User talk:Valjean

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

Special:Impact

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

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)

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

Daily Mail vs Fox

Always been a curious thing this. Relatively speaking, the Mail's complete and total ban was achieved here very easily, yet achieving the same outcome for Fox seems to still be far out of reach. The Mail being seen here as equivalent to Infowars is now evidently uncontroversial. The idea that the Mail routinely knowingly publishes falsehoods for profit, similarly uncontroversial. Yet to say these things about Fox? Still apparently controversial. My personal view is that the Mail ban is an absurdity, and needs to be revisited. But I already know Wikipedia is, for whatever reason, going to cling onto it until the bitter end. Every year that Fox is seen differently to the Mail here, seems to be a nail in the coffin of its credibility. If it ever even had any. Bandorrr (talk) 11:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree. You should comment at the discussion at Fox News Knew It Was A Lie: Fox News Purposely Pushed Deception On 2020 Voting. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

A sad reality of Wikipedia is that outsider's opinions matter little. But if it was possible, I'd push this forward by focusing on the issue of how to view a publication/platform that is apparently knowingly and consistently publishing falsehoods for commercial reasons. This is the most serious charge levied against the Mail by Wikipedia, the thing that underpins this idea here that every word (and picture) on every Mail platform, regardless of type, context, authorship and supporting evidence, has to be assumed to be a potential profit driven lie. I have no real doubt that if asked today, the Wikipedia community would vehemently reaffirm that this is still its strongly held position wrt the Mail. Even though in comparison to what Fox was doing to promote the Big Lie, things like claiming Didsbury is a no go zone for white people for example is pretty small beer, and certainly more disputable as proof of actual malice rather than extreme editorialisation. In the UK context, what Fox has been caught doing, is eerily similar to what the Sun (also a Fox title) did in the 1980s, when it knowingly and persistently printed lies about Liverpool soccer fans, on the flimsy excuse they were being fed this stuff by people in power. They did this even after proper journalism had raised sufficient questions about its likely falsity, simply because it fed into the zeitgeist of the time (that soccer fans are horrid), and thus, were manifestly doing it for profit. It's history like that which makes the Mail ban here (with the likes of the Sun still not subject to an equivalent ban) look so absurd, as well as when looking at its parent, Fox. Seen in that light, obvious questions arise if there is a continuing reluctance here to apply the same view to Fox as the Mail. It exposes the inconsistency very well I think, if people here are happily taking the view that the Mail knowingly tells a lie anywhere, even on the most trivial and little viewed stories, simply for clicks. If the Mail does it, who can seriously argue based on these revelations, that the standards of Fox's management and US laws could and would prevent the exact same culture existing at Fox? At least at the national level. The UK has far better libel laws and press regulation. As an alternative, a potential uplift would I guess be to have both subjected to the same blanket ban for any content deemed remotely controversial (which, if we're being serious about source use, should never be being sourced to tabloids anyway!?!), with anything else included here only with attribution and vigorous satisfaction that no better source exists. But I seriously doubt that would fly at all, given the sheer level of prejudice held here against the Mail. Bandorrr (talk) 11:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

That is a fundamental misstatement of Wikipedia policy and purpose relating to Verification and Neutral Point of View. If we happen to exclude some of the true statements on the Mail or Fox or similar sites, that does no harm. If we validate a false statement, on the other hand, it does great harm. So our policy prevents that harm. It's immaterial whether we use a deprecated source for valid statements of fact, because such statements will have many reputable mainstream sources from which to choose. SPECIFICO talk 15:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

This in no way explains the differing approach in policy to Fox and the Mail. It also asks people to believe there is any logic in Wikipedia, a platform with zero liability and little repute, taking a tougher stance on the Mail than these reputable sources (where the mere attributed use of Mail is a thing) do. Bandorrr (talk) 04:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Trump

I'm very much agreeable with whatever you & others can iron out, concerning your current proposals for Donald Trump's page. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Sources for Dominion vs Fox News scandal

