User talk:Valjean

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
Compare Wikipedias How to find word count

This page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Ashe Schow (November 25, 2015). "Wikipedia founder advocates for updating policies following 'The Hunting Ground' controversy". Washington Examiner. Retrieved February 8, 2020. Another editor, whose username is BullRangifer, suggested Wikipedia not become "a kangaroo court or lynching" by rushing to ban accounts who break COI. BullRangifer suggested following seven steps to determine whether "The Hunting Ground" crew member should be banned and whether his edits should be removed. Some of the steps included how he handled questions related to his edits and whether he stuck to discussion pages to ask for edits rather than making them himself.
Marcus Gilmer (October 3, 2018). "Wikipedia demotes Breitbart to fake news". Mashable. Retrieved October 5, 2018. Support. If anything, it's even more unreliable than the Daily Mail, as they at least use trained journalists, whereas Breitbart is a fringe propaganda organization which lets its extreme partisan bias get in the way of how it reports things, and whether it does so, just as Fox News does. It too should be deprecated, but let's start with Breitbart (and InfoWars). — BullRangifer 17:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Alexander Hall (August 13, 2020). "Report: Wikipedia Editors Censoring Evidence Supporting Michael Flynn". NewsBusters. Retrieved August 15, 2020. Liberal user Valjean responded by condemning this revelation as 'conspiracy theories' and 'part of a cover-up,' even 'when it comes from the now-sitting government of the USA.' Valjean specified that 'Nothing coming from Trump's Justice Department, FBI, CIA, anything, can be trusted.' Breitbart alleged that Valjean, formerly under the name 'BullRangifer' has been 'previously involved in slanting articles about the Russia investigation.'
Raymond Sturman (October 23, 2024). "Top 5 Editing Conflicts in Wikipedia Pages on Religion". World Religion News. Retrieved October 24, 2024. Located on the Catholic Church Wikipedia talk page, the screenshot below details a recent discussion of the tension between the Roman Catholic Church and other branches of Catholicism. Editor 'Valjean' is protesting that the word 'Roman' has been removed from the title, arguing that there are other branches of Catholicism, while the Roman Catholic Church says it is the real Catholic Church.

Welcome to Valjean's talk page! TB IP

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32

Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias

Disambiguation link notification for March 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mueller report, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Brennan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"The Russia hoax" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect The Russia hoax 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/2025 March 27 § The Russia hoax until a consensus is reached. Gotitbro (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quick follow-up

I took a quick look at those two articles, and your recent edits look good to me overall (I did a bit of editing on one, but only in a way that was consistent with what you'd written). Thanks for your work on this!

I haven't done a truly close read of the Mueller report § False "no collusion" claims section, but my sense is that laying out a few key phases in the timeline would improve the section. I see three main time periods with respect to the "no collusion" claim:

During the investigation: Trump and allies claim that there was "no collusion," setting up the use of that term, some others (like Brennan) push back, but the investigation is still going on, so the MSM largely treat it as opinions on both sides.
Mueller gives the report to Barr (3/22) and Barr releases his letter (3/24), but the report itself still hasn't been released: Barr mischaracterizes the report's findings, Trump continues to claim "no collusion," Trump's allies repeat that, and the MSM trusts Barr's statements and uses the "no collusion" phrase that had already been set up in phase 1 and was now being repeated a lot and seemed fairly consistent with Barr's characterization.
Mueller releases his report (4/18): Trump and allies continue to claim "no collusion," some people do a close read of the report and push back on that mischaracterization, some in the MSM shift their reporting and others don't (perhaps too wedded to the "no collusion" line, perhaps not caring enough to read the report carefully, ...).

Maybe there are some other key time periods, for ex., in connection with Mueller's testimony, but those 3 are the ones that stick out for me re: the "no collusion" claim. I think that this WP section could do a better job helping readers understand that the long period of "no collusion" claims influenced the narrative, especially during the ~3.5-week-long phase 2, when the report was complete, but only Barr knew what it said, and MSM were relying on Barr's characterization. For example, the ABA's webpage saying "Mueller finds no collusion with Russia, leaves obstruction question open" was posted on 3/25, a day after Barr released his letter; they weren't yet in a position to read the report and assess for themselves whether Mueller truly did find "no collusion." FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That matches my understanding too. There was an evolution from speaking without knowing, to speaking after reading Barr's misinformation, and then more informed reporting, but many were careless and assumed that conspiracy=collusion, so why change their reporting. The changes would be good. Go for it! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:44, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to get to it any time soon (there are some other articles I'm trying to improve right now), but I'll try to keep it in mind as something to get back to. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]