View source for User talk:Valjean

{{NOINDEX|visible = yes}}
{{Sp-contributions-footer|BullRangifer}}
{{hat|A citation template I like to use.}}
{{divbox|radius=15px|amber|A basic [[WP:CT|citation template]] I like to use. See this citation tool: [https://tools.wmflabs.org/yadkard/yadkard.fcgi Yadkard]|<center>'''<nowiki><ref name="  ">{{cite web | last1= | first1= | last2= | first2= | date= | title= | website= | url= | accessdate= }}</ref></nowiki>'''</center><p>
I like to choose a ref name which will remain unique, so I use the last name(s) of the author(s) and publication date. Here's how it works:<p>
<nowiki><ref name="Harding_11/15/2017">{{cite web | last=Harding | first=Luke | title=How Trump walked into Putin's web | website=The Guardian | date=November 15, 2017 | url=http://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/15/how-trump-walked-into-putins-web-luke | access-date=December 24, 2017}}</ref></nowiki><ref name="Harding_11/15/2017">{{cite web | last=Harding | first=Luke | title=How Trump walked into Putin's web | website=The Guardian | date=November 15, 2017 | url=http://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/15/how-trump-walked-into-putins-web-luke | access-date=December 24, 2017}}</ref><p> An alternative date format is the [[ISO 8601|ISO format]]: "Harding-20171115"{{reflist-talk}}}}
{{hab}}
<!-- {{semi-retired|Some may have noticed that my activity level isn't anywhere near what it used to be. Well, being a Wikipedia editor is just not that much fun anymore.

Wikilawyering has become a fine art that's exploited by partisan POV pushers and, predominantly right-wing, paid political whitewashers (the Koch brothers control many articles), and NPOV is pretty much impossible to maintain on such articles. It's not worth the effort (which is more like a battle), so a lot of the time I now avoid such conflict zones.

Fixing commas and grammar is pretty uncontroversial. It's a shame that talent, knowledge and experience are wasted. Experienced editors get burned out, and there is not an endless supply of such editors, so Wikipedia is bleeding. Until the community does something to rectify this situation, it will lose out on such talent and the editing pool will become more and more dominated by political hacks and amateur jerks.}} -->
{{Archive box | box-width=160px | [[User talk:BullRangifer/Archive 1|1]], [[User talk:BullRangifer/Archive 2|2]], [[User talk:BullRangifer/Archive 3|3]], [[User talk:BullRangifer/Archive 4|4]], [[User talk:BullRangifer/Archive 5|5]], [[User talk:BullRangifer/Archive 6|6]], [[User talk:BullRangifer/Archive 7|7]], [[User talk:BullRangifer/Archive 8|8]], [[User talk:BullRangifer/Archive 9|9]], [[User talk:BullRangifer/Archive 10|10]], [[User talk:BullRangifer/Archive 11|11]], [[User talk:BullRangifer/Archive 12|12]], [[User talk:BullRangifer/Archive 13|13]], [[User talk:BullRangifer/Archive 14|14]], [[User talk:BullRangifer/Archive 15|15]], [[User talk:BullRangifer/Archive 16|16]], [[User talk:BullRangifer/Archive 17|17]], [[User talk:BullRangifer/Archive 18|18]], [[User talk:BullRangifer/Archive 19|19]], [[User talk:BullRangifer/Archive 20|20]], [[User talk:BullRangifer/Archive 21|21]], [[User:BullRangifer/Toolbox|TB]] }}
{{TOC left}}
[[File:Warsaw Negotiation Round Senate of Poland 2014 01.JPG | thumb | 300px | center |'''[[Help:Using talk pages | Talk page]] negotiation table'''<p> "The best content is developed through civil collaboration between editors who hold opposing points of view."<p>
-- [[User:BullRangifer|BullRangifer]]. From <small>''[[WP:NEUTRALEDITOR]]''</small>]]
__TOC__
{{clear}}
== Personal stash ==

Don't let the hatting intimidate you. If you wish to comment, feel free.