Some sources for Dominion Voting Systems#Defamation lawsuit against Fox News and other relevant articles. Open to see the 138 sources (and growing) that describe Fox News as a "fake news", "propaganda", and "not news" network.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What this is all about Internal documents and communications reveal that Fox News hosts did not believe there was election fraud, and they believed Biden won the 2020 election. In spite of this they decided to keep lying to viewers. Everyone, including the news team, was affected: top brass backed decision to keep lying; news team not allowed to contradict false claims; internal fact-checkers were threatened; all for ratings, Trump's approval, and to retain their far-right base. Key Murdoch admissions. Here are Murdoch's key deposition admissions about the case: Murdoch seriously doubted the claims of “massive election fraud from the very beginning.” Fox News gave a platform to conspiracy peddlers like Mike Lindell in order to make more money because, according to Murdoch, what matters “is not red or blue, it is green.”[*] Murdoch had the power to stop Fox News from airing false claims but affirmatively chose not to, saying “I could have. But I did not.” Perhaps most importantly, Murdoch admitted that some of the top hosts on Fox News had actively endorsed these false claims on the air. Many of these admissions support “actual malice” by Fox News. [*] Transclusion Transcluded from User:Valjean/Sources for Dominion vs Fox News scandal To transclude, just copy-paste this: {{User:Valjean/Sources for Dominion vs Fox News scandal}} If you work with this subject, then I suggest you place this on your talk page where you can easily access it. How to get the citations To get those refs, go to the User:Valjean/Sources for Dominion vs Fox News scandal page and access the raw ref by opening the editing window. Do not edit the page. If you discover any errors, please ping me. -- Valjean See also Big lie#Donald Trump's false claims of a stolen election Dominion Voting Systems v. Fox News Dominion Voting Systems#Defamation lawsuit against Fox News Fox News#2020 election fraud allegations Fox News controversies#False claims about the 2020 election Maria Bartiromo Tucker Carlson Tucker Carlson Tonight Lou Dobbs Rudy Giuliani Sean Hannity Laura Ingraham Mike Lindell Rupert Murdoch MyPillow One America News Network#Dominion Voting Systems Jeanine Pirro Sidney Powell Suzanne Scott Donald Trump Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Fox News Knew It Was A Lie: Fox News Purposely Pushed Deception On 2020 Voting Here are a few sources All references are properly formatted for immediate use. Do not remove the "name" function. Dominion Voting Machines Drops A Second Bombshell Filing Against Fox News - Second Nexus Rupert Murdoch Did Not Say 'It Is Not Red or Blue, It Is Green' - Mediaite January 17, 2022. Dominion's Brief in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment on Liability of Fox News Network February 8, 2022. Dominion's Brief in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment on Liability of Fox News Network Fox's Murdoch called election fraud claims a 'Trump myth,' Toronto's Dominion says in court filing - CBC Fox News hosts thought Trump’s election fraud claims were 'total BS', court filings show - The Guardian Fox knew vote rigging claims were false, Dominion says, as network defends coverage - Reuters Off the air, Fox News stars blasted the election fraud claims they peddled - NPR Lawsuit filing shows Fox hosts didn't believe election fraud lies they pushed on TV - PBS NewsHour Fox News hosts, execs privately doubted 2020 conspiracy claims shared on air - The Washington Post Fox Stars Privately Expressed Disbelief About Trump's Election Fraud Claims - The New York Times Fox News hosts doubted 2020 election fraud claims off camera as they