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

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 DossierEdit

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.

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[1]
  • Behind the dossier: Steele dismisses James Bond comparisons -- but dossier did leave his life shaken, stirred[2]

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."[2]

  • Behind the dossier: How Christopher Steele penned his reports -- and the fallout from his unmasking[3]
  • Behind the dossier: Christopher Steele not worried about facing charges in Durham investigation[4]
  • Confronting his critics, Christopher Steele defends controversial dossier in first major interview[5]
    • "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".[6]
Other coverage
  • Christopher Steele, author of Trump dossier, defends report[7]

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."[7]

Trump's "golden showers" reaction
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".[11]

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][12]
    • "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."[12]
  • Russia dossier author criticizes Trump, slams 'strange and troubling times'[13]
    • "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]"[13]
  • Former MI6 spy Christopher Steele, who compiled controversial dossier, breaks silence to criticize Trump[14]
  • Radhika Jones sets a new tone at Vanity Fair: 'My goal is to reflect the culture as I see it'[15]
    • "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.”[15]
  • <ref name=" ">{{cite web | author-link1= | last1= | first1= | author-link2= | last2= | first2= | date= | title= | website= | url= | access-date= | quote= }}</ref>


  1. ^ Mosk, Matthew; Bruggeman, Lucien; Donovan (October 18, 2021). "Out of the Shadows: Christopher Steele defiant on dossier, says Trump still 'potential' threat". ABC News. Retrieved October 21, 2021.
  2. ^ a b Mosk, Matthew; Bruggeman, Lucien; Donovan, Chris (October 19, 2021). "Behind the dossier: Steele dismisses James Bond comparisons -- but dossier did leave his life shaken, stirred". ABC News. Retrieved October 21, 2021.
  3. ^ Mosk, Matthew; Bruggeman, Lucien; Donovan, Chris (October 18, 2021). "Behind the dossier: How Christopher Steele penned his reports -- and the fallout from his unmasking". ABC News. Retrieved October 20, 2021.
  4. ^ Mosk, Matthew; Bruggeman, Lucien; Donovan, Chris (October 18, 2021). "Behind the dossier: Christopher Steele not worried about facing charges in Durham investigation". ABC News. Retrieved October 20, 2021.
  5. ^ Bruggeman, Lucien; Mosk, Matthew (October 17, 2021). "Confronting his critics, Christopher Steele defends controversial dossier in first major interview". ABC News. Retrieved October 17, 2021.
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference OIG_12/9/2019 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ a b Tillman, Rachel (October 18, 2021). "Christopher Steele, author of Trump dossier, defends report". Spectrum News NY1. Retrieved October 21, 2021.
  8. ^ Pellish, Aaron; Herb, Jeremy (October 18, 2021). "Ex-intel official who created controversial Trump Russia dossier speaks out". CNN. Retrieved October 20, 2021.
  9. ^ Levin, Bess (October 18, 2021). "Christopher Steele Defends Russia Dossier, Says Trump Golden Shower Tape "Probably Does" Exist". Vanity Fair. Retrieved October 20, 2021.
  10. ^ Weber, Peter (October 18, 2021). "Ex-spy Christopher Steele stands behind the thrust of his Trump-Russia dossier, even the salacious 'kompromat'". The Week. Retrieved October 20, 2021.
  11. ^ Cite error: The named reference Kessler_4/24/2019 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  12. ^ a b Bilton, Nick; et al. (October 3, 2018). "The 2018 New Establishment List". Vanity Fair. Retrieved October 21, 2021.
  13. ^ a b Cohen, Marshall (October 10, 2018). "Russia dossier author criticizes Trump, slams 'strange and troubling times'". CNN. Retrieved October 21, 2021.
  14. ^ Macfarlane, Julia (October 10, 2018). "Former MI6 spy Christopher Steele, who compiled controversial dossier, breaks silence to criticize Trump". ABC News. Retrieved October 21, 2021.
  15. ^ a b Stelter, Brian (October 10, 2018). "Radhika Jones sets a new tone at Vanity Fair: 'My goal is to reflect the culture as I see it'". CNN. Retrieved October 21, 2021.

