This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Dismissal of James Comey article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 7 days |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This reinsertion of challenged content [1] misrepresents the context and meaning of the statements in the cited source and should not have been reinserted in the article. SPECIFICO talk 16:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Comment: Rather than just support-or-remove, can we analyze it a little? We are talking about the first sentence in the "Timing" section, which now reads "Observers were suspicious of the timing of the dismissal, given the ongoing Russia investigation; Democrats had previously been critical of Comey or called for his ouster regarding matters other than the Russia investigation". Newly added material bolded.
First question: is the material supported by the sources? Yes, it is. The ABC News report explicitly supports the connection, contrasting the Democrats' previous opposition to Comey with their negative reaction to his firing. The NPR interview says the Democrats are suspicious of the timing because if Trump had been actually bothered about Comey's handling of the email investigation, he would have done something in January, not May. The Bloomberg article quotes Trump's tweets mocking the Democrats over their previous opposition. All three sources say the Democrats are challenging the firing, and its timing, because they suspect it was really about the Russia investigation. It seems as if this should be in the article someplace.
Second question: is this the best place, or the best way, to bring up the Dems' previous opposition? No, it isn't. It interrupts the train of thought in a sentence about the timing. But a separate sentence might work. How about something like this:Many observers questioned the timing of the dismissal, since if the Clinton email investigation was the real reason for it, Trump could have fired Comey months earlier. (NPR source) Democrats, including many who had previously been critical of Comey or called for his ouster, suspected the real reason for firing Comey at this time was to obstruct the Russia investigation. (ABC News source) (Bloomberg source)
Thoughts? MelanieN ( talk) 19:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
NPR reported that Democrats were questioning the timing of the dismissal, claiming that if the Clinton email investigation were the real reason, Trump would have fired Comey months earlier.[NPR] ABC News and Bloomberg reported statements from Democrats, made at the time of the firing and during the election which were critical of Comey, including calls for his resignation as far back as October of 2016.[ABC][Bloomberg]
"suspected the real reason for firing Comey at this time was to obstruct the Russia investigation"definitely should be in there. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 20:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Many Democrats questioned the timing of the dismissal, claiming that if the Clinton email investigation were the real reason for it, Trump would have fired Comey months earlier.(NPR source) Democrats, including many who had previously been critical of Comey or called for his ouster, suspected the real reason for firing Comey at this time was to obstruct the Russia investigation.(ABC News source)(Bloomberg source)
Let's not jump the gun and add it immediately just because three of us have agreed. There were earlier comments on this thread about the original material, and it would be good to hear from them about this revised version. Pinging @ SPECIFICO, Casprings, MrX, and PackMecEng:. -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
To reply more directly to @ MelanieN:'s proposal: The mainstream view was that the Hillary bit was preposterous so attributing this to Democrats promotes a pro-Administration talking point. We don't have to limit ourselves to the current two sources. The bulk of RS don't say only Democrats hold this view. But I think the whole thing is dicey. It's really important that WP not promote false equivalence between mainstream RS reporting and POV spin. And WP's standard is not the "mainstream" of the editors who show up here, it's the mainstream of the real world. And the real world -- not just some presumably self-interested Dems licking their wounds over losing the White House (POTUS narrative) -- thinks the Clinton excuse is irrelevant and a lie. SPECIFICO talk 21:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
"I object to the proposed sentence. It puts far too much weight on the point of view that Democrats have been hypocritical about the firing, when the much more significant issue is the impropriety of the President firing the person leading the investigation into possible collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia, possibly involving Trump himself."Nothing has changed.- Mr X 12:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
The following is proposed as an addition to the Reactions sub-section. I think there's a pretty broad agreement that the original edit was too POVish, so can we please discuss this version?