promoted them on air - Los Angeles Times Five top revelations from Dominion's explosive court filing in Fox News lawsuit - The Hill Fox News hosts called 2020 election fraud 'total BS' in private, new Dominion court filing says - ABC News Fox News stars and staffers privately blasted election fraud claims as bogus, court filing shows - NBC News Fox News hosts, Rupert Murdoch were skeptical of Trump election fraud claims - CNBC Fox News hosts didn't believe 2020 election fraud claims, $1.6 billion Dominion defamation suit asserts - CBS News Fox News executives refused to let Trump on-air when he called in during January 6 attack, Dominion says - CNN Analysis: Fox News has been exposed as a dishonest organization terrified of its own audience - CNN Fox News' split screen spills into view - Politico They Knew It Was A Lie: Fox News Purposely Pushed Deception On 2020 Voting - The National Memo I Never Truly Understood Fox News Until Now - The Atlantic Why Fox News Lied to Its Viewers - The Atlantic Tucker Carlson's Dominion Text Messages Are a Thing of Beauty - Slate Fox stars privately bashed election fraud claims the network pushed - Axios Fox News Lied to Viewers to Keep Them From Fleeing, According to Dominion Suit - Variety CNN's Oliver Darcy: Leaked Messages In Dominion Lawsuit 'Expose Fox News As A Propaganda Network' - Forbes A juicy new legal filing reveals who really controls Fox News - Vox Dominion voting case exposes post-election fear at Fox News - Associated Press Fox News feared losing viewers by airing truth about election, documents show - The Washington Post The 'wackadoodle' foundation of Fox News' election-fraud claims - NPR It could take a decade to undo damage to the Republican Party caused by Fox News promoting election fraud claims, says former GOP official - Business Insider Amid Fox Election Scandal, Rising Calls On Twitter To Deport Rupert Murdoch - The National Memo Tucker Carlson and Fox News Knew Election Fraud Claims Were Bogus - Mother Jones The Internal Decapitation of Fox News - The Nation Fox News deceives its viewers. These text messages prove it. - MSNBC Court Lets Lawsuit Against Fox News Move Forward—Here's Where Dominion And Smartmatic's Defamation Suits Stand Now - Forbes Filings in Dominion lawsuit reveal that Fox News hosts had concerns about 2020 election fraud claims - Pew Research Center Fox hosts doubted Trump's false claims of election fraud, court filings show - The Philadelphia Inquirer Tucker Carlson Calls Trump 'Demonic Force' in New Legal Filing - Rolling Stone Dominion Voting Case Exposes Post-Election Fear at Fox News - U.S. News & World Report Tucker Carlson's Sad, Final Days on Fox News; Dominion Lawsuit May Deliver Fatal Blow - The New York Independent Fox News texts, emails "nightmare fuel" for lawyers: Legal expert - Newsweek Hogan: Conservative leaders would privately agree election wasn't stolen, but 'go out and say complete opposite' - The Hill The big news in Dominion’s defamation suit is why Fox kept up the Big Lie - The Colorado Sun O'Reilly on Fox News lawsuit: 'I would never sell out for ratings' - The Hill What the Dominion lawsuit reveals about the future of Fox News - Columbia Journalism Review Why Fox News' lies about Trump's defeat probably aren't protected by the 1st Amendment - Los Angeles Times Fox News Hosts, Executives Raised Concerns About 2020 Election-Fraud Claims Made on the Air, Filing Shows - The Wall Street Journal Fox News texts reveal the truth: The Big Lie was a con - Salon How Dominion Voting Systems filing proves Fox News was 'deliberately lying' - The Guardian John Oliver Blasts Fox News Channel After Court Filing Shows Hosts Didn’t Believe 2020 Election Fraud Claims - The Hollywood Reporter It's official, America: Fox News is a farce - MSNBC Fox Claims It Had To Report 'MINDBLOWINGLYNUTS' Kraken Lies About Dominion For 'News Value' - Above the Law "Our Viewers…Believe It": What Fox News Execs and Stars Were Really Thinking While the Network Boosted Donald Trump's Election Lies - Vanity Fair Fox News 2020 Election Coverage Decisions Demonstrate that Demand for Misinformation is a Bigger Problem than the Supply - Reason Lou Dobbs is the main obstacle to Fox's defamation defense - Reason 'Crazy.' 