Great RS essay!Edit

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

Trump collusion was very realEdit

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".[1]

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."[2]


  1. ^ Tucker, Eric; Jalonick, Mary Clare (August 18, 2021). "Trump campaign's Russia contacts 'grave' threat, Senate says". Associated Press. Retrieved November 11, 2021.
  2. ^ McFaul, Michael (August 22, 2020). "Michael McFaul Senate Russia report proves Trump collusion was very real. But do voters care?". NBC News. Retrieved November 11, 2021.

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

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.[1]
  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";[2] he means news which is negative and unfavorable to himself, even though it's true.[3][4]

No editor here should doubt any of the facts mentioned above. Period. Only "fringe editors"[5] doubt them. In these post-truth[6][7] Trumpian[8] political times, fringe editors often have a strong Trump bias and point of view because they adopt Trump's open animosity toward RS[9][10][11][12][13] 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)


  1. ^ Blake, Aaron (January 22, 2017). "Kellyanne Conway says Donald Trump's team has 'alternative facts'. Which pretty much says it all". The Washington Post. Retrieved January 22, 2017.
  2. ^ Lind, Dara (May 9, 2018). "Trump finally admits that "fake news" just means news he doesn't like". Vox. Retrieved May 10, 2018.
  3. ^ Gendreau, Henri (February 25, 2017). "The internet made 'fake news' a thing—then made it nothing". Wired. Retrieved May 9, 2018.
  4. ^ Cillizza, Chris (May 9, 2018). "Donald Trump just accidentally revealed something very important about his 'fake news' attacks". CNN. Retrieved May 10, 2018.
  5. ^ Fringe editors: I define them as editors who lack the competence to vet sources, and who are misinformed by, and use unreliable sources. See Reliable sources, Trump, and his editors here for more on this.
    Here's why I call them "fringe":
    1. More people voted for Clinton, with Trump receiving 46.7 percent of the vote in the 2016 election. Trump voters were a clear minority, but "minority" doesn't necessarily equal "fringe". Things have changed since then.
    2. That minority has grown even smaller, as many Trump voters have regretted their vote and are no longer supporters.
    3. What's left is current Trump supporters, a much smaller group who are indeed fringe, largely because of their blind allegiance to a man divorced from truth and reliable sources. If it weren't for the fact that Trump is actually sitting in the WH, they would be ignored as a radical group of people divorced from reality, just like Trump.
    4. Like Trump, they get their "news" from fringe, very unreliable, sources. Keep in mind that before Trump was elected, only 3% got their "news" from Breitbart (2014), yet Trump gets his "news" from them, InfoWars, and Fox & Friends, and he brought Bannon into the WH. Trump is a very fringe president.
    5. Here we have a tiny subset of editors who try to include views from unreliable sources, and even try to use those sources as references. They lack the competence to vet sources, which seriously impacts their editing and discussions here. That is all very fringe by Wikipedia's standards.
  6. ^ Papazoglou, Alexis. "The post-truth era of Trump is just what Nietzsche predicted". The Conversation. Retrieved 2019-04-22.
  7. ^ Alloa, Emmanuel (August 28, 2017). "Post-Truth or: Why Nietzsche is not Responsible for Donald Trump". The Philosophical Salon. Retrieved July 14, 2022.
  8. ^ "Trumpian". February 1, 2018. Retrieved August 25, 2018.
  9. ^ Pak, Nataly; Seyler, Matt (July 19, 2018). "Trump derides news media as 'enemy of the people' over Putin summit coverage". ABC News. Retrieved July 23, 2018.
  10. ^ Atkins, Larry (February 27, 2017). "Facts still matter in the age of Trump and fake news". The Hill. Retrieved March 9, 2017.
  11. ^ Felsenthal, Julia (March 3, 2017). "How the Women of the White House Press Corps Are Navigating "Fake News" and "Alternative Facts"". Vogue. Retrieved March 3, 2017.
  12. ^ Massie, Chris (February 7, 2017). "WH official: We'll say 'fake news' until media realizes attitude of attacking the President is wrong". CNN. Retrieved March 27, 2017.
  13. ^ Page, Clarence (February 7, 2017). "Trump's obsession with (his own) 'fake news'". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved February 9, 2017.