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
User:MrX has deleted the fact that Democrats had previously called for Comey's ouster. [2] MrX's edit summary says, "Discussed and rejected before." On the contrary, from 16 May thru 3 September (almost four months), this BLP had included language like "Democrats ... previously called for Comey's resignation or doubted his credibility." Here is the specific language that MrX removed today:
“ | Observers were suspicious of the timing of the dismissal, given the ongoing References
|
” |
I disagree with removing longstanding relevant information without any accurate rationale whatsoever. Please don't hide these references, because they include quotes that clearly support the removed material. Additionally, the fact that various Democrats had previously called for Comey's ouster is not a "reaction" and does not belong in the reactions section. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
This information has been removed, added to, and removed from the Timing section, and we have several different subsections going on here so it's hard to tell who thinks what. Some of us had agreed on a wording to insert into the Reactions section. While we continue to discuss there, let's just see where we stand on inserting MPants's proposed wording into the Reactions section. It's here, two sections above this one, and it mentions Democrats' previous opposition to Comey as kind of in passing or secondary to their suspicions about the timing. -- MelanieN ( talk) 14:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
"Except that citing Comey vs Clinton was one of the more common reactions"That's just not true. Only a minority of sources even mention it, and of the ones that do, most are quoting a third party, like Trump. Maybe you meant that the comparison is one of the more common reactions amongst the cherry picked sources? Yes, that I would agree with.- Mr X 14:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Comment. There does not seem to be consensus here to remove information that was in this BLP for months. But if I were to put it back now, undoubtedly there would be a revert war. So, I may start an RFC. It also seems like a clear violation of WP:Preserve to simply hide from readers that there had been calls for Comey's dismissal even before he was dismissed. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 18:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Should this Wikipedia article say --- either in its background section or in the lead or both --- that during the year prior to the dismissal of FBI Director James Comey various politicians including both Democrats and Republicans (e.g. President-elect Donald Trump and the Democratic leaders in Congress) had publicly questioned whether he should remain in office, instead of this Wikipedia article not mentioning that there had been any such public statements? [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
Sources
|
---|
|
Anythingyouwant ( talk) 02:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)(Signing with four tildes instead of signing with five tildes. Both are specifically allowed by WP:RFC.)
"ongoing."Don't feed the troll—as we can see below, nothing good can come of it. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 22:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Shame on you Anything. A bunch of second-string references from six months previous? Please withdraw this and work on something solid. SPECIFICO talk 02:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
User:Aquillion, regarding your comment, as best I can tell, there is only one other RFC at this page, that RFC at the top of this page has nothing to do with this present RFC, that RFC has not failed, and that RFC does not mention anything about prior public discussion of Comey's dismissal. So I find your !vote rationale perplexing. I also do not understand how the present RFC question could possibly be more specific and understandable, perhaps you could elaborate. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
No offense, but the grammar used in the lede reads like a sloppy news report. I attempted to tweak it - not change the gist of what the RfCs concluded - as a copy editor, I was replacing the 5th grade grammar with proper grammar. VM immediately reverted it. Use inline text attribution if controversial or questioned. Per NPOV: (my underline)
Proposed text | Current text |
---|---|
James Comey, the 7th director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), was terminated and removed from office by U.S. President Donald Trump on May 9, 2017.[1] Comey had been under public and political pressure as a result of both the FBI's role in the Hillary Clinton email controversy and the FBI's investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections,[2] which also involves a possible collusion with the 2016 Donald Trump campaign.[3] | James Comey, the 7th director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), was dismissed by U.S. President Donald Trump on May 9, 2017. [1] Comey had been under public and political pressure as a result of both the FBI's role in the Hillary Clinton email controversy and the FBI's investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections, [2] which also involves a possible collusion with the 2016 Donald Trump campaign. [3] |
Trump's termination letter to Comey cited recommendations from Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.[4][5] He gave various explanations for the termination and contradicted the impression that Sessions and Rosenstein had influenced his decision.[6][7] Trump publicly stated that he had already decided to fire Comey.[8] It was later revealed that he had already drafted the termination letter,[9] and solicited the Rosenstein memo the day before citing it.[10] He also stated that dismissing Comey would relieve the unnecessary pressure that the "grandstanding and politicizing" had on the investigation and the ability to engage and negotiate with Russia.[11][12] He called the investigation a "witch hunt".[13] Trump was |