'Nuts.' Six wild revelations from the Fox News defamation case - Los Angeles Times Off camera, Fox hosts doubted 2020 election fraud claims - Oregon Public Broadcasting Fox News Exposed for Deliberately Spewing Toxic Lies to Their Audience - Between the Lines Compare the election-fraud claims Fox News aired with what its stars knew - NPR What did Fox News bigwigs really think about Trump's fraudulent election claims? - Poynter Institute Fox News Hosts Did Not Believe 2020 Election Fraud Claims, Court Filing States - AllSides Dominion voting case exposes post-election fear at Fox News - Houston Chronicle 'It's a major blow': Dominion has uncovered 'smoking gun' evidence in case against Fox News, legal experts say - CNN Will a $1.6bn defamation lawsuit finally stop Fox News from spreading lies? - The Guardian Fox News' Howard Kurtz says company won't let him cover Dominion voting case - The Hill Fox News Star Says Network Won't Let Him Cover Fox-Dominion Lawsuit - The Daily Beast Fox News Anchor Says Network Is Barring Him From Covering The Dominion Lawsuit - HuffPost Inside the Fox News Sausage Factory - The Freedom Academy with Asha Rangappa Murdoch Acknowledges Fox News Hosts Endorsed Election Fraud Falsehoods - The New York Times JUST IN: Bombshell Filing Shows Fox Anchor Got REAMED Over 'Anti-Trump' Coverage From Top Down - Mediaite Fox's Murdoch Admits Some Fox Hosts 'Endorsed' False Election Claims in Dominion Deposition - Variety Fox board member Paul Ryan told Murdoch the network shouldn't be spreading 2020 lies - Raw Story Fox chief Rupert Murdoch said network aired 2020 election conspiracies for the money: court documents - Raw Story The day before Jan. 6 attack, top Fox execs discussed whether to make primetime hosts dispel election lies - Raw Story Former FBI counsel thinks Dominion's lawsuit looks solid - and Fox has a very difficult road ahead - Raw Story Rupert Murdoch says Fox News hosts endorsed false election fraud claims - BBC News Rupert Murdoch testified that Fox News hosts 'endorsed' stolen election narrative - The Guardian The Root of Fake News Is the Corporate Lust for Profit in Media - Jacobin Trump Rages At Murdoch Over New Fox News Revelations: 'Killing His Case And Infuriating His Viewers' - Mediaite The 10 biggest revelations from Dominion's explosive Fox News legal filing -- CNN Stunning Rupert Murdoch deposition leaves Fox News in a world of trouble - The Guardian Trump Melts Down Over Murdoch Admitting Fox Lied About Election Fraud - Rolling Stone Murdoch testified Fox News hosts endorsed idea that Biden stole election - Reuters What we learned from the latest Fox News-Dominion case filing - NBC News Fox News Described As Rattled By Dominion Lawsuit - PoliticusUSA Schumer, Jeffries pressure Murdoch, Fox News over Trump's false election fraud claims - CNBC Fox News is NOT news. Claytoonz, Episode 2025. No-News News. - Claytoonz Rupert Murdoch says Fox stars 'endorsed' lies about 2020. He chose not to stop them - NPR Murdoch testified Fox News hosts endorsed idea that Biden stole election - Reuters How strong is Dominion's defamation case against Fox News? Legal experts weigh in - Los Angeles Times Top Fox News anchor says the company has banned coverage of the Dominion lawsuit that revealed how Tucker Carlson and other Fox stars privately dismissed election conspiracy theories while peddling them on air. - Business Insider To fight defamation suit, Fox News cites election conspiracy theories - The Washington Post Fox executives should be fired for 'proven misconduct' exposed