenko, who apparently didn't have the best sources for this info, came from "word of mouth and hearsay" "conversations with friends over beers" (IG Report). So be it, but people and RS often ignore that some of the seven sources were within Trump's own orbit (Millian and Cohen took it seriously) and workers at the hotel, not hookers and people joking in Moscow bars.

It's a BS objection, because how else would any normal person talk about such a sticky, dripping, allegation? Of course, they'll make Trump the butt of jokes. When Moscow (and Saint Petersberg) hookers told of how their colleagues were involved in the incident, those rumors spread in the hooker community, and people always make such a topic into a joke and scorn. That doesn't mean the allegation isn't true. It's pretty much the only way such an incident would become known.

So is it true? We don't know for sure, but it fits with Trump's character (he's known for sexual escapades and acts of hatred) and his own history with urolagnia (liking the sight of peeing). He liked it in Las Vegas, shortly before going to Moscow. Also, his own hatred of Obama is well-known, and it's entirely in character for Trump to come up with the idea of defiling that bed because of Obama.

The Mueller Report contains a footnote that suggests that Trump may have heard that Russia had incriminating tapes of his behavior. On October 30, 2016, Michael Cohen had received a text from Giorgi Rtskhiladze reporting that he had successfully stopped the "flow of tapes from Russia". Rtskhiladze told investigators that these were compromising tapes of Trump, and Cohen told investigators he had spoken to Trump about the issue. Rtskhiladze later told investigators "he was told the tapes were fake, but he did not communicate that to Cohen".

So Cohen did his job as fixer. He knew what Trump was capable of doing and took the rumor seriously, treating it as a real risk. He began to investigate, using his friend Rtskhiladze, who then started researching the matter. He also treated it as a real risk. We don't know how much back-and-forth correspondence there was between them; we only get one side, but there was obviously previous contact. After a while, Rtskhiladze reported back to Cohen with the good news that he had "stopped the flow of tapes". They believed there was a risk, enough to try to avert exposure. That was part of Cohen's job as Trump's "fixer".

So whether it occurred or not, there was enough risk that Trump had done such a thing that Cohen treated it as real. Innocent people don't do this. Millian was also one of the sources for the pee tape allegation, and he was inside the Trump campaign. These actions lend much weight to the evidence that the incident may have happened as alleged. It remains one of the many unproven claims, but one that is likely true.

Steele still allows that the pee tape allegation may not be true. This has always been his view, often expressed as a 50-50 likelihood. Steele's partner at Orbis, Chris Burrows, as well as Steele's wife, tried to talk him out of including it, but Steele followed standard MI6 practice, which is to include everything from all sources in your original notes. Later it gets checked for accuracy, and a final report might not include it. BuzzFeed short-circuited this process by publishing the unfinished notes without permission. The fault is BuzzFeed's, not Steele's. Steele knew that Putin's FSB often included sex tapes in their kompromat, so he couldn't ignore the reports. (I don't know if Steele also factored in Trump's personality and thus the likelihood of such actions. No one who knows Trump would be surprised if this turned out to be true.)

Regarding sources, Steele shares the exact same view as the FBI, revealed in the IG Report, that when a source is exposed, they get scared and try to minimize their involvement. The "confidential source will often take fright and try and downplay and underestimate what they've said and done". (Steele) That's also what the FBI previously told Horowitz. Both Danchenko and Millian did that, and Steele agrees with the FBI. Those who accuse Steele of faulty logic should accuse the FBI, but I doubt they know better than the FBI.

Steele wrote 17 memos which are now known as the "Steele dossier". He doesn't like the term "dossier" "because it wasn't a dossier. It's a series of reports on a live issue, the election campaign, running through time. These reports were not collated and presented in one offering, nor were they analyzed in detail by us. Effectively, it was a running commentary. It wasn't a dossier."

Steele still believes that "the evidence suggests that" "Donald Trump was colluding with the Russians".

Something different

• Steele included in Vanity Fair's The 2018 New Establishment List]
  • "Golden-shower glory: The former head of M.I.6’s Russia desk compiled the infamous dossier that raised the possibility Donald Trump was vulnerable to Russian blackmail. Steele even grew a beard and went into hiding—merely adding to his mythic reputation on the left."
• Russia dossier author criticizes Trump, slams 'strange and troubling times'
  • "The former spy, Christopher Steele, wrote to Vanity Fair shortly after he was named to the magazine’s “2018 New Establishment List.” ....[his comments follow]"
• Former MI6 spy Christopher Steele, who compiled controversial dossier, breaks silence to criticize Trump
• Radhika Jones sets a new tone at Vanity Fair: 'My goal is to reflect the culture as I see it'
  • "The 100-person New Establishment List featured Steele, the former intelligence officer, at No. 38. He has been in hiding, but he broke his silence by sending Jones a thank you note. He said he would have liked to attend the summit, but could not given his “present legal and political situation.”

Template

• <ref name=" ">{{cite web | author-link1= | last1= | first1= | author-link2= | last2= | first2= | date= | title= | website= | url= | access-date= | quote= }}</ref>

References

Great RS essay!

I've only just gotten to the end of the section on "Sources: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" and have gotten so much out of it. Thank you for putting together this piece of research. Like! Platonk (talk) 06:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Platonk. Thank you. I assume you're referring to this essay. A couple others that are even better are these:

• How to create and manage a good lead section
• NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content

Valjean (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Trump collusion was very real

For this section.

(after the Mueller Report) Subsequently, the Republican-led U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee issued a report finding that interactions with Russian intelligence officer Konstantin Kilimnik during the 2016 election by Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort posed a "grave counterintelligence threat".

Michael McFaul, former U.S. ambassador to Russia, reacted to the report by writing an article titled "Senate Russia report proves Trump collusion was very real. But do voters care?" He described how "the report reveals how the Trump campaign willingly engaged with Russian operatives implementing the influence effort."

References

Evaluating sources in the AP2, Trumpian, post-truth era

Editors should understand how to evaluate sources, and here are some red flags to watch for. Any source that sows doubt about the following proven facts is not a RS:

1. Russia interfered in the 2016 election in a "sweeping and systematic" fashion.
2. Their goals were to put Donald Trump in power by harming the campaign of Hillary Clinton and increasing political and social discord in the United States.
3. Trump and his campaign had myriad, illicit, secret links with Russians which they kept hidden and lied about.
4. Those links were first discovered in 2015 when secretive meetings and interactions all over Europe between Trump associates and known or suspected Russian agents were recorded in routine surveillance of those persons and spies. Allied intelligence agencies were alarmed and reported those contacts to American intelligence.
5. Trump and his campaign welcomed, facilitated, aided and abetted, and cooperated with the Russian interference in myriad ways.
6. The Steele dossier had no role in triggering the overall Russian interference investigation.
7. Trump did not win the 2020 election.
8. It was not stolen from him by Biden.
9. Trump attempted to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 United States presidential election.
10. The 2020 United States presidential election was the most secure in American history, and its results were not affected by any widespread voter fraud.
11. Trump's efforts were actually an attempt to steal the election from its rightful winner. Those efforts have rightly been described as an attempted coup/self-coup and insurrection.
12. Republicans have largely defended Trump's false claims of 2020 election fraud.
13. Climate change is caused by humans and is serious.
14. Vaccines are safe.
15. Donald Trump is rarely truthful in any sense. He uses misinformation, disinformation, conspiracy theories, and chaos as his political modus operandi, even when it mostly affects and literally kills (COVID-19 and anti-vaccine actions) his own supporters.

Let me nail these facts firmly on the front door of Wikipedia:

1. There are such things as verifiable, reality-based, facts.
2. Trump's "alternative facts" are not reality-based facts; they are falsehoods.
3. The mainstream media are not fake news; they are working hard to report the news accurately and don't allow spin to get in the way of the facts. When they make a mistake, they correct their errors.
4. The "news" sources favored by Trump are invariably unreliable, inaccurately spin and distort the facts, and some are worthy of being called fake news because they only spout what's favorable to Trump, even though it's often false. He likes them because the truth hurts, and it interferes with his agenda.
5. When Trump says "fake news", he doesn't mean "news that is untrue"; he means news which is negative and unfavorable to himself, even though it's true.