Trump dismissed Comey by way of a termination letter citing recommendations from Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. [4] [5] He then gave various explanations for the dismissal, in which he contradicted the impression that Sessions and Rosenstein had influenced his decision. [6] [7] Trump publicly stated that he had already decided to fire Comey; [8] it later emerged that he had written his own early draft of the termination letter, [9] and had solicited the Rosenstein memo the day before citing it. [10] He also stated that dismissing Comey would relieve unnecessary pressure on the ability to engage and negotiate with Russia, due to "grandstanding and politicizing" the investigation. [11] [12] He called the investigation a "witch hunt". [13] Trump was reportedly "enormously frustrated" that Comey would not publicly confirm that the president was not personally under investigation. [14] |
Shortly after his termination, Comey asked a friend to leak to the press excerpts of a memo he had written while FBI Director, recounting a private conversation with Trump in February 2017. [15] According to Comey, Trump had asked him "drop the investigation" and that he hoped Comey would see his way clear to "letting this go". National Security Advisor Michael Flynn whom Trump had fired the day before. [16] [17] In light of the dismissal, the memo, and Comey's testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee in June 2017, several media figures, political opponents and legal scholars said that Trump's acts could be construed as obstruction of justice, while others disagreed. [18] [19] [20] [21] add part I accidentally missed05:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC) | Shortly after his termination, Comey asked a friend to leak excerpts to the press of a memo he had written while FBI Director, recounting a private conversation with Trump in February 2017. [15] According to Comey, Trump had asked him to "let go" of potential charges against former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn whom Trump had fired the day before. [16] [17] In light of the dismissal, the memo, and Comey's testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee in June 2017, several media figures, political opponents and legal scholars said that Trump's acts could be construed as obstruction of justice, while others disagreed. [22] [23] [24] [25] |
Unchanged | Following Comey's dismissal, Rosenstein appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel to lead the investigation into Russian meddling and related issues that Comey had supervised during his tenure. [26] |
References
Helsel
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Haberman
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Reasons
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).The president then contradicted his staff's earlier comments. In a preview video clip of his interview with NBC News, Trump said he planned to fire Comey all along, regardless of Department of Justice recommendations.
Liptak
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).draft
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Rucker
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).NYT170519
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Barrett-Rucker
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Trump appeared to be referring to his statements over the months, which Comey confirmed in his testimony, that the then-FBI director had told the president that he was not under investigation. Trump, according to his advisers, had become enormously frustrated that Comey would not say so publicly.
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work=
(
help)
Hill-Williams
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Smith
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Schmidt
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Comey added fuel on Thursday to critics' accusations that the U.S. president engaged in obstruction of justice. ... Several legal experts said the conversation could be construed as an act of obstruction. ... Some legal experts said the president could say he was merely vouching for Flynn's character and voicing concerns about how the Russia probe was interfering with his ability to function in office.
Comey added fuel on Thursday to critics' accusations that the U.S. president engaged in obstruction of justice. ... Several legal experts said the conversation could be construed as an act of obstruction. ... Some legal experts said the president could say he was merely vouching for Flynn's character and voicing concerns about how the Russia probe was interfering with his ability to function in office.
Levine
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).All, or at least the first two, of these have been extensively discussed before. Yours are not grammar changes. They are non-neutral. Please familiarize yourself with past discussions before attempting to make unilateral controversial changes. Volunteer Marek 14:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
You also need to self-revert your 1RR violation. Volunteer Marek 14:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
And sign your comment, whether it's a table or not, in a clear manner. Volunteer Marek 15:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
You are incorrect, VM, and obviously don't understand what a "revert" constitutes, so please read the essay,
WP:RV which defines it quite well:
I made ONE REVERT here. My edits involved copy-editing, tweaking grammar, and using in-text attribution to more closely align with the facts and cited sources. You're making a mountain out of a mole hill, and I'm growing more concerned over your paranoia that every other editor but you is trying to make controversial changes. The only controversy here is what you are creating. You really need to settle down, VM. Atsme 📞 📧 18:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
"According to Comey, Trump had asked him to 'let go' of potential charges against former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn whom Trump had fired the day before"to
"According to Comey, Trump had asked him 'drop the investigation' and that he hoped Comey would see his way clear to 'letting this go'. National Security Advisor Michael Flynn whom Trump had fired the day before."Contrary to her assertions that she was merely
"replacing the 5th grade grammar with proper grammar,"Atsme's edit is both utterly incoherent and clearly beyond the scope of simple copyediting. Furthermore, Atsme misquotes Trump as telling Comey to
"drop the investigation"; Trump actually said