in Dominion lawsuit, renowned Yale professor says - CNN Fox case shows how fake news makes money, but peddling lies can be costly - Chicago Tribune Top Democrats push Fox News to stop promoting "propaganda" about 2020 election - CBS News Murdoch, exposed - Popular Information Trump Fumes Over 'Scared' Murdoch's Bombshell Admissions In Lawsuit - The National Memo Dominion Lawsuit May Lead To Action Against Culpable Fox Board Members - The National Memo Fox News election fraud revelations could take down the network's embattled chief - CNN Dominion Lawsuit Revelations Are Getting Harder for Fox to Ignore - Vanity Fair Conservative Media Pay Little Attention to Revelations About Fox News - The New York Times Fox Corp. and the Trump campaign hit with FEC complaints over Dominion revelations - NBC News The Dominion Lawsuit Pulls Back The Curtain On Fox News. It's Not Pretty. - NPR 'Really crazy stuff': Rupert Murdoch trashed Rudy Giuliani's election theories, unsealed filing in Fox News suit reveals - Law & Crime 18 Most Popular Conservative Media Outlets Ignored Fox News Revelations - TheWrap Fox News is fighting an uphill legal battle over its 2020 election coverage and even founder Rupert Murdoch distances himself from the denialism - Fortune Analysis - Fox News Is Trapped by Its Own Zealotry - The Washington Post Fox News has implemented a 'soft ban' on Donald Trump and is avoiding putting him on air, report says - Business Insider Inside the Panic at Fox News After the 2020 Election - The New York Times Podcast: Why Election Denialism Might Cost Fox News $1.6 Billion - The New York Times Off the air, Fox News stars blasted the election fraud claims they peddled - NPR The Smear Heard Round the World - Air Mail What Fox News Hosts Said Privately vs. Publicly About Voter Fraud - The New York Times What is Fox News hiding in the Dominion lawsuit? - The Washington Post FEC Complaint Seeks Sanctions On Murdoch Over 2020 Campaign Misconduct - The National Memo Fox Anchors Said Viewer Feelings, 'Not Numbers,' Should Determine Election Calls - The National Memo Dominion bombshells reveal how Rupert Murdoch, Paul Ryan, and Fox's top lawyer secretly reacted to Trump's 'wild' election claims - Law & Crime Fox libel defense at odds with top GOP presidential foes - Associated Press Fox's Bartiromo Admitted to Banning Staff From Calling Joe Biden 'President-Elect' - The New Civil Rights Movement Right-Wing Media Joins Assault On Fox Over Dominion Revelations - The National Memo What To Do About Fox? Stop Treating It As A 'News' Organization - The National Memo Tucker Carlson Is The Biggest Hypocrite At Fox News - Oklahoma Loves Marijuana - Fox CEO Lachlan Murdoch dismisses $1.6 billion defamation case revelations as 'noise' - CNN New Fox-Dominion Lawsuit Documents Shed Light on Debate Inside Network - The New York Times Analysis - 4 takeaways from the new Dominion-Fox lawsuit documents - The Washington Post Fox News anchor Maria Bartiromo is front and center in Dominion's defamation suit - Los Angeles Times 'Incredibly Angry': Fox News Staff Reportedly Fuming About Dominion Filings - HuffPost Fox News executives discussed a plan to denounce the 'Trump myth' a day before the Jan. 6 riot - NBC News Fox News's no-good, very bad week - The Washington Post "We're All Embarrassed": Inside Fox News as Dominion Revelations Rattle the Network - Vanity Fair Former FBI official: 'We can now draw a direct line from a major network to American violence' - Raw Story Fox News Is In Really Big Trouble - PoliticusUSA Fox is a Far-Right Disinformation Machine and the GOP's Propaganda Arm - Lucid Tucker Carlson firestorm over Trump texts threatens to engulf Fox News - The Guardian 5 Nuggets From Dominion's Lawsuit Against Fox You May Have Missed - HuffPost SATIRE Tucker Carlson Fears That Leaked Texts of Him Telling Truth Will Kill His Brand - The New Yorker References