No editor here should doubt any of the facts mentioned above. Period. Only "fringe editors" doubt them. In these post-truth Trumpian political times, fringe editors often have a strong Trump bias and point of view because they adopt Trump's open animosity toward RS and believe his untruths and the fake news stories that are circulated in his support and attack those he does not like. They live in a closed information bubble and are often ignorant of the facts, thus disqualifying them from editing on politically sensitive topics. AP2 topic bans are usually the best way to deal with them until they show a positive learning curve that demonstrates they are better informed and can vet sources accurately.

Facts are facts, lies are lies, and opinions are not facts. Sources that undermine those facts are the ones that should be removed and deprecated. All editors should know which sources do that and that those sources are often defended by fringe editors here at Wikipedia. The Washington Post and The New York Times are not such sources. -- Valjean (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

References

A caution issued elsewhere

Caution about pushing fringe theories

Mr Ernie, please don't advocate for the "Trump is the victim of a hoax" idea in any way, shape, or form, whether you tie it to the dossier or other aspects of Trump/Russia relations. The dossier is not a "hoax", and Trump is not the victim of a hoax or witch hunt. The suspicions and investigations of Trump and his campaign are all inspired by his own dubious activities.

You wrote: "The "collusion" stuff has always been a hoax grounded firmly in the Steele Dossier." The "hoax" aspect of that comment of yours was improper at Wikipedia and false everywhere.

Here at Wikipedia, advocacy of fringe theories is forbidden activity. It's tendentious and unwikipedian. Keep that in mind. This response to soibangla, which you edit warred over, is a case in point:

Readers who think Wikipedia is biased really only have 2 options. Argue with the editors on the talk page, who aren't going to go against Wikipedia policies, or just ignore these articles and get your info directly from these article subjects. While the former can be somewhat fun for people who like to argue, you'll eventually get sanctioned and lose the privilege to do it. So go with the latter. I don't choose which media I consume based on what Wikipedia says, but by what interests me personally. (18:59, 3 November 2021)

Let's unpack all the meaning packed in that fateful quote, because you are indeed a reader "who thinks Wikipedia is biased".

• "Readers who think Wikipedia is biased" are those who do not agree with RS.
• You even recognize that to do what you want would be to "go against Wikipedia policies".
• You then advise to not "Argue with the editors on the talk page" and instead "go with the latter" ( "just ignore these articles and get your info directly from these [unreliable] article subjects") as if the latter are legitimate options. They are not.

That was horribly unwikipedian thinking. Why deliberately go with unreliable sources?

Why not agree with RS so there would be no need to argue with other editors? Instead, you violate your own advice all the time and argue with mainstream editors who get their views from the RS you don't like,

• You then admit that if you follow your own preference, you'd "eventually get sanctioned and lose the privilege to do it."

So you admit that your preferences are blockable offenses.

It appears that "what interests [you] personally" is what you read on unreliable sources. That's the only way I can interpret what you wrote when compared with your frequent pushing of views found in unreliable sources and conspiracy theories. (At least you're consistent and follow your own beliefs.)

Instead of "ignoring" our articles, you should read them and their sources to learn what is factual. Let your mind be guided by evidence, not by "what interests [you] personally".

After a long edit war with several other editors over that content, you restored it with an alteration:

Readers who think Wikipedia is biased really only have 2 options. Argue with the editors on the talk page, who aren't going to go against Wikipedia policies, or just ignore these articles and get your info directly from these article subjects. Continuing to just complain about reliable sources and article bias isn't productive. (16:52, 4 November 2021)

I guess you realized what part wasn't wise to utter out loud here, but you had already expressed your real disdain for our articles, for RS, and how you favor using unreliable sources. That cat is out of the bag, and we all know it. Please(!!) alter your beliefs, and, even if you don't, don't allow them to affect your discussions and editing, because it's quite evident when you are allowing that to happen. You can still do good work here if you're careful and avoid the political articles.

IIRC, you have been warned several times by several admins that an WP:ARBAP2 topic ban hangs over your head if you continue to do as you are doing now. Some of your comments (like the ones above) violate our Advocacy and Fringe policies, so, if you want to avoid a topic ban or stay here at all, please follow my advice. -- Valjean (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia, AfDs and GNG

See also: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions § I don't like it

When approaching an AfD, editors should ignore all problems with the article and ask themselves only ONE question: "Does this pass our General notability guideline (GNG)?" If so, !vote Keep, as that is the ONLY relevant question at an AfD. If the article appears to fail GNG, can it be rescued by finding more RS? Then advocate for that before !voting Delete. All other concerns and problems with the article are covered by WP:PRESERVE.

Fixing and improving, not deleting, is how we roll here, and bogus AfDs violate our "purpose" here, which is to document "the sum total of human knowledge," as long as it's found in RS. Editors who create AfDs for articles that pass GNG should be trouted for undermining the very reason Wikipedia was created. If they do it repeatedly, they should be topic banned from creating AfDs.

Editors who create articles often deal with bogus AfDs from editors who are ignoring/resisting our "purpose" here. They are forgetting that "not censored" is also aimed at what they are doing.

We need a "purpose" policy that can be cited when it's violated. AfDs are often attacks against GNG: Articles that clearly pass GNG are nominated for deletion, and the reason often turns out to be a hodgepodge of dubious arguments that collectively violate our "purpose" and are basically I don't like it. While no editor can be required to create an article or to make an edit, they certainly should be sanctioned if they get in the way of the creation of an article that passes GNG. This kind of extreme (actually very common!) deletionism is wrong. We should aid the creation of articles and content. We're here to build, not destroy.

Our job (purpose here) is to document "the sum total of human knowledge," and editors must not leave or create holes in our coverage.

Editors must not exercise censorship; they must present all significant sides of any controversy and document the opposing points of view, and they must not shield readers from such views. To leave out one side amounts to promoting the other side's POV. Wikipedia should include more information than other encyclopedias, not less. Our goal is to document "the sum total of human knowledge," and censorship seriously undermines that goal.

Because Wikipedia is created through inclusionism, another objection to deletion of content is that deletion "goes against the entire basic premise" of Wikipedia: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." — Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia. We try to build content, not break it down. Imperfect content is not removed, it is improved. Good faith editors should not be made to feel their work is in vain.

Wikipedia isn't just another encyclopedia. It aims to be exhaustive in an unlimited sense. It should be unlike all others in scope and size. It is the Internet Archive of knowledge. If a piece of knowledge is notable enough (mention in multiple RS), an article should be created for it, or (if only mentioned in one or two RS) it should at least be mentioned in an existing article or list. We need to be super-inclusive. I have an essay which deals with how NPOV deals with biased sources, and it touches on these subjects: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. -- Valjean (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Fringe beliefs

Copied from User talk:Stiabhna#Fringe beliefs.

I'm trying to save you so you can end up a good editor. Read what follows with that in mind.

Like I wrote above, you are allowed to believe whatever you want, but openly advocating things that are pushed by unreliable sources and are contrary to what reliable sources say places you right in the middle of a "fringe editor" target. On your user page you have written your political beliefs:

1. Proud anti-vaxxer
2. Proud supporter of current President of the United States Donald Trump
3. The 2021 Storming of the United States Capitol was a coup perpetrated by Nancy Pelosi and the far-left Democrat Party

You should not be proud that you believe in that trifecta of misinformation. You need to catch up with the facts, so please read the following articles and their sources. :

1. Public health is not a private matter. Your actions can literally kill other people.
   Read: Vaccine hesitancy, Misinformation related to vaccination, COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the United States, Measles resurgence in the United States
2. Trump is a former president, so never again call him the "current" president. That will likely get you blocked for forbidden advocacy of fringe beliefs. Trump uses both the "Big Lie" and "Firehose of falsehood" propaganda techniques.
   Read: Big lie# Trump's false claim of a stolen election, Veracity of statements by Donald Trump, Trumpism, Firehose of falsehood
3. There is no evidence that Pelosi or the left-wing had anything to do with that coup attempt. Trump's supporters marched from his meeting at the White House to the Capitol and did what they did. Trump and his friends planned and inspired what happened that day. Even McConnell said it was all Trump's fault.
   Read: Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election, 2021 Storming of the United States Capitol.