"I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go."TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 04:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I've started to insert the inline tag {{Primary source inline|date=October 2017}}. If we describe opinion pieces, our sources should not include merely a link to the opinion piece, but also a secondary source recognizing or reporting that opinion. Per WP:OR, "Further examples of primary sources include...editorials, columns, blogs, opinion pieces...." Anythingyouwant ( talk) 18:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
User:BullRangifer, an expert opinion written about by the person who holds the opinion is a primary source about what that person’s opinion is. Here’s the full pertinent part of WP:OR:
Further examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, investigative reports, trial/litigation in any country (including material — which relates to either the trial or to any of the parties involved in the trial — published/authored by any involved party, before, during or after the trial), editorials, columns, blogs, opinion pieces, or (depending on context) interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; original philosophical works; religious scripture; ancient works, even if they cite earlier writings (lost or otherwise); tomb plaques; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos and television programs. For definitions of primary sources:
- The University of Nevada, Reno Libraries define primary sources as providing "an inside view of a particular event". They offer as examples: original documents, such as autobiographies, diaries, e-mail, interviews, letters, minutes, news film footage, official records, photographs, raw research data, and speeches; creative works, such as art, drama, films, music, novels, poetry; and relics or artifacts, such as buildings, clothing, DNA, furniture, jewelry, pottery.
- The University of California, Berkeley library offers this definition: "Primary sources were either created during the time period being studied or were created at a later date by a participant in the events being studied (as in the case of memoirs). They reflect the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer. Primary sources enable the researcher to get as close as possible to what actually happened during an historical event or time period".
- Duke University, Libraries offers this definition: "A primary source is a first-hand account of an event. Primary sources may include newspaper articles, letters, diaries, interviews, laws, reports of government commissions, and many other types of documents."
Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
PLEASE SEE NOTICEBOARDS DISCUSSION: Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Are_opinion_pieces_and_editorials_published_in_newspapers_primary_sources.3F. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 04:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This section seems very cluttered and not easily read. I would like to take a stab at condensing it down to make it more digestible, especially with the recent development ( https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-department-watchdog-probes-comey-memos-over-classified-information-1524243505) that the OIG is now investigating the potential criminal implications of Comey's leaking of classified information to the fourth estate. Does anyone have any suggestions or care to assist with this? Mr. Daniel Plainview ( talk) 18:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
The Washington Post has a pretty good run-down about what we currently know about the classification of the Comey memos. Falling Gravity 17:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
The quote the article: "Horowitz found that the FBI had a legal “authorized purpose” to ask for court approval to begin surveillance of Carter Page, a former Trump campaign adviser. But he also found a total of 17 “basic and fundamental” errors and omissions in its applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) that made the case appear stronger than it was. For example, the FBI continued to rely on information assembled by a former British intelligence officer named Christopher Steele in its warrant applications even after one of Steele’s sources told the agency that his statements had been mischaracterized or exaggerated"
References
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:447:4100:c120:fd8c:fc49:31d9:a181 ( talk) 00:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
"Mr. Horowitz stated." "There was No evidence of political bias during the investigation." The above statement is incorrect as input here...In that, Mr. Horowitz actually stated during the IG Report Hearing Part 9... "There was No evidence of political bias when the FISA warrant was first applied for." (Close Quote) "First Applied For!" As testified at the senate hearing on December 11, 2019 to Chairman, Lindsey Graham. Mr Horowitz also stated, "They gave inaccurate information." M. Graham also asked Mr. Horowitz, "At what point can a surveillance started lawfully become illegal?" "It can become unauthorized, inappropriate, illegal... Depending on information submitted." Senator Graham then asked, "Would you apply all of those terms to what happened in this case?" Mr. Horowitz asided (rightfully) To Rule Of Law. To that Senator Graham stated... "It might have started lawfully but quickly got off the rails and became a criminal conspiracy, to continue surveillance on Mr. Trump after he became President." --- In that the Steele Dossier was purchased and paid for by the DNC and anonymous Clinton sources... I am inclined to agree with Senator Graham's inclusion. HBV— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1005:b062:35c4:75f4:d866:b8cc:3f9f ( talk) 02:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Dismissal of James Comey article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 7 days |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This reinsertion of challenged content [1] misrepresents the context and meaning of the statements in the cited source and should not have been reinserted in the article. SPECIFICO talk 16:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Comment: Rather than just support-or-remove, can we analyze it a little? We are talking about the first sentence in the "Timing" section, which now reads "Observers were suspicious of the timing of the dismissal, given the ongoing Russia investigation; Democrats had previously been critical of Comey or called for his ouster regarding matters other than the Russia investigation". Newly added material bolded.