Dominion Voting Systems v. Fox News

Dominion Voting Systems v. Fox News Corporation or something like that.

Motion for summary judgment

• Filed: January 17, 2022
• Certified: February 16, 2023
• DOMINION'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY OF FOX NEWS NETWORK, LLC AND FOX CORPORATION Dated: January 17, 2022 PUBLIC VERSION FILED ON FEBRUARY 16, 2023

From Dominion Voting Systems

In December 2020 and January 2021, Fox News, Fox Business, Newsmax, and the American Thinker withdrew allegations they had reported about Dominion and Smartmatic after one or both companies threatened legal action for defamation. In January 2021, Dominion filed defamation lawsuits against former Trump campaign lawyers Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani, seeking $1.3 billion in damages from each. After Dominion filed its lawsuit against Powell, One America News Network (OANN) removed all references to Dominion and Smartmatic from its website, though without issuing public retractions. During subsequent months, Dominion filed suits seeking $1.6 billion in damages from each of Fox News, Newsmax, OANN and former Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne, while also suing Mike Lindell and his corporation, MyPillow.

Despite motions by the defendants to dismiss the lawsuits, judges ruled that the cases against Fox News, Lindell, and MyPillow could proceed.

On 16 February 2023, Dominion Voting Systems filed a motion for summary judgment against Fox News, with dozens of internal communications, sent during the months after the 2020 presidential election, showing several prominent network hosts and senior executives—including chairman Murdoch and CEO Suzanne Scott—discussing their knowledge that the election fraud allegations they were reporting were false. The communications showed the network was concerned that not reporting the falsehoods would alienate viewers and cause them to switch to rival conservative networks, impacting corporate profitability.

See also

• Dominion Voting Systems#Defamation lawsuit against Fox News
• Fox News#2020 election fraud allegations
• Fox News controversies#False claims about the 2020 election
• Mike Lindell
• MyPillow
• One America News Network#Dominion Voting Systems

References

Drafting content offline

The same policies and guidelines apply to all submissions, whether or not you drafted them first on your personal computer. The edit will look the same regardless. One issue to note, should you just do a plain installation, is that all of the templates and modules from English Wikipedia won't be available. isaacl (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I understand your first sentence. That's clear. On the second point, wow! Of course. I would need to use a host where Mediawiki is tied to the English Wikipedia for them to work. Lots to think about. Thanks. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:05, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Please...

...look at the meanings of the Denmark and Danish Realm articles. Georgia guy (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the difference. If you meant that the content was misplaced and belonged in the Kingdom article, then that would make sense. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Meek

Thanks for your help doing basic tidy-up at Meek's article, I did have a question though because while we say something like "You can't use the daily mail to reference his divorce because it often doesn't fact-check itself", we have the issue where his divorce filing is a public record available online and it's obviously true - so it's true, and it's notable because it's been reported in the media, but the media in which it's reported is considered to sometimes tell untruths...I'm hitting an impasse on that issue (while trying to avoid using the Daily Mail since somebody showed me the link suggesting against it; I don't have a problem with the DM myself but almost all the facts can be sourced to other publications) - which also raises a second question. If I say "John Smith once dated Jane Doe", is it better if I put 2-3 citations for a fact, or better to only use one? Not sure if I'm "overdoing" it or "underdoing" it sometimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LauraIngallsEvenWilder (talk • contribs) 20:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

What sources have you found? If "almost all the facts can be sourced to other publications", why not use them? As far as number of citations, the more controversial the content, the more citations. I tend toward too many, and others can then object. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you

...for keeping an eye on articles, and insisting that content that is added be sourced, including at the Lars van Trier page. It is refreshing to see editors that still show consistent care in keeping with WP:VERIFY, and other foundational principles. Kudos. An educator. 2601:246:C700:F5:989F:41EB:E351:AFD6 (talk) 07:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Reliable sources are our foundation, not our own opinions and biases. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 07:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Amen to that. I have had untold discussions here with some, even regulars, that do not believe all needs be sourced (only the debatable or controversial). I have wasted too much breath, and am resigned simply to supporting positive examples. By the way, at the LvT article, an earlier non-logging editor, IP address 136.158.78.115, made extensive edits, both adding information without source, and removing sourced information. I marked some of the former with , but all the edits from that location should be reviewed. (You reverted at least one to the lead, and left them a message at their talk page, earlier, but there may be more from them that needs scrutiny.) As a non-logging editor myself, I do not do bold redactive edits, even when another is in egregious violation of WP policies. (Because, long experience has shown that Twinkle and its users do not exercise discretion when seeing deletions by a non-logging editor, even if proper.) So perhaps look in again there, when time allows. Cheers, all the best. 2601:246:C700:F5:989F:41EB:E351:AFD6 (talk) 08:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate your philosophy and you do honor to your namesake.Kmccook (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Montagnier

I've replied at Talk:Luc_Montagnier#February_2023 --Mick2 (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Good. Remember to sign your comments. Don't edit or comment while logged out. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Mueller "did not make a 'traditional prosecutorial judgment' on whether Trump broke the law."