I hope you will bring your beliefs into line with the facts. Facts matter, and it's important to keep your beliefs up-to-date and always follow the evidence:

• "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." - William Kingdon Clifford
• "A habit of basing convictions upon evidence, and of giving to them only that degree of certainty which the evidence warrants, would, if it became general, cure most of the ills from which this world is suffering." - Bertrand Russell

Our articles are based on reliable sources, so you can generally trust them to be factual. Please believe them. -- Valjean (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Did I miss any?

Hi, if you have a minute, please review the list of articles below. I am trying to identify our text dealing with the first part of the 7-part plan, i.e., that Trump knew he lost and lied about fraud anyway.

• Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud
• Big lie#Trump's false claim of a stolen election
• Trumpism
• Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election
• Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election#Stop the Steal
• Veracity of statements by Donald Trump#2020 presidential election
• United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack public hearings

Thanks for any help you can offer. At the moment I'm compiling ideas in my user space using file prefix 111, and am mainly working on what could possibly evolve into a real outline article. But I've an open mind what direction to wander off in.... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

What is a "coup" in the age of Trump?

Fuck everything you have usually associated with the word "coup". Get out of that tiny box that only sees a "coup" as a military overthrowal of another person in office. Follow what RS say about THIS situation.

Trump tried to "recoup" ("regain something lost or expended") an election he lost by lying about his loss and refusing to relinquish power. He violated the rules of play in the USA and adopted a course of action one has seen in other, usually third world, nations where the one in power stays on after their rightful term of office has expired. What happened here is now being described by RS as a "coup". Start revising your way of thinking, because it no longer applies. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Check in

I'm beyond concerned about current affairs, and I am guessing you might be too. Are you OK though? Feel free to email me if you wanna talk off wiki about.... well, about anything. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I too am concerned about the future of this country. Moving back to Europe is a consideration, if absolutely necessary, but that would require danger of imprisonment or disappearing, and I'm not notable enough for Trump to do that if he gets back in power. Europe is also endangered by Putin. The future is fraught with peril, but I'm doing fine, other than having to completely replace our 26 year old HVAC system. It finally broke down, leaving us with 93 degrees inside. Now we have two portable units running all the time and can keep it below 85. Fire danger too, here in California. We keep track of what's happening all around us. If one eats too many strong chilis and farts, a fire starts! We lost everything in the 2018 Camp Fire and are constantly alert. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm a graduate of a forestry school of a state university somewhere in the US.... Oh my god, how I wish some class on fire management mentioned If one eats too many strong chilis and farts, a fire starts! but maybe that will make it into the 2023 textbook editions!! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I take some comfort in these words of wisdom from Miss Maudie: "Things are never as bad as they seem." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, I take comfort from the 2000 pounds of fossils in the very room from which I type. Humans might end the Anthropocene but we will never end biodiversity or Evolution. But we do seem determined to end ourselves. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me for not noticing this context for you starting this thread. WTF? Maybe just deleting or striking the first paragraph of an otherwise serious, useful, and on-topic thread would have been a good faith approach. Disappointed. That edit of yours is concerning. I was fine until now. Sheesh. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

well if you feel compelled you can complain to WP:AE, as I am aware that DS applies to us politics. But if you have to say "fuck everything" on any topic, I kinda think talking to someone off wiki would be a worthwhile thing to do. And note to myself.... natureRx, I'm due for a refill, how about you? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

We don't normally censor "fuck" around here. I have plenty of nature around here. That's what burns. Spent Saturday at the river. Will be camping in the Trinity Alps soon. Plenty of hiking, swimming, fishing, campfire, and target practice. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

May the wild fires always be on the other side of the mountain. take care, and happy editing. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Downgrade vs deprecate

While I respect and admire your message, you might want to consider retaining "downgrade" as a 2nd choice in the event that "deprecate" lacks sufficient consensus. Andre🚐 02:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Types of sources used at Steele dossier article

Not necessarily complete...

•  Done Newspapers: The Washington Post The New York Times The Guardian The Daily Telegraph The Baltimore Sun The Independent The Wall Street Journal The Hill (newspaper) Australian Financial Review Tampa Bay Times USA Today The Arizona Republic Daily Mirror The Sunday Times The Sydney Morning Herald The New Zealand Herald Los Angeles Times Financial Times Haaretz The Fresno Bee Miami Herald The Scotsman Cayman Compass .... news... |newspaper
•  Done Newsmagazines: Der Spiegel The Week Newsweek .... news...|work
•  Done Magazines: The New Yorker New York (magazine) The Atlantic Variety (magazine) Mother Jones (magazine) Vanity Fair (magazine) Washington Monthly Forbes The Spectator National Review Paste (magazine) The Nation Slate (magazine) Columbia Journalism Review Rolling Stone Vice (magazine) Time (magazine) Foreign Policy Fortune (magazine) Reason (magazine) Politico...magazine...|magazine
•  Done News agencies/channels: Associated Press Reuters Agence France-Presse Bloomberg News BuzzFeed News News Corp Australia BBC News CNN ABC News NBC News CNBC MSNBC CBS News PBS NPR Sky News Fox News McClatchy DC Bureau Ynetnews C-SPAN Courthouse News Service Yahoo! News Yahoo! Finance......news.....|agency
•  Done Website: Coda Media Vox (website) The Daily Beast Business Insider The Intercept Law360 HuffPost Salon.com Law & Crime Media Matters for America Mediaite FiveThirtyEight Axios (website) PolitiFact FactCheck.org Snopes
•  Done Radio station: KABC (AM)...web....publisher
•  Done Unsure how to categorize: White House Correspondents' Association ...web..publisher

• Citation template terms: |website=, |newspaper=, |work=, |newsgroup=, |magazine=, |periodical=, |journal=, |agency=, |network=

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

The simple answer

The simple answer as to why Trump has not (yet) been charged with destruction of evidence, obstruction of justice, witness intimidation/bribery, etc, is that he didn't actually do that stuff, or rather that there's not enough evidence out there to prove it. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

But I thought that Trump automatically declassified the material—which the FBI planted anyway—which was protected by executive privilege even though he's not President anymore—which is also attorney-client work product—and HUNTERBIDEN HUNTERBIDEN HUNTERBIDEN WITCH HUNT!!!

(Sorry, I've had a lot of unshielded exposure to Fox News in the doctors' lounge. Not sure what came over me). MastCell ^Talk 15:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Maybe if you inject bleach directly into your lungs, you'll feel better. Andre🚐 16:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

But HILLARY! SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I don't know what you are talking about. What planted material? What Hunter Biden witch hunt? Is there some secret evidence of Trump's wrongdoing out there that prosecutors haven't acted on yet for some weird reason? Surely the will to charge and indict is there. I guess you think I consume fake news, but Valjean's the one who believes there's a secret tape of Trump watching Russian prostitutes pee on a bed in a hotel in Moscow and that Hunter Biden's laptop was a Russian operation. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Trump claimed the FBI planted the material they confiscated at Mar-a-Lago. He no longer pushes that lie. He had 300 classified documents there. He had been collecting stuff he wanted to keep in about two dozen boxes in his private White House residence. That was so wrong. He then took them to Mar-a-Lago and resisted turning them over each time he was asked. He'd turn over some things, but he still managed to retain over 300 classified documents. Why? Not only is it illegal, was he planning on using them for blackmail of Macron and others, or for a "sweetheart deal" with Putin, as Clapper put it?

I don't "believe" the pee tape, but I leave the door open, and I'm in very good company. There is more evidence for its existence than against it, and, as usual, it is Trump's own actions that lend credence to the suspicions. If he hadn't repeatedly lied about it, Comey and I would still be doubters, but when a man, without any reason, repeatedly lies and acts guilty, one wonders.