First question: is the material supported by the sources? Yes, it is. The ABC News report explicitly supports the connection, contrasting the Democrats' previous opposition to Comey with their negative reaction to his firing. The NPR interview says the Democrats are suspicious of the timing because if Trump had been actually bothered about Comey's handling of the email investigation, he would have done something in January, not May. The Bloomberg article quotes Trump's tweets mocking the Democrats over their previous opposition. All three sources say the Democrats are challenging the firing, and its timing, because they suspect it was really about the Russia investigation. It seems as if this should be in the article someplace.
Second question: is this the best place, or the best way, to bring up the Dems' previous opposition? No, it isn't. It interrupts the train of thought in a sentence about the timing. But a separate sentence might work. How about something like this:Many observers questioned the timing of the dismissal, since if the Clinton email investigation was the real reason for it, Trump could have fired Comey months earlier. (NPR source) Democrats, including many who had previously been critical of Comey or called for his ouster, suspected the real reason for firing Comey at this time was to obstruct the Russia investigation. (ABC News source) (Bloomberg source)
Thoughts? MelanieN ( talk) 19:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
NPR reported that Democrats were questioning the timing of the dismissal, claiming that if the Clinton email investigation were the real reason, Trump would have fired Comey months earlier.[NPR] ABC News and Bloomberg reported statements from Democrats, made at the time of the firing and during the election which were critical of Comey, including calls for his resignation as far back as October of 2016.[ABC][Bloomberg]
"suspected the real reason for firing Comey at this time was to obstruct the Russia investigation"definitely should be in there. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 20:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Many Democrats questioned the timing of the dismissal, claiming that if the Clinton email investigation were the real reason for it, Trump would have fired Comey months earlier.(NPR source) Democrats, including many who had previously been critical of Comey or called for his ouster, suspected the real reason for firing Comey at this time was to obstruct the Russia investigation.(ABC News source)(Bloomberg source)
Let's not jump the gun and add it immediately just because three of us have agreed. There were earlier comments on this thread about the original material, and it would be good to hear from them about this revised version. Pinging @ SPECIFICO, Casprings, MrX, and PackMecEng:. -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
To reply more directly to @ MelanieN:'s proposal: The mainstream view was that the Hillary bit was preposterous so attributing this to Democrats promotes a pro-Administration talking point. We don't have to limit ourselves to the current two sources. The bulk of RS don't say only Democrats hold this view. But I think the whole thing is dicey. It's really important that WP not promote false equivalence between mainstream RS reporting and POV spin. And WP's standard is not the "mainstream" of the editors who show up here, it's the mainstream of the real world. And the real world -- not just some presumably self-interested Dems licking their wounds over losing the White House (POTUS narrative) -- thinks the Clinton excuse is irrelevant and a lie. SPECIFICO talk 21:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
"I object to the proposed sentence. It puts far too much weight on the point of view that Democrats have been hypocritical about the firing, when the much more significant issue is the impropriety of the President firing the person leading the investigation into possible collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia, possibly involving Trump himself."Nothing has changed.- Mr X 12:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
The following is proposed as an addition to the Reactions sub-section. I think there's a pretty broad agreement that the original edit was too POVish, so can we please discuss this version?