Main article: Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

To understand the Trump–Russia crime scene, ask the following question and focus on the second part, because the first is proven:

• Russia interfered in the 2016 election, but what role did Trump and his campaign play in that interference? That's what the Crossfire Hurricane team and Mueller wanted to understand.

We know that Mueller was not able to prove "conspiracy" and "coordination" beyond a shadow of a doubt, possibly because of all the obstruction, destruction of evidence, and secret communication using burner phones and other devices that leave no trace. Mueller did prove that such devious means of communication were used.

Here is something incredible we also know. Mueller definitely "did not make a 'traditional prosecutorial judgment' on whether Trump broke the law."

Conspiracy is a crime that is very hard to prove. A crime itself may be easy to prove, but to prove that the participants actually conspired to commit the crime, one must pass a very high bar of evidence. Finding a formal written or oral agreement of "you do this and I'll do that" to commit the crime is often impossible, and it may never have existed as a formal agreement, even though the participants planned their actions.

The report also detailed multiple acts of potential obstruction of justice by Trump, but did not make a "traditional prosecutorial judgment" on whether Trump broke the law, suggesting that Congress should make such a determination. Investigators decided they could not "apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes" as an Office of Legal Counsel opinion stated that a sitting president could not be indicted, and investigators would not accuse him of a crime when he cannot clear his name in court. The report concluded that Congress, having the authority to take action against a president for wrongdoing, "may apply the obstruction laws". The House of Representatives subsequently launched an impeachment inquiry following the Trump–Ukraine scandal, but did not pursue an article of impeachment related to the Mueller investigation.

Notice these words: "Investigators decided they could not "apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes." IOW, they already decided from the start that investigators were NOT allowed to find Trump guilty of a crime, so they focused on a crime that is nearly impossible to prove, and they succeeded in their goal of NOT proving such a crime.

If any crime was committed, the participants were allowed to go free because it was not proven they "conspired" to commit the crime. I don't know of any court of law that operates this way. Bank robbers do get convicted, as the crime itself is the important thing, not whether they "conspired" to rob the bank. In spite of this, many were indeed prosecuted and convicted. Then Trump pardoned many of them.

Mueller definitely "did not make a 'traditional prosecutorial judgment' on whether Trump broke the law." He chose to attempt to prove the unprovable (conspiracy) and succeeded in not proving it. Job well done.

Apologists for Russia and so-called "Russiagate" revisionists forget about the collusion and unpatriotic acts by Trump and his campaign and go so far as to deny Russian interference. That is factually and patriotically wrong.

A conspiracy was not proven, but Mueller had chosen not to focus on all the collusion he found in the process of the investigation. They found plenty of that, but most of it was not a crime, just terribly unpatriotic. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:49, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

References

"Midyear Exam" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Midyear Exam has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 15 § Midyear Exam until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

editing behavior at Alternative medicine

Valjean, You recently opened a talk page discussion in this edit. Fifteen hours later you edited the lede of the article, and shortly thereafter hatted/closed the discussion. The compressed time frame, obscuration of the discussion, and the rapid fire edits you have been making since then are counterproductive. Also concerning is that you are flooding the article with quotes from poor quality sources such as Buzzfeed and The Skeptic's Dictionary, both yellow at WP:RSP. Cedar777 (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Cedar777, I only hatted the part of the discussion where we had finished the subject, and if necessary can be unhatted, as I wrote at the bottom of the hatted part. The unfinished parts are still open. When you are not participating, you miss stuff like that and your complaints seem unwarranted and out of place. Perform some due diligence before complaining.

Instead of complaining here, why haven't you participated at the talk page as other editors have done? We have had good conversations, have engaged in a pleasant back-and-forth to tweak and refine edits, and most of my edits have been in line with the consensus there. You could have been part of it.

A couple edits today have been typical bold edits with sources appropriate for the type of edit, in line with how we use sources mentioned at WP:RSP. Context is everything. It all depends on how the source is being used.