The provenance of Hunter Biden's laptop is the real issue. It's very suspicious. The way it appeared justifies suspicion. That's how Russian intelligence works. Most of the material on it is obviously Hunter's, it's just the way it was handled that's suspicious. There is evidence it was tampered with. Hunter had at least two laptops that were stolen, likely in Ukraine, and shopped around there to the highest bidder. Suddenly one appears in Delaware from Rudy Giuliani, of all people. Rudy had been in Ukraine and may have bought it there from some Russian spy. Who knows the real truth? Our articles provide what RS tell us. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Kudos to Valjean for steering this off the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I could see we'd end up down the rabbit hole. Been there before with Mr Ernie. See above: A previous warning to Mr Ernie -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't call the dossier a hoax (although a NYT opinion writer did a few weeks ago). Where you are quoting me, you falsely inserted the word "unreliable" and then used that word as if I had said it. I would appreciate it if you didn't say I said or did things that I didn't. If my editing is so problematic you should be able to use the actual diffs instead of fabrications. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

"Hoax"? You must be referring to a different thread above. Please comment there if you want to discuss that. I certainly don't want to misrepresent you. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

LOL! Yes, MastCell, when the limited worldview of Fox News viewers comes to light, it's truly shocking how little they know of what's been happening in Trump world. Statistics from 2012 (below) show that Fox News viewers know less about current affairs than those who see no news at all. Since the advent of the Trump cult bubble, it's gotten much worse. By contrast, people who access NPR and The Daily Show are very well informed.

Trump's condemnation of all media that doesn't support his lies, calling them "fake news", and his dissing of fact-checkers, has had a catastrophic effect on his supporters, keeping them in a bubble of very limited information. (See Trump's misuse of the term "fake news".) They literally don't know what's happening outside that bubble. That's why I haven't replied to the comment above. To start to unpack it would be a waste of time. What we have seen and heard from Trump's own mouth, and what all the investigations have found, has been blocked or filtered by Fox News and sources even further to the right. All other news sources, all over the world (all condemned by Trump as "fake news"), have reported these things, but Fox News and most other right-wing sources have not done it. Trump supporters tend to limit their sources to those that fail to cover anything negative about Trump, IOW those he does not condemn, which leaves a very limited group of sources. The result is comments like the above.

They see Trump as the victim of a witch hunt, rather than the victim of the rightful exposure of his own narcissism, lies, corruption, and fealty to Russia and money. If any other leading politician behaved as he does, they would be treated in the same way by the media, but he's uniquely bad in every conceivable way. Why should he get a free pass? That's what his supporters want.

Some good sources:

Non-partisan Pew Research Center

• 2022 "Political Polarization Archives". Pew Research Center. August 9, 2022. Full package of links to Pew Research's sources on political polarization.
• 2022 Gramlich, John (June 2, 2022). "Q&A: How Pew Research Center evaluated Americans' trust in 30 news sources". Pew Research Center.
• 2021 "Where News Audiences Fit on the Political Spectrum". Pew Research Center. August 18, 2021. Interactive chart. Choose a source, for example Fox News, and see what happens. It's pretty cool.
• 2020 Jurkowitz, Mark (January 24, 2020). "U.S. Media Polarization and the 2020 Election: A Nation Divided". Pew Research Center.
• 2020 Gramlich, John (August 18, 2020). "5 facts about Fox News". Pew Research Center.
• 2014 Mitchell, Amy (October 21, 2014). "Political Polarization & Media Habits". Pew Research Center. Liberals get their information from far more and widely varied sources, whereas Conservatives limit their sources to Fox News and fringe sources.

Other:

• 2012 Kelley, Michael B (May 22, 2012). "STUDY: Watching Only Fox News Makes You Less Informed Than Watching No News At All". Business Insider.
• 2012 "What you know depends on what you watch: People learn most from NPR, Sunday Morning Shows, The Daily Show; least from MSNBC, Fox News". Fairleigh Dickinson University. May 3, 2012.
• Krugman, Paul (December 8, 2017). "Facts Have a Well-Known Liberal Bias". The New York Times.
• 2014 Krugman, Paul (April 18, 2014). "On the Liberal Bias of Facts". The New York Times.

Two sections above:

• Evaluating sources in the AP2, Trumpian, post-truth era
• A previous warning to Mr Ernie

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Where the Crawdads Sing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American slang.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Please don't accuse of whitewashing

Valjean, I know we are both working in good faith even if we don't always agree. Accusations of whitewashing in edit summaries aren't helpful. Certainly we can both be acting in good faith while disagreeing. Springee (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Springee, you're right. Sorry about that. I just reacted to what looked like a violation of NPOV, which requires we include the good and the bad, the praise and the criticism. Your edit was just one attempt of several by several editors to remove various bits of negative content that, in toto, appears like whitewashing and makes it a hagiography. My edit summary reacted to all of that, not just your edit.

If something in an article deserves a heading, it should get short mention in the lead. Now his very clear anti-science, climate change denial, is not mentioned. That's wrong. The lead summarizes the article, not whatever makes him notable. Notability is the requirement for article, creation, not for inclusion in the lead.

Peterson has said so much good that we need to avoid making him a saint. We should include any balance on the negative side we can, especially now that he's declining and becoming more fringe. I know that these edits can happen in good faith, but the effect is the same. We do not write hagiographies. Peterson takes this very seriously, so we should too, primarily because multiple RS document it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the reply. I don't agree regarding the climate stuff but it seems that would be a more than legitimate topic on the article talk page. Anyway, I can understand how a few reverts in a row can raise the blood pressure! Anyway, I hope all is well and glad you aren't dealing with the mess in Florida (I'm sure the west would like some of that rain). Springee (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

The last storm in California actually gave us a few cool days and some rain in northern California, where we are always dealing with fires. It helped. The situation in Florida is horrible. Fucking sharks in the street? Wow! You can't make that stuff up. The alligators must have had a field day, with easy pickings. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Holly s**t! [2] That is unreal!

A barnstar

		The Content Creativity Barnstar
		For advancing the state of the art. Andre🚐 01:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Cleaner leads because of "Lead section anchors". They work! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Where to start cleaning up

Hello, Valjean. I see now that the 85 editor managed to get themselves blocked. While that's unfortunate, they've been creating quite a mess behind them and I'm curious where I should start cleaning up behind them. Thanks. BlueNoise (talk) 07:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to 85.238.103.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).

IIRC, proper cleanup requires attention to detail. Sometimes a simple revert is enough, but other times there really was a problem, but their "fix" was improper or incomplete. You can do it properly. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Big changes, require RFCs

See Talk:Donald Trump
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm going to open an RFC on the matter on the related page. A local consensus isn't enough, for such a big (and IMHO) distracting change. GoodDay (talk) 01:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC) GoodDay, does this mean we all have to return our barnstars for doing this? This was discussed and then implemented as a BOLD experiment that succeeded even better than expected. The multiple benefits are worth getting accustomed to those discrete links. All new improvements meet resistance, and I'm surprised that you, of all people, are the one who objected and jumped the gun without engaging in a good discussion at the talk page. Slow down. We probably will need an RfC, but not yet. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC) Best to invite more editors in, to look it over. If it's accepted, then I suppose the style will be adopted to the leads of all (bio & non-bio) pages. However, if it's rejected? We'll have to delete them from Trump's BLP. I assume this experiment has only taken place on Trump's page. GoodDay (talk) 01:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

John Durham’s three-year-old probe judders [sic] to a halt

Found this amusing, maybe your talk page stalkers do as well. Young, Cathy (2022-10-25). "No, 'Russiagate' Wasn't the Hoax That Team Trump Claims It Was". The Bulwark. Retrieved 2022-10-25. Andre🚐 22:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it was a big disappointment for Trump supporters. Trump's problems are his own fault. This is good:

Yet the idea that the Mueller report exposed Russiagate as a “hoax” rests on a false binary: either Trump and/or his associates actively conspired with Russia, or Trump has been the victim of a “Russia, Russia, Russia” witch hunt. But there is also another scenario: that Trump ran as a Russia-friendly candidate, Russia interfered in the election to help Trump (as the Mueller report very clearly states), and Trump and his cronies were fine with that. And that scenario is not a hoax or a concoction of the Steele dossier.