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
User:MrX has deleted the fact that Democrats had previously called for Comey's ouster. [2] MrX's edit summary says, "Discussed and rejected before." On the contrary, from 16 May thru 3 September (almost four months), this BLP had included language like "Democrats ... previously called for Comey's resignation or doubted his credibility." Here is the specific language that MrX removed today:
“ | Observers were suspicious of the timing of the dismissal, given the ongoing References
|
” |
I disagree with removing longstanding relevant information without any accurate rationale whatsoever. Please don't hide these references, because they include quotes that clearly support the removed material. Additionally, the fact that various Democrats had previously called for Comey's ouster is not a "reaction" and does not belong in the reactions section. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
This information has been removed, added to, and removed from the Timing section, and we have several different subsections going on here so it's hard to tell who thinks what. Some of us had agreed on a wording to insert into the Reactions section. While we continue to discuss there, let's just see where we stand on inserting MPants's proposed wording into the Reactions section. It's here, two sections above this one, and it mentions Democrats' previous opposition to Comey as kind of in passing or secondary to their suspicions about the timing. -- MelanieN ( talk) 14:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
"Except that citing Comey vs Clinton was one of the more common reactions"That's just not true. Only a minority of sources even mention it, and of the ones that do, most are quoting a third party, like Trump. Maybe you meant that the comparison is one of the more common reactions amongst the cherry picked sources? Yes, that I would agree with.- Mr X 14:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Comment. There does not seem to be consensus here to remove information that was in this BLP for months. But if I were to put it back now, undoubtedly there would be a revert war. So, I may start an RFC. It also seems like a clear violation of WP:Preserve to simply hide from readers that there had been calls for Comey's dismissal even before he was dismissed. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 18:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Should this Wikipedia article say --- either in its background section or in the lead or both --- that during the year prior to the dismissal of FBI Director James Comey various politicians including both Democrats and Republicans (e.g. President-elect Donald Trump and the Democratic leaders in Congress) had publicly questioned whether he should remain in office, instead of this Wikipedia article not mentioning that there had been any such public statements? [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
Sources
|
---|
|
Anythingyouwant ( talk) 02:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)(Signing with four tildes instead of signing with five tildes. Both are specifically allowed by WP:RFC.)
"ongoing."Don't feed the troll—as we can see below, nothing good can come of it. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 22:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Shame on you Anything. A bunch of second-string references from six months previous? Please withdraw this and work on something solid. SPECIFICO talk 02:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
User:Aquillion, regarding your comment, as best I can tell, there is only one other RFC at this page, that RFC at the top of this page has nothing to do with this present RFC, that RFC has not failed, and that RFC does not mention anything about prior public discussion of Comey's dismissal. So I find your !vote rationale perplexing. I also do not understand how the present RFC question could possibly be more specific and understandable, perhaps you could elaborate. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
No offense, but the grammar used in the lede reads like a sloppy news report. I attempted to tweak it - not change the gist of what the RfCs concluded - as a copy editor, I was replacing the 5th grade grammar with proper grammar. VM immediately reverted it. Use inline text attribution if controversial or questioned. Per NPOV: (my underline)
Proposed text | Current text |
---|---|
James Comey, the 7th director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), was terminated and removed from office by U.S. President Donald Trump on May 9, 2017.[1] Comey had been under public and political pressure as a result of both the FBI's role in the Hillary Clinton email controversy and the FBI's investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections,[2] which also involves a possible collusion with the 2016 Donald Trump campaign.[3] | James Comey, the 7th director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), was dismissed by U.S. President Donald Trump on May 9, 2017. [1] Comey had been under public and political pressure as a result of both the FBI's role in the Hillary Clinton email controversy and the FBI's investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections, [2] which also involves a possible collusion with the 2016 Donald Trump campaign. [3] |
Trump's termination letter to Comey cited recommendations from Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.[4][5] He gave various explanations for the termination and contradicted the impression that Sessions and Rosenstein had influenced his decision.[6][7] Trump publicly stated that he had already decided to fire Comey.[8] It was later revealed that he had already drafted the termination letter,[9] and solicited the Rosenstein memo the day before citing it.[10] He also stated that dismissing Comey would relieve the unnecessary pressure that the "grandstanding and politicizing" had on the investigation and the ability to engage and negotiate with Russia.[11][12] He called the investigation a "witch hunt".[13] Trump was |