A caution issued elsewhereEdit

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 GNGEdit

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,"[1][2] 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,"[1] 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.[3] 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)


  1. ^ a b Battles, Matthew (July 12, 2012), Wikipedia and the sum of human knowledge, metaLAB (at) Harvard, retrieved October 22, 2015
  2. ^ Jerney, John (October 22, 2002), "The Wikipedia: The encyclopedia for the rest of us", The Daily Yomiuri, retrieved October 22, 2015

    Quote: "In particular, the goal of the Wikipedia is to produce the best encyclopedia encapsulating the sum total of human knowledge.... [It] offers the possibility of everything being written into history, with all of mankind sharing knowledge and information in a way that enables everyone to profit from it." — Wikipedia:Testimonials

  3. ^ Wales, Jimmy (August 2006), The birth of Wikipedia, TED Talks, retrieved December 5, 2015


Fringe beliefsEdit

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[1][2][3][4][5][6]
  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)


  1. ^ Paul, Christopher; Matthews, Miriam (January 1, 2016). "The Russian 'Firehose of Falsehood' Propaganda Model: Why It Might Work and Options to Counter It". RAND Corporation. doi:10.7249/PE198. JSTOR resrep02439. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  2. ^ Brian Stelter (November 30, 2020). "'Firehose of falsehood:' How Trump is trying to confuse the public about the election outcome". CNN.
  3. ^ Maza, Carlos (August 31, 2018). "Why obvious lies make great propaganda". Vox.
  4. ^ Zappone, Chris (October 12, 2016). "Donald Trump campaign's 'firehose of falsehoods' has parallels with Russian propaganda". The Sydney Morning Herald.
  5. ^ Harford, Tim (May 6, 2021). "What magic teaches us about misinformation". Financial Times.
  6. ^ Clifton, Denise (August 3, 2017). "Trump's nonstop lies may be a far darker problem than many realize". Mother Jones.

Cyberwar: How Russian Hackers and Trolls Helped Elect a PresidentEdit

Cyberwar: How Russian Hackers and Trolls Helped Elect a President Valjean (talk) (PING me) 07:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Have you seen this yet?Edit

I haven’t had a chance to read this review yet from CJR but I am planning to tomorrow. Have you seen it yet? Mr Ernie (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll check it out. Feel free to post the interesting content you find right here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Kyle Pope is a serious journalist, and he's covered these topics before:

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I see that it's all written by Jeff Gerth. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

He starts off on the wrong foot, and that doesn't bode well: "inquiry into whether Donald Trump was colluding with Russia". Mueller made clear he was interested in "conspiracy" and "coordination", not "collusion". This is carelessness. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

It's a big chew. I wish he'd footnoted it. It'll take me longer to analyze it than it took him to write it. soibangla (talk) 05:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
He kind of buries the lead right in part 1 - By 2016, as Trump’s political viability grew and he voiced admiration for Russia’s “strong leader,” Clinton and her campaign would secretly sponsor and publicly promote an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory that there was a secret alliance between Trump and Russia (emphasis mine - btw where's our Wikipedia article on that conspiracy theory?). We all well know how the Clinton campaign would also go on to indirectly fund a misinformation dossier put together by a foreign ex-spy and some shady Russian players. It's also impressive how impactful Simpson and his contacts were. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Since this is my talk page, and NOTFORUM does not apply, I'll comment on that quote. Yes, they had good reason (they had just been hacked by Russia!) to believe Steele's reporting that stated there was a "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership". That was a national security threat that was rightly reported to the FBI for investigation. (Trump kept secret and lied about his contacts with Russia and knowledge of their offers of support.) Good for Steele, who did the right thing by reporting to the FBI. The "conspiracy" aspect was never proven, but the "cooperation" was proven to have occurred in many ways. One does not have to believe in a conspiracy when the claimed actions did occur, as the actions are the most important part. The GOP and Trump are essentially saying that robbers should be acquitted of a proven robbery because we can't prove the robbers secretly planned the robbery. That thinking boggles the mind. The robbery was committed. Period. Lock 'em up.
The Clinton team did push an "unsubstantiated conspiracy theory" about a secret alliance, a theory that proved to be true. The alliance (Trump shared his plans with Russia and they promised to support him) was kept secret from Americans, but its existence was revealed in Jan. 2014 by Trump's personal hostess at the Nov. 2013 Miss Universe contest. (The tweet.) Almost no one noticed the significance of that tweet. Later, the alliance became quite public in many ways, and Trump again reaffirmed his loyalty to Putin a few days ago: Donald Trump Says He Trusts Putin More Than U.S. Intelligence 'Lowlifes'. Once again, he is reassuring Putin that he welcomes more help from Putin in 2024.
So Steele's sources were right. The Trump team was indeed working to aid the Russians, who had promised to help Trump. That is no longer a conspiracy theory. Danchenko's worth as a source was reaffirmed by the FBI, who then, after Steele, employed Danchenko for nearly four years. He was a phenomenal source for the dossier and the FBI.

Helson testified that Danchenko's reports as a confidential informant were used by the FBI in 25 investigations and 40 intelligence reports during a nearly four-year period from March 2017 to October 2020.... Danchenko, the FBI agent said, was considered 'a model' informant and 'reshaped the way the U.S. even perceives threats.' Helson said that none of his previous informants had ever had as many sub-sources as Danchenko and that others at the FBI have continued to ask in recent months for Danchenko's assistance amid Russia's invasion of Ukraine.[2]

If Steele had never used the word "conspiracy", we would look at all of this in a very different light. We would have focused on Trump's disloyal actions, not on "conspiracy", something that is nearly impossible to prove.
BTW, the Durham's "investigation" is now being torn apart for its unethical actions. See Russia investigation origins counter-narrative and the new Durham special counsel investigation. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

It's interesting that the introduction is written by Pope, a strong critic of the dossier. I have used a couple of the links above to bolster that criticism in the Steele dossier article (edit summary: "Pope and CJR's initial support of BuzzFeed's decision and Pope's later reversal"):

BuzzFeed's decision to publish the dossier was immediately criticized by many major media sources, among them The Guardian, The Washington Post, and The New York Times.[3] Although the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) had originally (January 11, 2017) backed BuzzFeed's publication of the dossier,[3] and editor Kyle Pope had tweeted his support of that decision,[4] he later (November 17, 2021) described it as "a document that was never designed to meet the standards of good journalism", noting that its credibility had collapsed, and concluding that it was the source of "a lot of nonsense and misdirection" in subsequent media coverage and should not have been published at all.[5]

Mr Ernie, as a strong critic of the dossier (kudos for that), I'd be interested in you presenting here the tidbits you find in this CJR coverage. Some of them might be useful in the article, even though we already have a huge amount of criticism in the article. These opinions are still important in light of history. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll never understand the right-wing obsession with the Clintons. Their hatred of Hillary borders on the pathological and misogynistic. Freud would have a field day with that ElectraOedipus complex. However when it comes to Trump, conservative conspiracy theorists are the ones who deny reality by insisting that there is a false balance of Trump derangement syndrome. It can both be true that Clinton funded oppo research on Trump and that there was a lot of "there" there to find. Andre🚐 21:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
It goes back to the false Clinton Body Count conspiracy theory, one of the most vicious smear campaigns ever launched, and still strongly pushed and believed by right-wingers. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)


  1. ^ Waldow, Julia (January 27, 2018). "CJR's Kyle Pope on covering Trump differently". CNN.
  2. ^ Rizzo, Salvador (October 14, 2022). "Durham says Steele dossier source lied. But the FBI long valued him". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 17, 2022.
  3. ^ a b Gezari, Vanessa M (January 11, 2017). "BuzzFeed was right to publish Trump-Russia files". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved January 31, 2023.
  4. ^ Pope, Kyle (January 11, 2017). "Pope tweets support of CJR decision". Twitter. Retrieved January 31, 2023. We defend BuzzFeed's decision to publish
  5. ^ Pope, Kyle (November 17, 2021). "The media's belated rush to judgment on the Trump dossier". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved November 19, 2021.

Administrators' newsletter – February 2023Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2023).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • The Vector 2022 skin has become the default for desktop users of the English Wikipedia.



  • Voting in the 2023 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
  • Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)