The article also exposed the shoddy work of Greenwald and The Washington Examiner. Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Russia in lead...context

Current mention:

The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to favor the election of Trump.

Context should be added from this content in the body:

The report revealed sweeping Russian interference and detailed how Trump and his campaign welcomed and encouraged it, believing "it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts".

Trump told Kislyak and Sergei Lavrov in May 2017 he was unconcerned about Russian interference in U.S. elections.

Result (after striking part that is unnecessary in the lead):

The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller

Investigations established sweeping Russian interference in the 2016 election in favor of Trump and detailed how Trump welcomed and encouraged it, believing he would benefit from it. Trump told Russian representatives he was unconcerned about Russian interference in U.S. elections.

References

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Partisan editors, voter suppression, and "verifiability, not truth"

Context: Talk:Republican Party (United States)#Linking to Voter suppression in the United States#Modern Examples in the Voting rights section and Voter suppression in the United States#Modern Examples.

Some editors forget a founding principle here. "Verifiability, not truth" reminds us that personal opinions about what is "true" do not trump what RS tell us. When editing and discussing, editors should use the terminology used by RS, even when it goes against what they think is true. In fact, if they have any integrity and wish to show a positive learning curve, IOW, that they are actually learning from their experience here, they should do this in their own lives. They should stop using talking points and deceptive political spin and start using the terminology of RS. That way they get out from under the shadow of "truth" and into the light of facts, uncontrolled by political manipulation.

We apply this every single day here when we insist on writing "anti-abortion" rather than "pro-life" (which redirects to Anti-abortion movements). We do not adopt the deceptive talking points of those who advocate fringe positions. When RS describe the abortion stance of conservatives, they often say "anti-abortion", and so should we both in our editing and in real life. If you're against abortion, don't lie to people. Don't hide your true colors behind political spin. That's just one example of how editors should deal with partisan spin.

Another example is saying "far-right" rather than "conservative" when RS say "far-right". "Conservative" is too broad and vague, whereas when RS describe a person as "far-right", that's much more precise and accurate. That is another example of where right-wingers are embarrassed by their allies and try to whitewash and spin their own positions, unlike some of the far-right leaders who openly admit they are racist and nationalist. If you're defending someone who is "far-right", then you are "far-right". Own your own shit! Don't be a lying coward. If it embarrasses you, then change your positions and abandon your extremist heroes and fringe media sources. You're better than that.

This comment by the legendary Viriditas is spot on:

The amount of outright denial on this page is astounding and concerning. The GOP have been very public about their vocal support for voter suppression. To claim that this is just an opinion or an unintended "effect" of their polices is blatant misinformation. We have hundreds of examples. One of my favorites is from former Republican John Kavanagh of Arizona, who repeatedly told the media why Republicans didn’t want most people to vote.[3]. This isn’t an "effect", this is the GOP policy. The attorney for the Arizona Republican Party told the Supreme Court the same thing.[4]. They’ve passed hundreds of bills to prevent people from voting. Anything less than admitting this is a real policy position of the GOP, when they’ve repeatedly admitted it, is denial.

The comment appears in a thread that had quickly been invaded by partisan editors advocating their GOP version of "truth" by defending the GOP's positions on voting rights, election security, and voter suppression. They deny that the GOP's policies are designed to suppress minority votes. The concepts are very real, and the modern GOP has reacted to Trump's false "stolen election" claims by spinning the issue and terminology as they make even more false claims of widespread voter fraud in the 2016 United States presidential election. They do it by describing their voter suppression tactics as all about "voting rights" and "election security". They deny they are suppressing the votes of minorities. That's BS. They are lying, and their lies are based on fraudulent claims about one of the most secure elections in history.

They know that minorities tend to vote for Democrats, and that there are fewer registered Republicans than Democrats. If they can make it harder for legitimate, registered, minority voters to vote, they have a better chance at winning, so they do all they can to make it much harder for them to vote. They use myriad methods: gerrymandering, closing polling stations in minority districts, limiting voting hours, voter intimidation, rejecting ballots, and purging voter rolls based on last names that sound minority. The GOP makes minorities jump through hoops not required of their privileged, white, elitist base.

The GOP is admitting they can only win by cheating. Politicians are supposed to be chosen by the people. The people are supposed to rule in America. Politicians are not supposed to choose who can vote by excluding those who will not vote for them. Those politicians, and the election officials who aid them, are dishonest and have no integrity. The current Trumpist GOP are the real RINOs. They are not the GOP of my childhood and family. The Republicans who object to their methods are the real Republicans.

Viriditas argued that it's perfectly okay to link to a legitimate and properly-sourced Wikipedia article on voter suppression that is on-topic in the Republican Party (United States) article. Before Viriditas' arrival, opposers had taken offense and started arguing their versions of "truth" by basically asserting that their truth and the GOP's deceptive talking points on the matter should trump what RS say. Well, that's utter BS around here. Here, RS trump such terminology. We use what RS say on the matter, not deceptive spin and talking points like "pro-life" or "election security". Those editors are literally objecting to the existence of our own articles that are backed up by RS. They need to take their IDONTLIKEIT "truth" attitudes elsewhere and not edit here. It's disruptive, and they are showing their NPOV-violating attitude by placing their own opinions of "truth" above RS. They shouldn't be afraid to tell it like it is. Write what is verifiable, not your idea of "truth". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Ping: User:FormalDude, User:Andrevan.. Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:58, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

• Well said, I couldn't agree more. The amount of unwavering POVPUSHing in these discussions may have to result in some arbitration enforcement requests. P.S. your pings didn't send, probably because they were not followed by a signature. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:58, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Resend pings: User:FormalDude, User:Andrevan -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I've been pretty concerned about the level of sheer fact-denialism in American political culture for a while. Certainly the Fox News RFC is a great demonstration of the shark having been jumped. "Alternative facts" are a stock-in-trade now in right-wing discourse. They actually mainstreamed anti-Semitism, conspiracism, and racial animus. Sadly, they have been doing this since Nixon. Nixon is also the reason why we have Fox News and the culture war. Reagan only intensified this. This should all be covered in the evolution of the party and its history: Watergate, the creation of Fox News, the hostage crisis, Oliver North, Nicaragua, Sandinistas, Iran-Contra, fall of the Soviet Union, the First Gulf War, etc. Ronald Reagan created the strategy of welfare queens demonized for the misappropriation of big government largesse and reignited the pact with evangelical Christians in the rural South. Meanwhile, the greed is good deregulation culture of the 1980s was hitting full steam. Andre🚐 20:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Fact-denialism in American political culture goes back further than anything you cited and isn't the providence of just one political party. We can step back in time to the 1930s and caricatures of rural people to push initiatives such as the creation of Shenandoah National Park. These stereotypes still exist to this day and mainstream an ideology on the left of a population that is easily manipulated and incapable of doing anything without being properly educated. I think editors need to separate their political views from the information that an article is trying to convey. If an editor can't do that, they shouldn't be adding anything, regardless of the sources that they find in my opinion. Dbroer (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

There's a lot of awful stuff from the 1930s, that's true, not to mention the original Know-Nothing party, but I am not coming up with some original thing to bash Republicans for no reason and ahistorically. Many historians, commentators and intellectuals are very concerned with the strains of anti-intellectualism and illiberalism in the present-day GOP. [5] [6] [7] Even many conservative commentators like George Will and Bill Kristol have come out against the Trumpist fascist GOP. Andre🚐 00:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Valjean, have you considered starting a blog? Most of this stuff is way out of place here. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

These observations are very on-point and relevant to our work here. Thank you for sharing, Valjean. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Muboshgu, User:Drmies, User:Mandruss, User:Neutrality, User:EEng, and User:Space4Time3Continuum2x, I'd appreciate your thoughts. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I donated all my thoughts to Levivich. EEng 00:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I've never even looked at Republican Party (United States). First reaction: huh - needs serious work. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

It does. Andre🚐 21:01, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

It would most likely be a messy situation, to even begin any attempt to weed out editors from American political pages, particularly in the 21st century Democratic/Republican era. GoodDay (talk) 03:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think Valjean wants to weed anyone out, he just wants some adherence to factual rigor to be required for participation. Andre🚐 04:11, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, if editors can keep their fringe beliefs separate from their editing and discussions, then let them edit. If they keep arguing against the facts and narratives painted by RS, then have them do something else on other topics. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Many editors have been banned. We are long past "even begin" to do that. SPECIFICO talk 11:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Litmus test in the AP2 arena

According to these sections above - #A caution issued elsewhere and #Fringe beliefs - fringe editors (partisan editors who get their info from unreliable sources) fail basic competency in several ways, pointing out the need for an official Wikipedia litmus test for competency in the AP2 political arena. There are some facts that are simply too clear to be denied. If an editor fails, then they get topic banned from that arena. We have abundant articles, backed by myriad RS, on this stuff, and they should read and agree with them and their sourcing. They should know better than to edit or disagree with reliably-sourced content.