=== Trump and fake news ===

{{hat|"People got vastly more misinformation from Donald Trump than they did from fake news websites -- full stop."<p> -- [[Brendan Nyhan]]}}
See: [[Fake news]]
; Selective Exposure to Misinformation<nowiki>:</nowiki> Evidence from the consumption of fake news during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign

A 2018 study<ref name="Guess_Nyhan_Reifler_1/9/2018">{{cite web | last1=Guess | first1=Andrew | last2=Nyhan | first2=Brendan | last3=Reifler | first3=Jason | date=January 9, 2018 | title=Selective Exposure to Misinformation: Evidence from the consumption of fake news during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign | website=Dartmouth.edu | url=https://www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/fake-news-2016.pdf | accessdate=February 4, 2018 }}</ref> by researchers from [[Princeton University]], [[Dartmouth College]], and the [[University of Exeter]] has examined the consumption of fake news during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign. The findings showed that Trump supporters and older Americans (over 60) were far more likely to consume fake news than Clinton supporters. Those most likely to visit fake news websites were the 10% of Americans who consumed the most [[Conservatism|conservative]] information. There was a very large difference (800%) in the consumption of fake news stories as related to total news consumption between Trump supporters (6.2%) and Clinton supporters (0.8%).<ref name="Guess_Nyhan_Reifler_1/9/2018"/><ref name="Sarlin_1/14/2018">{{cite web | last=Sarlin | first=Benjy | title='Fake news' went viral in 2016. This professor studied who clicked. | website=NBC News | date=January 14, 2018 | url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/fake-news-went-viral-2016-expert-studied-who-clicked-n836581 | access-date=February 4, 2018}}</ref>

The study also showed that fake pro-Trump and fake pro-Clinton news stories were read by their supporters, but with a significant difference: Trump supporters consumed far more (40%) than Clinton supporters (15%). Facebook was by far the key "gateway" website where these fake stories were spread, and which led people to then go to the fake news websites. [[Fact checking|Fact checks]] of fake news were rarely seen by consumers,<ref name="Guess_Nyhan_Reifler_1/9/2018"/><ref name="Sarlin_1/14/2018"/> with none of those who saw a fake news story being reached by a related fact check.<ref name="Poynter_1/3/2018">{{cite web | title=Fake news and fact-checking websites both reach about a quarter of the population - but not the same quarter | website=Poynter Institute | date=January 3, 2018 | url=https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking-research-database/fake-news-and-fact-checking-websites-both-reach-about-quarter | access-date=February 5, 2018}}</ref>

[[Brendan Nyhan]], one of the researchers, emphatically stated in an interview on NBC News: "People got vastly more misinformation from Donald Trump than they did from fake news websites -- full stop."<ref name="Sarlin_1/14/2018"/>
{{quote|
NBC NEWS: "It feels like there's a connection between having an active portion of a party that's prone to seeking false stories and conspiracies and a president who has famously spread conspiracies and false claims. In many ways, demographically and ideologically, the president fits the profile of the fake news users that you're describing."

NYHAN: "It's worrisome if fake news websites further weaken the norm against false and misleading information in our politics, which unfortunately has eroded. But it's also important to put the content provided by fake news websites in perspective. People got vastly more misinformation from Donald Trump than they did from fake news websites -- full stop."<ref name="Sarlin_1/14/2018"/>}}
{{Reflist-talk}}
{{hab}}

=== [[User:BullRangifer/Reliable_sources_stash#Fox_News_special_status|Is ''Fox News'' a RS?]] ===

=== BLP about [[WP:PUBLICFIGURE|Public figures]] ===
{{hat|BLP about [[WP:PUBLICFIGURE|Public figures]]}}
{{quotebox|
'''POLICY:'''
{{Policy shortcut|WP:PUBLICFIGURE|WP:WELLKNOWN}}
In the case of [[public figure]]s, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find ''multiple'' reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported.
* '''Example''': "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is the divorce important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out. If so, [[WP:LABEL|avoid use of "messy"]] and stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe divorced."
* '''Example''': A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was ''alleged'' to have had the affair, not that the affair actually ''occurred''.}}