If you still have real concerns, you are welcome to mention them there, one-at-a-time, and please do it in a constructive and civil manner, not in an accusatory manner as done here. I am not a newbie. I am always willing to work with other editors and take what they say seriously. I have been here so long that I helped to write our policies and pioneer much of the alternative medical content. As a medical professional and subject matter expert, my edits are generally highly respected, but I still listen to other editors. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:TPO

"A rule of thumb is that discussions should be kept open at least a week before closing"

"Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning". Cedar777 (talk) 11:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@Cedar777 nothing in this is permanent, the project is never done, etc. One can view Valjean's actions here as a slightly longer form of bold editing, along the WP:BRD continuum. One can still revert, one can still add to these discussions. Nothing is preventing input in any of the above. It is not "counterproductive" in my view, any more than a single bold edit would be counterproductive. I would say this talk page section is counterproductive, when you could have just reverted the hatting and added your input. Or just made another section. Or a zillion other things that don't involve accusing editors of misconduct without citing any policy or guideline. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Just wanted to support Val here, as the improvements to Alt-Med in recent days have been done through rather informative and thoughtful talk page discussion. I also note that the discussion is not closed or hatted, perhaps I missed that. - Roxy the dog 15:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, I responded to the complaint here by unhatting that thread. I had left a note explaining it could be unhatted if necessary. I have done it and removed that note. I did not hat it to prevent discussion or hide the matter, just to cleanup distraction. If it's necessary to discuss the matters in that thread, then we can discuss them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Bottom line? I thing good work is happening. Thanks. - Roxy the dog 16:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. Most articles are in need of improvement, and as volunteers we act in good faith to do that. I'm not perfect and do make mistakes. I am open to correction, and I do listen to the concerns of others. I just find the approach here rather counter-productive. It comes across as a personal attack and unconstructive griping. There are more civil ways to do this. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The User talk page is an appropriate place to discuss concerns about behavior. Cedar777 (talk) 12:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

No. 18: Censorship-Industrial Complex

Needs better sourcing. From Twitter Files.

On March 9, 2023, Matt Taibbi summarized his Testimony on the "Censorship-Industrial Complex" to the U.S. House Judiciary Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government as Twitter Files #18. Michael Shellenberger also summarized his Testimony on Twitter and included his testimony as a link in the Twitter thread.

References

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 March 2023

• News and notes: Wikimania submissions deadline looms, Russian government after our lucky charms, AI woes nix CNET from RS slate

• Eyewitness: Three more stories from Ukrainian Wikimedians

• In the media: Paid editing, plagiarism payouts, proponents of a ploy, and people peeved at perceived preferences

• Featured content: Way too many featured articles

• Interview: 228/2/1: the inside scoop on Aoidh's RfA

• Traffic report: Who died? Who won? Who lost?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 22:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda. Keep up the good work! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

"Assault"

Re: Special:Diff/1146398416. Please tone it down. Being asked to use appropriate terminology is not assault. You've already been made aware once of the heightened expectations of editorial conduct in this topic area. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 17:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

And you own that topic area? Who gave you the right to intimidate other editors who are making good faith attempts to improve content? Stop bullying me. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Valjean. Thank you. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 18:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• Valjean, I get what you mean when you use "aggressor" but I also believe that the word could be understood as someone who initiates physical activity. [1] Perhaps you can instead word it that "X initiated the situation". Next, I'd have to say, you're kind of playing with fire, by mentioning male genitalia, with reference to a trans woman. I get your point, it's just that the issue is really sensitive. Some people might not agree with it. Lastly, if I were you, I would shut up at WP:AE at this point. starship.paint (exalt) 08:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Valjean: FYI, cis is short for cisgender, and is not an acronym. See the article on that word for the etymology. Just mentioning it as I saw you refer to "CIS" a couple of times. Funcrunch (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. Believe it or not, I actually knew that one. Was I mistaken to capitalize it? I often see it that way. BTW, I really appreciate this contact. I need all the help I can get to get up to speed on these issues and terminologies. Words are the foundation of everything. They express and form our understandings, so it's important to "get it right". You know far more than I do, so please stop by anytime. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Valjean, I may have messed up the ping, but wanted to ensure you saw my encouragement to you at User talk:Maddy from Celeste#An apology. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2023 (UTC)