Trump dismissed Comey by way of a termination letter citing recommendations from Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. [4] [5] He then gave various explanations for the dismissal, in which he contradicted the impression that Sessions and Rosenstein had influenced his decision. [6] [7] Trump publicly stated that he had already decided to fire Comey; [8] it later emerged that he had written his own early draft of the termination letter, [9] and had solicited the Rosenstein memo the day before citing it. [10] He also stated that dismissing Comey would relieve unnecessary pressure on the ability to engage and negotiate with Russia, due to "grandstanding and politicizing" the investigation. [11] [12] He called the investigation a "witch hunt". [13] Trump was reportedly "enormously frustrated" that Comey would not publicly confirm that the president was not personally under investigation. [14] |
Shortly after his termination, Comey asked a friend to leak to the press excerpts of a memo he had written while FBI Director, recounting a private conversation with Trump in February 2017. [15] According to Comey, Trump had asked him "drop the investigation" and that he hoped Comey would see his way clear to "letting this go". National Security Advisor Michael Flynn whom Trump had fired the day before. [16] [17] In light of the dismissal, the memo, and Comey's testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee in June 2017, several media figures, political opponents and legal scholars said that Trump's acts could be construed as obstruction of justice, while others disagreed. [18] [19] [20] [21] add part I accidentally missed05:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC) | Shortly after his termination, Comey asked a friend to leak excerpts to the press of a memo he had written while FBI Director, recounting a private conversation with Trump in February 2017. [15] According to Comey, Trump had asked him to "let go" of potential charges against former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn whom Trump had fired the day before. [16] [17] In light of the dismissal, the memo, and Comey's testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee in June 2017, several media figures, political opponents and legal scholars said that Trump's acts could be construed as obstruction of justice, while others disagreed. [22] [23] [24] [25] |
Unchanged | Following Comey's dismissal, Rosenstein appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel to lead the investigation into Russian meddling and related issues that Comey had supervised during his tenure. [26] |
References
Helsel
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Haberman
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Reasons
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).The president then contradicted his staff's earlier comments. In a preview video clip of his interview with NBC News, Trump said he planned to fire Comey all along, regardless of Department of Justice recommendations.
Liptak
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).draft
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Rucker
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).NYT170519
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Barrett-Rucker
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Trump appeared to be referring to his statements over the months, which Comey confirmed in his testimony, that the then-FBI director had told the president that he was not under investigation. Trump, according to his advisers, had become enormously frustrated that Comey would not say so publicly.
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work=
(
help)
Hill-Williams
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Smith
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Schmidt
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Comey added fuel on Thursday to critics' accusations that the U.S. president engaged in obstruction of justice. ... Several legal experts said the conversation could be construed as an act of obstruction. ... Some legal experts said the president could say he was merely vouching for Flynn's character and voicing concerns about how the Russia probe was interfering with his ability to function in office.
Comey added fuel on Thursday to critics' accusations that the U.S. president engaged in obstruction of justice. ... Several legal experts said the conversation could be construed as an act of obstruction. ... Some legal experts said the president could say he was merely vouching for Flynn's character and voicing concerns about how the Russia probe was interfering with his ability to function in office.
Levine
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).All, or at least the first two, of these have been extensively discussed before. Yours are not grammar changes. They are non-neutral. Please familiarize yourself with past discussions before attempting to make unilateral controversial changes. Volunteer Marek 14:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
You also need to self-revert your 1RR violation. Volunteer Marek 14:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
And sign your comment, whether it's a table or not, in a clear manner. Volunteer Marek 15:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
You are incorrect, VM, and obviously don't understand what a "revert" constitutes, so please read the essay,
WP:RV which defines it quite well:
I made ONE REVERT here. My edits involved copy-editing, tweaking grammar, and using in-text attribution to more closely align with the facts and cited sources. You're making a mountain out of a mole hill, and I'm growing more concerned over your paranoia that every other editor but you is trying to make controversial changes. The only controversy here is what you are creating. You really need to settle down, VM. Atsme 📞 📧 18:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
"According to Comey, Trump had asked him to 'let go' of potential charges against former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn whom Trump had fired the day before"to
"According to Comey, Trump had asked him 'drop the investigation' and that he hoped Comey would see his way clear to 'letting this go'. National Security Advisor Michael Flynn whom Trump had fired the day before."Contrary to her assertions that she was merely