{{quotebox|
'''EMPHASIS ADDED:'''
In the case of [[public figure]]s, there will be '''a multitude of reliable published sources''', and BLPs '''should simply document what these sources say.''' If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, '''it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.''' If you cannot find ''multiple'' reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported.}}

A few things to note about this:
# There is a difference between how we handle public figures and [[WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE|relatively unknown persons]]. Wikipedia follows normal practice in real life, especially libel laws, where public persons are less protected than others. In the USA, a public person can rarely win a libel lawsuit; the bar to overwhelm the [[First amendment]] is set very high.<p> Added to that is the unfortunate fact that ''[[Barrett v. Rosenthal]]'' protects the deliberate online <u>repetition</u> (not the original creation) of known libelous information <u>found on the internet</u>: a "user of interactive computer services" is "immune from liability ''[certain conditions follow]''". The internet is the [[Wild West]], where a law actually protects the spreading of proven lies.<p>This is sad, and we do not participate in the spreading of lies, unless multiple RS have documented it. That's where we are forced to get involved, but here we also include more details and denials, and we label them as "allegations" until proven true.
# If the conditions are met (noteworthy, relevant, and well documented), "it belongs in the article".
# "even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." The subject has a COI and has no right to have it removed from Wikipedia or to stop us from covering it. By being a public person, they have relinquished the right to privacy, even of negative information. The WMF legal department will rarely side with such attempts where editors are properly following this policy.
# Allegations must be labeled "allegation". Important.
# If they have denied the allegation, their denial must be included. Important.
Many editors cite BLP, and even WP:PUBLIFIGURE, as if it means that negative and/or unproven information should not be included. No, that's not the way it works. That would be censorship, and ''that'' would violate NPOV. Just treat the allegation(s) sensitively, and neutrally document what multiple RS say.
{{hab}}

=== Problematic misuse of two refs ===
{{hat|Problematic misuse of two refs...needs work}}

; Issue [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier&diff=prev&oldid=827860390 raised here.]

These refs are only used in the lead, and have been [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier&diff=825439304&oldid=825416433 co-opted for conclusions in the future]. That's wrong, as they can only be used for when they were said. They also need attribution and use in the body of the article.

{{As of|February 2018}}, the dossier's allegations of collusion have not been corroborated.


<ref name=Keneally>{{cite news|last= Keneally |first= Meghan |title= Trump slams 'bogus' Russian dossier and says the FBI is 'tainted' |date= 2017-12-26 |accessdate= 2018-01-11 |website= [[ABC News]] |url= http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-slams-bogus-russian-dossier-fbi-tainted/story?id=51995098 |quote= The dossier is uncorroborated but not disproved.}}</ref>


<ref name="Prokop_12/28/2017">{{cite web | last=Prokop | first=Andrew | title=What we learned about Trump, Russia, and collusion in 2017 | website=Vox | date=December 28, 2017 | url=https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/28/16735412/trump-russia-news-investigation-2017 | access-date=February 11, 2018 | quote=Yet as 2017 winds down, there is still no clear answer to the central question at the heart of the probe: Did Trump’s team collude with the Russian government during the 2016 campaign?...[T]here are the darker possibilities of the sort alleged in the salacious and mostly uncorroborated Steele dossier. }}</ref>
{{Reflist-talk}}
{{hab}}

=== Deserves response ===
{{hat|Deserves response...creation process of List}}
A [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier_allegations&diff=825578811&oldid=825506847 comment] in a "merge" RfC deserves some response, but obviously not in the RfC, since it's off-topic (it's not an AfD):

* [[WP:POV]] - this lacks [[WP:BALANCE]], in sources used and in lack of the significant coverage on widespread handling as a 'dodgy' item and of right-wing crowing over items discredited, plus it's nature of the bulk being one-sided allegations with occasional flawed wording for what is presented.  (Really this article should either be tagged on concerns or moved to draft space for work.)   For example, in sources I'll note that there is Mother Jones and Vanity Fair and Buzzfeed ... but nothing from the  much-larger/prominent FoxNews. 