1. If they believe Trump is the rightful current president, they fail.
2. If they believe the election was stolen from Trump, they fail.
3. If they believe that GOP "election security" measures are anything other than poorly-disguised attempts to suppress the ability of minorities to vote, they fail.
4. If they believe the Steele dossier was the trigger for the Russian interference investigation, rather than Papadopoulos and Trump's own actions and misdeeds, they fail.
5. If they believe Trump is the victim of a witch hunt, rather than the target of justified investigations of him shooting himself in the foot as a blatant national security risk and useful idiot for Russian, anti-American, interests, they fail.
6. If they believe Trump can remain completely honest in no more than 4-5 sentences of his own creation, they fail.

They are simply too ignorant of the facts and do not vet sources well enough to know the difference between mainstream reliable sources and fringe, partisan, sources. They are putting political spin above what RS say, and that's a dangerous violation of our most basic RS/verifiability policy. They are not qualified to edit in the AP2 arena or any other controversial area. Either block them or topic ban them and let them be WikiGnomes in other areas. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Shibboleth test is redundant, like "PIN number". Also, in #6 don't you mean "in no more than 4-5 sentences". EEng 23:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

User:EEng#s, thanks. Shibboleth fixed. (Scratch that. I have changed it to litmus test.) On the number, he can barely say three sentences without lying, so how would you word it better? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

"If they believe Trump can speak more than one sentence in a row without lying, they fail." It's like what Judge Judy frequently says: "How do you know when a teenager is lying? Their lips are moving." That's almost literally true for Trump. I really mean that. EEng 00:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Litmus tests are never going to be accepted by the community and they're ever changing, among other problems. They frame this in a we/they outlook that's contrary to our core principles. However, there is a small number of energetic AP editors who appear to be arguing and editing from their casual observations, personal absorbtion of non-RS narratives, and resentment of "the establishment" that largely coincides with the best RS references, journals, books, and prestigious academics. Unfortunately, what would be far more appropriate, and the minimum remedy to achieve the intended goal, would be meticulous documentation of disruptive editing by a few individuals. Because most editors do not have the time and inclination to play mock-prosecutor on the internet, and because fewer and fewer Admins are volunteering to enforce DS on their own oversight and discretion without nasty AE drama, this state of affairs is likely to persist. SPECIFICO talk 17:57, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I fully agree it would never happen, but admins can at least keep these things in mind as a mental checklist of the competence of an editor. It can help them make decisions when that editor creates problems. I also agree that admins should exercise their DS sanctions authority more boldly. Too much time is wasted. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Add one - if they believe the Trump pee tape is real they fail. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

And let me ask you an open question - do you agree with RS that the Steele Dossier was “deeply flawed?” Mr Ernie (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Parts of the Steele dossier were confirmed, other parts were not confirmed. It's not much of a litmus test. Sure, it was flawed, but it was not roundly discredited. It contained at least kernels of truth. Andre🚐 21:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, the status of the pee tape is still an open question. Comey and intelligence agencies believe it is not unlikely that it exists. Trump's needless lies changed Comey from a doubter to a peeliever. Intelligence agencies have said that there are several compromising tapes made in both Moscow and St Petersberg over the years. Cohen tried to track down the tape and destroy it, so he acted as if it did exist. Trump's reputation and character speak in favor of such actions that would of course be taped by Russian intelligence. Nobody who knows him would be surprised if it were true. We just don't know. As yet, there is no proof it exists. While there are several good indications it exists, there are no such indications it does not exist, so there is a weak tendency in favor of its existence. I don't know if it exists, so it would be just as foolish to claim it did exist as to claim it did not exist. Do you not agree?

I agree that the dossier is flawed, and I have added what RS say about the matter throughout our article. It's just an opinion, and opinions are split on how much it is flawed, but, as a rough draft of raw intelligence, it was never perfect to begin with and was never intended for publication. I can understand why Steele was pissed off when BuzzFeed published it without permission. I'm pretty sure he would have edited it a lot before allowing that to happen. In spite of its flaws, it was accurate on the most important points, as confirmed six months later by intelligence agencies, so many of Steele's sources were quite good. He also had many other sources besides those Danchenko talked to. Galkina was also in a very good position to get excellent intelligence from highly placed individuals. Both of them were very valuable sources, with Danchenko providing extremely valuable information to the FBI in at least 25 different cases.

The FBI and Inspector General noted that both Danchenko and Galkina tried to backtrack and "minimize" their roles after they were essentially outed by Barr's recklessness. Barr's actions caused great damage to our national security. That backtracking doesn't mean what they reported was inaccurate. On the contrary. People tend to be more truthful when they don't know they are being observed. The FBI and police know that denial and minimization are common reactions from witnesses and sources in their situation.

To recap, yes, the dossier is flawed, but it's also correct in the most important parts. IIRC, you have never admitted that any of the dossier's allegations are true. In fact, its general thrust and main findings were spot on. As early as January 2014, Trump knew Russians promised to help him, and as time went on he knew how and when they were doing it. Everybody was doing their job and reporting to him. He fires people who don't do their job! There were myriad secretive meetings between Trump's people and Russian intelligence agents, even more than accurately indicated by the dossier. Trump never alerted the FBI to the Russian interference, as he should have done. No, he welcomed it. That's an unforgivable situation. I am not a fan. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:33, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the dossier is deeply flawed in that little of its contents can be verified by journalists or the public because they don't have the investigative capabilities available to agencies like FBI/CIA/NSA, and those agencies aren't talking about it because doing so might compromise sources/methods. My understanding to date is that, apart from the Cohen in Prague part (upon which Mueller relied exclusively on what Cohen told him rather than run it down himself), nothing in the dossier has been publicly proven as false. There's been an abundance of hollering that it's all fake, which tends by osmosis to persuade people that it's all fake because no one has shown it's all, mostly or even substantially real.

As far as the peetape is concerned, there is the matter of what a Marriott executive told Senate investigators, but that angle of the story didn't get much traction, perhaps because it was reported well after many had already concluded the peetape was fake.

Over dozens of pages in the nearly 1,000-page document, the report said that a Marriott executive told committee investigators that after Mr. Trump traveled to Russia in 2013 for the Miss Universe pageant the executive overheard two colleagues who worked at the Ritz-Carlton in Moscow discussing video footage that they said showed Mr. Trump with women in an elevator at the hotel...The Ritz-Carlton, the Senate report said, is a “high counterintelligence risk environment” that has “at least one permanent Russian intelligence officer on staff, government surveillance of guests’ rooms and the regular presence of a large number of prostitutes, likely with at least the tacit approval of Russian authorities.”...The Marriott executive told the committee that one of the colleagues he overheard discussing the footage from the Ritz-Carlton said the video showed Mr. Trump “with several women” in the elevator, whom the colleague “implied to be ‘hostesses.’”[8]

soibangla (talk) 23:47, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

• [9] The US media’s repeated references to the Trump-Russia ‘Dossier’ as ‘discredited’ are sloppy journalism. Despite a blow torch of politically-motivated criticism, the main tenets of it, including on collusion, have held up well. And few, if any, of the details have been disproven. [10] This article didn’t age well! But it is typical of the partisan, misleading and arguably defamatory coverage of the Trump-Russia investigation by the New York Post and other Murdoch media. Unprofessional and shameless imo but I’m not holding my breath for the due apology. Steele speaks. Andre🚐 03:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Community would see such a litmus test, as a PoV -vs- PoV dispute. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

That's not the point. Promoting unsoured narratives, even if on the talk page and eventually rejected by consensus, wastes the scarce time and attention our editors. It is equivocation to pretend this is a legitimate dispute, or even an illegitimate POV dispute. It's not. It's uninformed and lazy participation by editors who do not devote the energy to read and understand what RS references say. It's like writing our article about the Bible based on Oprah's Bible videos or the hit musical featuring Val Kilmer as Moses. SPECIFICO talk 17:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Very true, GoodDay, and that itself is a CIR issue. Editors should know better than to treat proven facts as if they are opinions. That's policy. If they are so ignorant of the facts that they do it, they should be required to read the relevant articles and agree with the factual content. They are not "free" to do as they will around here. They should subordinate their non-factual opinions to policy and reliable sources. They must not advocate fringe ideas. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I won't object, if you wish to bring your proposed litmus test to a public venue of your choosing. One would have to be make sure it was a neutral venue. Perhaps I might be wrong on what the community reaction would be to it, but there'd be only one way to find out. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

GoodDay, I don't think there is any way, regardless of approach, that wouldn't end in a grand shitshow, so I'm not going there. I'm resigned to hoping that more admins will swing a DS CIR hammer quicker, because fringe editors waste an awful lot of our time. If an editor shows ignorance of solid facts, tell them to read certain articles and agree with the facts (not necessarily the opinions) there. If they won't learn, then topic ban them so they won't waste our time. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Another issue to consider is the bizarre entitlement of the uninformed editors who resent the knowledge and perspectives offered by editors who are steeped in mainstream sourcing and narratives. SPECIFICO talk 17:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello Val. Just want to thank you for hearing out my observations. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

October 2022

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Toa Nidhiki05 17:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Ummm....who is at the center of this? YOU are. Stop it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:29, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars Andre🚐 17:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

What's good for the goose... Toa Nidhiki05 17:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

IOW a POINT violation. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

rollback

is for vandalism and only vandalism. nableezy - 18:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Oops! You're right. Everything Toa does right now seems to be equivalent to disruptive editing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:AGF Toa Nidhiki05 18:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I AGF that you think you're doing the right thing, but it's still creating a lot of disruption. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Nightmares

For goodness sake, don't mention Bannon. I'm trying to convince myself that he never existed ;) GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I feel dirty even mentioning him. He's one of the most dangerous people on earth. A very destructive anarchist in whom Trump found the ideal bosom buddy and advisor. Their mission is the same, destroy American unity, leadership, and functionality, as well as rid the earth of democracy. I wonder if they aren't both on retainer from Putin? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The USA was born out of a revolution, been through a war from 1812 to '15, been through a civil war, two world wars, the Korean war, the Vietnam war, war in Afghanistan, etc. Those two fellows? mere specks of dust. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Yet they have, with the help of a dominated and humiliated GOP, successfully pushed us to the edge of a precipice where our democracy is in serious danger. If Trump were reelected, or the GOP regained full control, future elections would have the same symbolic value as in Russia. Political violence, blackmail, and murders of all opposition leaders would happen. If the Supreme court continues its current path, the coup would be complete, and America would fully become an openly obvious Putin banana republic. Seriously. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Your country is flexible & will pull through. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. You think anyone in the world is better off for suffering unimaginable disasters? The politics area appears to be stressful for you. Please consider taking a few months off and going back to your patrolling and correcting little errors on other topics. SPECIFICO talk 18:45, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a friendly chat between myself & Val, on Val's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

And me. And your opinions appear to be based on a profound ignorance of what RS are publishing both with respect to fact and to interpretation. SPECIFICO talk 18:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, keep it civil. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

What's not civil? Good Day has shared their emotional reactions to WP topics and editing on previous occasions. If you want me to step away, I will do so. It's very clear to me that Good Day relies too much on casual impressions and spotty news coverage, and that was what I tried to convey. I will retire from this thread. SPECIFICO talk 19:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Wait for the RfC?

Valjean, I started typing this out on the article talk page then realized it would come off as lecturing or the like. So I figured I rather ask you here. I don't think a consensus for this edit has been established [11]. Certainly the RfC doesn't show a clear consensus to add. Additionally it seems unfair to criticize one editor for edit warring if you proceed to restore the edit in the absence of a consensus. With that in mind do you think it would be OK to self revert and wait for the RfC to run it's course? Springee (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

There was an obvious misunderstanding with that deletion that I fixed. One editor has been blocked for repeatedly deleting that content, so it's a bad idea to take the side of deleting it again. Going forward, the discussion will ultimately decide its fate. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

But NOCON says the change should stay out until a consensus to include/change has been established. I don't see we have that. Springee (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	This editor deserves this barnstar for being so prolific Oleleho (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Oleleho. Thanks so much! That's very kind of you. I do need to make a clarification. I am not an admin, even though I started here in 2003. Maybe a different barnstar would be appropriate because I don't want people to get the wrong impression. Like many other non-admins, I subscribe to the Admins newsletter, and maybe that threw you off? It just has lots of good info. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

BLP sanction on Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory

Hi Valjean, I am following up on a BLP sanction action you made against me on Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory. Review: 1) When answering a topic question about the focus of the article, I explained it was about the "quid pro quo between Biden and the Ukraine." 2) You claimed that characterization was a BLP violation and demanded I modify my claim. 3) When I refused, you deleted my comment and closed the topic with the justification that it was a "BLP vio deleted per policy." Reaction: I am perplexed by your action as the Latin term "quid pro quo" merely indicates an exchange and is definitively not pejorative. Furthermore, I added nothing to characterize it as anything other than an exchange. Whether or not the exchange was criminal is to be determined, but regardless any interaction, criminal or not, can be characterized as quid pro quo. Resolve: Would you be kind enough to cite here the policy you used for the sanction, and if done in error, would you be kind enough to reverse your action. Thank you very much! Lexlex (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Valjean's action was appropriate, and your edit incorporated the most widely rebutted of the false, anti-Biden narrarives. Read the talk archives. SPECIFICO talk 16:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Context: You wrote: "This article covers the quid pro quo between Biden and the Ukrainian government."

Context matters. In that context (and knowing your contribution history), where the article discusses false accusations of an improper quid pro quo (hence the reason those allegations are a disproven conspiracy theory), it's important that we (Wikipedia and "we" as editors) do not echo false accusations as if they might be true. We cannot just say something false in a neutral manner and leave it there. We, and the articles and talk pages, must make plain it is false when we mention it. We must show we are on the side of facts and never defend dubious information. Editors are not allowed to advocate fringe theories, regardless of their personal beliefs. Personal beliefs that are contrary to what RS say must never encroach on our editing, discussions, or personal user space. Fringe editors (those who are informed by unreliable sources) should keep their fringe beliefs to themselves and far from Wikipedia. Advocacy of facts, not personal ideas of "truth", is expected here. That is in line with multiple policies. In that regard, Wikipedia does take sides, so when in doubt, feel free to ask. There is a long list of things where Wikipedia does take sides. See above: #Evaluating sources in the AP2, Trumpian, post-truth era, #A caution issued elsewhere, and #Fringe beliefs.

Wikipedia is expressly not a chat board, a democracy, or a free speech zone. Always echo and favor what RS say. Show a positive learning curve by demonstrating that the editing experience has taught you something and that your thinking is changing to be more in line with The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN, rather than Fox News, Breitbart, The Daily Caller, etc.

When I voiced concern about a possible BLP violation, which requires any editor to immediately remove it (and 3rr edit warring concerns do not apply), your reply was unhelpful, so I wrote: "Your dismissive response was unhelpful." If you had been more collaborative and responded to my concerns, as required by the collaborative attitude we are supposed to maintain as editors, we wouldn't be here. You need to keep an open, honest, and civil attitude with other editors. That's basic AGF, and around here you need all the friends you can get.