"replacing the 5th grade grammar with proper grammar,"Atsme's edit is both utterly incoherent and clearly beyond the scope of simple copyediting. Furthermore, Atsme misquotes Trump as telling Comey to
"drop the investigation"; Trump actually said
"I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go."TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 04:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I've started to insert the inline tag {{Primary source inline|date=October 2017}}. If we describe opinion pieces, our sources should not include merely a link to the opinion piece, but also a secondary source recognizing or reporting that opinion. Per WP:OR, "Further examples of primary sources include...editorials, columns, blogs, opinion pieces...." Anythingyouwant ( talk) 18:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
User:BullRangifer, an expert opinion written about by the person who holds the opinion is a primary source about what that person’s opinion is. Here’s the full pertinent part of WP:OR:
Further examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, investigative reports, trial/litigation in any country (including material — which relates to either the trial or to any of the parties involved in the trial — published/authored by any involved party, before, during or after the trial), editorials, columns, blogs, opinion pieces, or (depending on context) interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; original philosophical works; religious scripture; ancient works, even if they cite earlier writings (lost or otherwise); tomb plaques; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos and television programs. For definitions of primary sources:
- The University of Nevada, Reno Libraries define primary sources as providing "an inside view of a particular event". They offer as examples: original documents, such as autobiographies, diaries, e-mail, interviews, letters, minutes, news film footage, official records, photographs, raw research data, and speeches; creative works, such as art, drama, films, music, novels, poetry; and relics or artifacts, such as buildings, clothing, DNA, furniture, jewelry, pottery.
- The University of California, Berkeley library offers this definition: "Primary sources were either created during the time period being studied or were created at a later date by a participant in the events being studied (as in the case of memoirs). They reflect the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer. Primary sources enable the researcher to get as close as possible to what actually happened during an historical event or time period".
- Duke University, Libraries offers this definition: "A primary source is a first-hand account of an event. Primary sources may include newspaper articles, letters, diaries, interviews, laws, reports of government commissions, and many other types of documents."
Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
PLEASE SEE NOTICEBOARDS DISCUSSION: Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Are_opinion_pieces_and_editorials_published_in_newspapers_primary_sources.3F. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 04:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This section seems very cluttered and not easily read. I would like to take a stab at condensing it down to make it more digestible, especially with the recent development ( https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-department-watchdog-probes-comey-memos-over-classified-information-1524243505) that the OIG is now investigating the potential criminal implications of Comey's leaking of classified information to the fourth estate. Does anyone have any suggestions or care to assist with this? Mr. Daniel Plainview ( talk) 18:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
The Washington Post has a pretty good run-down about what we currently know about the classification of the Comey memos. Falling Gravity 17:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
The quote the article: "Horowitz found that the FBI had a legal “authorized purpose” to ask for court approval to begin surveillance of Carter Page, a former Trump campaign adviser. But he also found a total of 17 “basic and fundamental” errors and omissions in its applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) that made the case appear stronger than it was. For example, the FBI continued to rely on information assembled by a former British intelligence officer named Christopher Steele in its warrant applications even after one of Steele’s sources told the agency that his statements had been mischaracterized or exaggerated"
References
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:447:4100:c120:fd8c:fc49:31d9:a181 ( talk) 00:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
"Mr. Horowitz stated." "There was No evidence of political bias during the investigation." The above statement is incorrect as input here...In that, Mr. Horowitz actually stated during the IG Report Hearing Part 9... "There was No evidence of political bias when the FISA warrant was first applied for." (Close Quote) "First Applied For!" As testified at the senate hearing on December 11, 2019 to Chairman, Lindsey Graham. Mr Horowitz also stated, "They gave inaccurate information." M. Graham also asked Mr. Horowitz, "At what point can a surveillance started lawfully become illegal?" "It can become unauthorized, inappropriate, illegal... Depending on information submitted." Senator Graham then asked, "Would you apply all of those terms to what happened in this case?" Mr. Horowitz asided (rightfully) To Rule Of Law. To that Senator Graham stated... "It might have started lawfully but quickly got off the rails and became a criminal conspiracy, to continue surveillance on Mr. Trump after he became President." --- In that the Steele Dossier was purchased and paid for by the DNC and anonymous Clinton sources... I am inclined to agree with Senator Graham's inclusion. HBV— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1005:b062:35c4:75f4:d866:b8cc:3f9f ( talk) 02:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)