I'll likely respond in a separate section when I have more time.

I have always been upfront about the creation process for the article, and have explained how and why I chose the 42 (originally many more) RS used.

The references exist to <u>document the existence and wording of the allegations. Period.</u> They are not chosen for their POV on the subject. Some were originally chosen because they "also" had interesting commentary, but those comments are now moved to the main article. Any RS can be used to document the "existence" of an allegation, and since some of these allegations are serious (one is "salacious"), BLP's "[[WP:PUBLICFIGURE]]" applies, so they must be documented by multiple RS. {{Done}}

If I had chosen to only use the dossier itself, IOW to perform OR, I could have listed far more allegations, but I followed our policies and only listed those allegations which had received attention in multiple RS. That's what we are supposed to do.

Since the objection mentions FoxNews as a source, I could also do that. Although their strong GOP bias renders them mostly unusable for ''accuracy'' (too much spin and outright proven lies) on the subject of the dossier (for commentary they might still have their place, since bias is not ''alone'' a reason to exclude a source), they might still be usable for documenting the existence of some allegations. I'm sure they have done that, but not nearly as much as most other sources, because that would be against their mission, which is to deny and deflect. They don't want their viewers to know that some of the allegations exist. Anything negative about the GOP or Trump is generally buried or ignored.

Since the objector thinks the lack of FoxNews refs is a problem, I'll start searching for them. Then I may respond on the talk page. Help in finding those FoxNews sources would be appreciated.

Drive-by criticism, especially non-specific, on talk pages, RfCs, and AfDs is unhelpful. People who just criticize, without constructively contributing on talk pages and actually trying to improve articles, are a dime-a-dozen here, and they are [[WP:TEND|disruptive editors]]. For the purposes of ''that'' article they are [[WP:NOTHERE]], and sometimes topic bans should be used to stop their drive-by disruptions. If they don't have something constructive to say or do, then they should stay away. Disagreement can be constructive, but it's often too general to be anything other than irritating [[bitching]]. [[Constructive criticism]] is different and welcome. -- [[User:BullRangifer|BullRangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) 16:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
: FoxNews is used four times in the main article, twice for commentary. None of them document allegations:<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/17/putin-those-who-leaked-trump-dossier-worse-than-prostitutes.html |title=Putin: Those who leaked Trump dossier 'worse than prostitutes' |date=January 17, 2017 |website=[[Fox News]] |access-date=January 17, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/01/16/garbage-document-woodward-says-trump-owed-apology-over-unverified-russia-dossier |title='Garbage Document': Woodward Says US Intel Should Apologize Over Trump Dossier |date=January 16, 2017 |website=[[Fox News]]}} (Open the "Read full article" link)</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01/18/house-panel-releases-glenn-simpson-testimony-transcript.html|title=House panel releases Glenn Simpson testimony transcript|date=18 January 2018|publisher=Fox News}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01/18/house-intelligence-committee-votes-to-release-transcript-interview-with-fusion-gps-boss.html|title=House Intelligence Committee votes to release transcript of interview with Fusion GPS boss|last=Singman|first=Brooke|date=2018-01-18|work=Fox News|access-date=2018-01-19|language=en-US}}</ref>
: [[User:BullRangifer|BullRangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) 16:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
{{Reflist-talk}}
{{hab}}

=== [[User:BullRangifer/Reliable sources stash|Reliable sources stash]] ===

=== Interesting comments ===

{{hat|Interesting comments}}
; Some interesting, and also misleading, comments (my '''emphasis''')....

; From [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump&oldid=826801794 this version of the page]:

{{quotebox|
Adding - take a look at [[Trump–Russia_dossier#Reactions to specific allegations]] - more proof that '''as long as the primary was published by secondary sources, we can use a summary of key points RS used.''' The dossier probably includes blatant SYNTH to gather the commentary...I haven't checked it. No deadline. Ironic how the article is about '''Trump's views''' but we can't use his views? Ha! 