Maybe now you'd be willing to explain what you meant by quid pro quo in that instance. Please do so now so we can get onto a better footing with each other. I'd like that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I remain perplexed by your response: You concede that nothing in my reply violated BLP, and yet you sanctioned me because of your opinion of uncited "contribution history." While you are free to assume whatever you wish, I could use your help guiding me to which policy supports using edit history as a rationale to assume intent and censor future writing. Otherwise, it would seem to be WP:Original research. Lexlex (talk) 13:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Lexlex, I have not "sanctioned" you, just uttered some criticisms. I am not an admin, so don't have any official sanction powers. Where did I "concede" anything? Please provide an exact quote of mine. What you wrote seemed to be a BLP violation, so it was removed. That's policy. Then your unhelpful response didn't improve things. Collaboration and collegiality is best. Your fringy edit history makes me view your editing with a skeptical eye, especially in the AP2 area, such as your editing of Biden-related articles. OR refers to articles, not comments on talk pages. OR is allowed there and is often necessary when seeking new knowledge and clarity.

Please explain what you meant by quid pro quo in that instance. You are free to describe it in detail here as long as you're asking and explaining, rather than stating it as a claim. Discussion to seek clarity is not a BLP violation. We do use common sense around here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I hadn't completely figured this out until now. (Well, maybe not even now.) If you listen to official spokespeople on judicial matters, there is always an alleged in the sentence. Lexlex didn't do that. Now, I am used to reading these enough to add one in, but in some cases it is important. Until someone has been tried and found guilty, it is always alleged. So, a change to alleged quid pro quo should be enough. (Ignoring the number of people or authority of the allegees.) Note also that you can get away with more if you are obviously not an authority. SNL makes a lot of untrue statements, but then we expect that. I believe there was a case of a foreign news organization quoting The Onion as an authoritative source once. (Or more than once.) Gah4 (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Valjean you have not only criticized me, you have censored my writing for supposed cause. Call it censoring, sanctioning, or whatever term you prefer, the effect is the same (regardless of any admin privileges you hold): You are censoring me. Let's be clear: the term quid pro quo is not pejorative (see article). Your earlier assumption that it is pejorative by default and must be nuanced is simply wrong. Your reactionary demands for "clarification" due to your assumptions, and subsequent censoring of me because I don't wish to indulge your demands is my complaint here. I never wrote or even suggested elsewhere that the quid pro quo was improper and I owe you no explanation for your incorrect assumption, I would think you instead owe me an apology for this waste of our time and need to correct your mistake and move on. Lexlex (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Lexlex, this is tiring! If you would only explain your meaning at the time, we could settle this now. Instead you refuse to do so. (Unlike you, Gah4 deals with it above at 00:58, 8 November.) You are correct that quid pro quo does not have to be negative, although it often is. Context matters. In the context of your remark, making the assertion that Joe Biden had a quid pro quo with the Ukrainians is an accusation of a criminal qpq, such as Trump attempted. That is the false allegation mentioned in the article. Biden did not do that. That is the context.

The same qpq article mentions Trump's improper attempt at a qpq in Ukraine (he was impeached for it).

Again, I hold no admin privileges. I followed policy which requires the immediate removal of BLP violations.

Do you believe Joe Biden had a criminal quid pro quo with the Ukrainians? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

You argument seems to be: I must not only defend what I write, but also any incorrect interpretation of what I write, on your demand, or be censored? This is pragmatically not possible and violates WP:AFG. While you are certainly free to believe whatever you wish, you are not free to make demands for explanations from others and then censor them if you're not satisfied. Therefore, I gently ask again: Please admit your error, fix what you did, and move on. If you keep insisting I explain myself to you, we'll need to get others involved. 15:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC) Lexlex (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Lexlex, are you always this difficult and uncooperative? You are being a "tendentious editor": "On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of...behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions." You're going to have a hard row to hoe around here if you keep this up. People like you get blocked. Why not just explain what you meant by what you wrote? It's a simple request, not some odious or unreasonable demand.

You are the one who wrote there was a "quid pro quo between Biden and the Ukrainian government" in the context of an article (Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory) that debunks "a series of false claims centered on the baseless allegation that while Joe Biden was vice president of the United States, he engaged in corrupt activities relating to the employment of his son, Hunter Biden, by the Ukrainian gas company Burisma." Note that the article never calls these alleged "corrupt activities" a quid pro quo, but you used those words about them when you wrote: "This article covers the quid pro quo between Biden and the Ukrainian government." You have literally created a new accusation against Joe Biden. That's a serious matter. The only place the article uses the phrase quid pro quo is in reference to Trump's unsuccessful attempt to force Zelenskyy into a quo pro quo deal, a corrupt action that led to Trump's first impeachment.

You are the one who wrote it, so of course, you have the burden of proof to defend what you wrote. That's basic logic. That's what adults do. So what did you mean when you wrote it? Please correct any misinterpretation that may exist. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:51, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

"People like me..."? OK, I think it at this point it's pretty clear you've crossed the line so I'll refrain from reading any intent there. Introducing new grievances or claims won't obfuscate what you've already done. I've been more than reasonable with you here and given you multiple opportunities to just fix it and move on, and yet you keep doubling down. Your argument is essentially: "...just submit to me and there won't be a problem." That's not how it works because you chose to engage and censor me. I did not engage you. Appointing yourself as some kind of all-knowing speech authority who floats about and gets to interrogate and then censor others on your whims is unacceptable behavior, especially when it's based on a fundamental lack of understanding of language and snap judgements. As promised earlier, because your behavior here leads me to believe that this isn't an isolated occurrence, I will need to get others involved and come up with an appropriate course of action. Lexlex (talk) 17:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Let me get this right. You assert I'm guilty of an "incorrect interpretation of what" [you] "write" but won't explain how I have misinterpreted you, and that this refusal by you is somehow my fault. Is that right? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:18, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Gah4, it's an alleged quid pro quo that has been debunked, IOW we should never leave the impression it might be true or even personally think so. It's not just an unconfirmed allegation (like the peetape allegation) where some lingering doubt may be allowable. This is where we can see how Wikipedia-policy-thinking is similar to scientific skepticism, IOW critical thinking that follows the scientific method. We, like scientists, are obligated to follow the evidence/RS. Until we have better evidence, we continue to believe that the theory of gravity is correct. Until we have better sources and more knowledge, we believe that Biden acted appropriately and that the allegation is just part of Trump's counterfactual cover-up efforts.

Tim Minchin has a great beat poem on critical thinking that contains this quote:

"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed.

Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."

Minchin is both funny and deadly serious. He packages some profound truths in that beat poem. It's worth listening to several times. He contrasts scientific/progressive thinking with unscientific/faith/conservative thinking. SNL is comedy and satire, like The Onion, so we expect truth to be mixed with exaggeration and other comedic tricks. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:06, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I am now reading Neil deGrasse Tysons Starry Messenger, which has some discussion like this. There is a quote from Thomas Henry Huxley that goes: The great tragedy of Science --- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact. Gah4 (talk) 10:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Good stuff! The Huxley family were remarkable and several members left a lasting imprint on the advancement of knowledge and culture. I have a little collection of quotes on my user page: User:Valjean#Skeptic quotes. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Informational autocracy

Hello Valjean. Just to let you know, I've removed the informational autocracy section from the Alternative facts article again, and put the information into the informational autocracy article. Perhaps you could take a look. Mucube (talk) 00:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Other editors' talk pages

Edits like this are basically pointless or vindictive. We typically allow editors -- even annoying editors who appear to be working their way towards a block -- wide latitude in what they post on their own user/user talk pages. I'm sure you're understandably irritated with that editor's contributions. But I hope you can find the dermal fortitude to let their small outburst roll off of you. Ajpolino (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I was irritated. Taken in isolation, that comment seems pretty innocuous, but it's part of a pattern I had just discovered. I had just reverted a number of disruptive climate change denial deletions. Now that I know you're watching them, I'll back off and let you act the next time they pull that kind of crap. Keep up the good work. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)