Atsme 22:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)}}


; From this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JFG&diff=prev&oldid=826583904 interesting and correct] comment on JFG's page:
{{quotebox|
If you're concerned about OR... 

...there is an [[List_of_Trump–Russia_dossier_allegations|entire article]] that was built on the same premise for what some are now claiming is OR regarding [[Racial views of Donald Trump|your proposal]]. '''Selecting a relevant quote that was published in a secondary source is indeed acceptable and compliant with our PAGs.''' WP:OR clearly states: {{xt|sources can contain both primary and secondary source material for the same statement.}} '''It is not OR, it is NPOV as it will be in-text attribution...and it was published in a secondary source. There is absolutely no valid reason it can't be used...'''

Atsme 23:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)}}


; From [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump&oldid=826801794 this version of the page]:
{{quotebox|
MrX, this entire article is cherrypicked to fit a particular POV which is why so many editors have challenged it. To now say inclusion of Trump's own views on racism is not allowed because it is "cherrypicked" is a bit of a stretch. '''A statement that is used for its '''relevancy''' is not cherrypicked.'''  There is no PAG that supports what you're saying. That's what we do - we use editorial judgment to determine what is relevant/encyclopedic for inclusion in an article and for you to say a relevant statement in a US president's inaugural speech is cherrypicking is well...absurd. 

Atsme 23:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)}}


; From [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump&oldid=826801794 this version of the page].

This is simply false, and it's even worse because this has been debunked repeatedly and the creation process and reasoning explained in detail. The irony is that above she describes and approves of the very process used.

There is no evidence of any SYNTH violation or that there were any "cherrypicked allegations that fit a particular POV narrative". SMH. The allegations are what they are, and the only ones used were those which were commented on in RS, never any OR or POV choosing. The RS dictated which ones to pick. Their POV is what it is. I have no choice or influence on that.    
{{quotebox|
Sorry - the dissecting was done by [http://www.euronews.com/2017/01/20/key-quotes-from-donald-trump-s-inauguration-speech EuroNews] which published "Key quotes from Donald Trump's inauguration speech" and did some extraction from Donald Trump’s first speech as US president. We certainly can use parts of what they published as a secondary source that fits into the context of this narrative. You might want to take a look at [[List of Trump–Russia dossier allegations]] and [[Trump–Russia_dossier#Allegations]], which was published in its entirety in an unreliable source (BuzzFeed), and then '''with the use of SYNTH''' a separate list and a section in the main article were created using '''cherrypicked allegations that fit a particular POV narrative.''' What was proposed here is not SYNTH, it is editorial judgment that cites a RS and a '''relevant''' statement in the speech demonstrating Trump's views on race...and you are now trying to convince editors that doing so is noncompliant with policy? I suggest you cite the policy that supports your position because I say it does not. Trump's views belong in an article about Trump's views. 

Atsme 00:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)}} 

{{hab}}

=== A coordinated effort ... ===
{{hat|A coordinated effort to discredit or halt the investigation}}
Saving here:

In response to a discussion about the [[Special Counsel investigation (2017–present)]], specifically about what became this heading ([[Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017%E2%80%93present)#Attempts_to_discredit_or_halt_the_investigation|Attempts to discredit or halt the investigation]]), Legacypac wrote: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017%E2%80%93present)&diff=prev&oldid=827448758  "It's all a coordinated effort."]

How true, and much more than we at first realized. This "coordinated effort" goes way back, with witting and unwitting players working together.

The [[Trump–Russia dossier]] ties this continuing and coordinated effort back to cooperation established at least eight years before Trump's election, and [[List of Trump–Russia dossier allegations|then alleges]] the current existence of an "established operational liaison between the TRUMP team and the Kremlin." It furthermore alleges that there was a "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership" to defeat "Democratic presidential candidate Hillary CLINTON", and that there was a "Kremlin campaign to aid TRUMP and damage CLINTON".

The proof of that collaboration is abundant. Nearly every member of the Trump administration was in repeated contacts with Russians, and repeatedly lied about it. Not only that, they were caught in electronic surveillance talking about it.

The micro-targeted election campaign involved a very closely coordinated teamwork involving Jared Kushner, Cambridge Analytica, Facebook's and Twitter's marketing departments, Russian hackers, and WikiLeaks (IOW Russian intelligence), all exploiting a well-developed GOP voter suppression machine which had a track record for successfully guaranteeing Republican victories, even when there were Democratic majorities. The system was nearly foolproof. Respect for democracy was totally gone. The successful election is the fruition of their efforts, and proof of the danger this cooperation poses to democracy and American freedoms. Fortunately they got busted. Now that corrupt system needs to be broken down.

[[Paul Wood (journalist)|Paul Wood]], a subject expert, has plainly described this coordinated effort:
{{quote |
"This is a three-headed operation,” said one former official, setting out the case, based on the intelligence: First, hackers steal damaging emails from senior Democrats. Secondly, the stories based on this hacked information appear on Twitter and Facebook, posted by thousands of automated “bots”, then on Russia’s English-language outlets, RT and Sputnik, then right-wing US “news” sites such as Infowars and Breitbart, then Fox and the mainstream media. Thirdly, Russia downloads the online voter rolls.

The voter rolls are said to fit into this because of “microtargeting”. Using email, Facebook and Twitter, political advertising can be tailored very precisely: individual messaging for individual voters.

“You are stealing the stuff and pushing it back into the US body politic,” said the former official, “you know where to target that stuff when you’re pushing it back.”

This would take co-operation with the Trump campaign, it is claimed.[http://www.newsweek.com/did-russians-target-dem-voters-kushners-help-613612]}}

The Putin/Trump/GOP/FoxNews/Breitbart/InfoWars/RT/Sputnik coordination/conduit is very active. Note how the ends meet, and how the fake news was directed at InfoWars and Breitbart, and then trickled up, but very little being spread by MSM. Serious news outlets usually reject fake news, but the fringe right-wing (and to a lesser degree the fringe left-wing) has been very open to spreading it.

Starting at the extreme fringes, conspiracy theory websites love this stuff. They have no crap filters and believe anything fed to them by Russians, as long as it supports their pro-Trump, anti-Clinton, agenda. [[InfoWars]], [[WorldNetDaily|WND]] ([[birther]] central), [[The Gateway Pundit]], and [[Zero Hedge]] are unreliable sources which fall in this class.

Moving a tiny bit closer to center, [[Breitbart News]], with its support of [[James O'Keefe]], has actively supported and spread deceptively edited videos which are very misleading, and they have been busted and debunked.

Trump is friends with Breitbart's [[Steve Bannon]], InfoWars's [[Alex Jones]], and Fox News's [[Roger Ailes]], and he believes their propaganda. He has no crap filters, and yet he's president. The Russian government has a clear line/conduit of misinformation feeding directly to the president, and it informs his tweets and policies.

The top GOP leadership are all corrupted and compromised, because they KNEW (especially the [[Gang of Eight (intelligence)|Gang of Eight]] members) that Russia was interfering in the election and helping the Trump team, but McConnell and Ryan ordered them all to stay quiet, in spite of the active threat. For them, it was more important to get Trump elected than to protect America. They also accepted illegal Russian money for their campaigns, so they are compromised in that way too.

Note that some players may be somewhat unwitting, in that they think they are patriots "fighting the good fight" to protect America from an evil (non-existent) "deep state", not realizing they are parroting Putin and serving nefarious Russian interests.

This latest phase of collaboration started with the successful attempt, using Russian help, to get Trump elected. According to what Russians have publicly stated, he started to (secretly) plan the election with Russians back in 2013, and they have bragged, on TV, about helping him and about how the Russians elected the American president. In that process a lot MORE kompromat was created, because collusion/conspiracy/secrecy always creates kompromat. It's being used to pressure Trump, IOW a successfully activated blackmail threat, but he willingly plays along because he has no loyalties but to himself. He wanted to win, and wanted this help. With or without kompromat he would have done it.

Now that the plot is being uncovered and investigated, the operation has shifted into a defensive obstruction and cover-up effort. They are now fighting for survival and to stay out of jail, and some are already confessing and cutting plea deals. Exciting times! 

So is the new heading ("Attempts to discredit or halt the investigation") accurate? Yes, but still pretty mild. With time we will be able to write "Attempts to obstruct justice" and an article entitled "[[Trump-Russia cover-up operation]]".
{{hab}}

=== Trump a "useful fool" - General Michael Hayden ===
{{hat|Trump a "useful fool" - General Michael Hayden}}
{{main|Useful idiot}}

* [[Michael Morell]], former acting [[CIA]] director, says that "Putin has cleverly recruited Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation".

* [[Michael Hayden (general)|Michael Hayden]], former [[Director of National Intelligence |director]] of both the US [[National Security Agency]] and the [[CIA]], says Trump is a "useful fool...manipulated by Moscow". 
{{quotebox|
We have really never seen anything like this. Former acting CIA director [[Michael Morell]] says that Putin has cleverly recruited Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation. I'd prefer another term drawn from the arcana of the Soviet era: polezni durak. That's the useful fool, some naif, manipulated by Moscow, secretly held in contempt, but whose blind support is happily accepted and exploited. That's a pretty harsh term, and Trump supporters will no doubt be offended. But, frankly, it's the most benign interpretation of all this that I can come up with right now. -- [[Michael Hayden (general)|General Michael Hayden]]<ref name="Hayden_11/3/2016">{{Cite news | first=Michael | last=Hayden | title = Former CIA chief: Trump is Russia's useful fool | url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/former-cia-chief-trump-is-russias-useful-fool/2016/11/03/cda42ffe-a1d5-11e6-8d63-3e0a660f1f04_story.html | work = [[The Washington Post]] | date = November 3, 2016 | accessdate = July 19, 2017}}</ref> }}

This quote is especially interesting because it's [[Michael Hayden (general)|Michael Hayden]] who quotes [[Michael Morell]] and then offers his own preference.

Both top intelligence men share secret knowledge about Trump's relationship to Russia. Hayden considers the descriptions rather "harsh", but also "benign" under the circumstances. They know far more than we do and that the reality about Trump is much worse than their descriptions. It's not often one finds such a unique example of contemporary usage of the term "useful fool".

If one tried to create an anonymized example of a classic use of the term for use in the [[Useful idiot]] article, one could not create a better example than this one. It uses the concept in two different ways; it's coming from two top intelligence officials; and it's about the most notable example in modern times. No wise or informed world leader would allow themselves to get into this situation, but it's happening right now.

This is both quotes from their original sources:
* [[Michael Morell]], former acting [[CIA]] director, wrote: "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."<ref name="Morell_8/12/2016">{{cite web | last=Morell | first=Michael J. | title=Opinion - I Ran the C.I.A. Now I’m Endorsing Hillary Clinton. | website=The New York Times | date=August 12, 2016 | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/opinion/campaign-stops/i-ran-the-cia-now-im-endorsing-hillary-clinton.html | access-date=March 4, 2018}}</ref> [[Michael Hayden (general)|Michael Hayden]], former [[Director of National Intelligence |director]] of both the US [[National Security Agency]] and the [[CIA]], described Trump as a "useful fool, some naif, manipulated by Moscow, secretly held in contempt, but whose blind support is happily accepted and exploited."<ref name="Hayden_11/3/2016">{{Cite news | first=Michael | last=Hayden | title = Former CIA chief: Trump is Russia's useful fool | url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/former-cia-chief-trump-is-russias-useful-fool/2016/11/03/cda42ffe-a1d5-11e6-8d63-3e0a660f1f04_story.html | work = [[The Washington Post]] | date = November 3, 2016 | accessdate = July 19, 2017}}</ref>

{{reflist_talk}}
[[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]], I thought you'd appreciate this. Those men know what they're talking about. -- [[User:BullRangifer|BullRangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) <u><small>'''''PingMe'''''</small></u> 21:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
{{hab}}

=== [[List of Trump–Russia dossier allegations]] ===
{{hat|List successfully merged}}
OK, a few thoughts on the article. You have done a really good job; the introductory paragraphs in particular are well done. The only suggestion I would make in the section headings is to eliminate the separate section “Activated blackmail threat against Trump” and combine it into the preceding section “Kompromat on Trump”.  --[[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 01:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
: Okay, I can do that. I kept it separate because it's so significantly different than just "blackmailable" actions. It's a clear statement that the threat has been activated, but, on condition of continued cooperation, it's being held back. That's classic active blackmail. There is nothing passive about it. The axe is literally being held over his head....allegedly.... -- [[User:BullRangifer|BullRangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) <u><small>'''''PingMe'''''</small></u> 03:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
:: {{Done}} [[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]], I also chose to combine two overlapping allegations which were intimately connected, and I added more RS coverage. RS have mentioned these two allegations together, so I have done the same. RS quote both of them and both mention blackmail, so I have literally taken the quotes and used them exactly as used by RS, and as found in the dossier. -- [[User:BullRangifer|BullRangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) <u><small>'''''PingMe'''''</small></u> 05:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

So where do we stand on the discussion about merging it into the dossier article vs. keeping it separate? That discussion has pretty much died down; it was started 12 days ago and the last comment was four days ago. It is strongly leaning toward merge - most people seemed to think it would be more useful in the main article than in a separate article - but it is not in “snow” territory. I guess it doesn’t hurt anything to wait for more possible input. I’m not going to close it since I participated in the survey. And of course you shouldn’t either. --[[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 01:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
: It's actually 16 days ago, and the situation is stale. A snow close isn't necessary, but the consensus is pretty clear. It was also announced on the main article talk page, so I doubt we'll see any significant change. '''Take a look [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Talk:List_of_Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier_allegations#Proposed_Merge here].''' -- [[User:BullRangifer|BullRangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) <u><small>'''''PingMe'''''</small></u> 03:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
::If you need any help, BR, let me know.[[File:SMirC-smile.svg|x20px|:-)]]. Thank you for your hard work, dedication and for being a good collaborator! <sup>[[User:Atsme|<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme</span>]][[User talk:Atsme |📞]][[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]]</sup> 15:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
::: My pleasure. -- [[User:BullRangifer|BullRangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) <u><small>'''''PingMe'''''</small></u> 15:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
{{hab}}

== AR-15 article ==

Please note you are at 4 reverts.  Please self revert the last set of changes since we don't have consensus on the talk page. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 03:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
: Consecutive edits without any intervening edits count as one, so I'm at two. Besides, the latest is based on talk discussion, so I figured it was rock solid, and backed up by an even more rock solid source. Reverting that would be foolish. -- [[User:BullRangifer|BullRangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) <u><small>'''''PingMe'''''</small></u> 04:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
:: For what it's worth I count at least 4 non-consecutive edits in 24 hours.  I'm not going to take this to 3RR but you aren't at 2 reverts, you may be at 5 in the last 24 hours.  [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 04:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
::: Several of those edits were purely constructive and non-controversial. They weren't reverts. I did follow your suggestion and have now moved it to later in the lead. It does fit well there. Your comments did result in a better situation. {{;)}} -- [[User:BullRangifer|BullRangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) <u><small>'''''PingMe'''''</small></u>

== Gun control discretionary sanctions ==

{{Ivm|2=''This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia.  It does '''not''' imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.''

'''Please carefully read this information:'''

The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]] has authorised [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions|discretionary sanctions]] to be used for pages regarding governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control|here]].

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics.  This means [[Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins|uninvolved]] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|purpose of Wikipedia]], our [[:Category:Wikipedia conduct policies|standards of behavior]], or relevant [[Wikipedia:List of policies|policies]]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as [[Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Types of restrictions|editing restrictions]], [[Wikipedia:Banning policy#Types of bans|bans]], or [[WP:Blocking policy|blocks]]. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact the [[WP:HD|Help desk]] if you have any questions. - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">''[[User:Thewolfchild|<sup>the</sup>'''<big><em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF</em></big>'''<small>child</small>]]''</span> 07:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
}}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert -->