![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because...
I literally heard MSNBC anchor say this term. It's being coined as time continues on. --Imsodrunklol
The article looks reasonably fair and balanced. Well done, Wikipedia. Dlohcierekim ( talk) 03:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I was tempted to put the Saturday night massacre page into the see also section, but I'm afraid that will be seen as too biased. If this does end up being an attempt by Trump to subvert dissent like Nixon, it would totally be relevant, but we still don't know if it is that yet. So should Saturday night massacre be put in the see also section since it's been compared to this previously or is it too soon to know if the link should be included? -- pluma ♫ ♯ 06:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
There are some active arguments going on related to this new article. Because some editors seem very eager to push for a decision I am putting out a pair of RFCs to answer these questions. --MC
A couple of editors have proposed deleting the article. The rationale for deletion seems to have changed over time so I will allow those editors to comment as they wish. But the question is "Should this article be deleted?" -- MC 2605:6000:ec16:c000:eda6:ef34:694a:122c ( talk) 02:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Uhhh... we have a page for that: WP:AfD. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 15:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
There is debate about the primary name for the article. The original name was Tuesday Night Massacre. It was then renamed to Firing of FBI Director James Comey. The question is "Which of these names (or a variant thereof) should be used?" -- MC 2605:6000:ec16:c000:eda6:ef34:694a:122c ( talk) 02:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I've attempted to shorten the lead by moving content into the body: [15].
Subsequent edits added more content to the lead: [16].
I consider the lead to be too long for a relatively short article (or any article). Any thoughts on this? K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved per WP:SNOW – closing earlier because the article is in the news. No such user ( talk) 10:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Dismissal of FBI Director James Comey →
Dismissal of James Comey – There is no need for "FBI Director" in the title of the article. For example,
Dismissals of Sally Yates and Daniel Ragsdale does not need "acting Attorney General" and "ICE Director".
Jay Coop ·
Talk ·
Contributions
19:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
PLEASE CLOSE THIS DISCUSSION: There is already a pending discussion on the name above. -- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 ( talk) 20:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I have attempted to edit the article stating that the dismissal was to cover-up the Russia scandal, ala Watergate, but it keeps getting reverted. What do you think? Tarkus ( talk) 18:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC) Tarkus Rules, Manticore Drools!
Full interview here: http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/pres-trump-s-extended-exclusive-interview-with-lester-holt-at-the-white-house-941854787582
I am sure news stories are coming. Casprings ( talk) 23:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
New reporting by the Washington Post on the Trump administration's "anger and impatience" with Comey before his firing, has been updated regarding the involvement of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to state the following:
If this is elaborated on more by other news outlets, and if the story is further built on, it will mark a new turning point regarding Comey's firing. Thanks. WClarke ( talk) 04:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
What's up with this part of the lead?
Trump claimed in the termination letter that Comey had told him "on three separate occasions that I am not under investigation".[12] This statement has been overwhelmingly contested as false, including by 30 officials at the White House, the Justice Department, the FBI and on Capitol Hill,[13] who state that Roger Stone, Rudy Giuliani, Jeff Sessions, Keith Schiller, and other associates of Donald Trump promoted the firing of Comey.[13]
I've been following the news coverage, but I'm unclear from reading this on how Trump's associates promoting Comey's dismissal has anything to do with Trump's statement about being under investigation being false. The two may well be independently correct statements, but joining them like this implies that Trump's associates urged Trump to fire Comey because Trump was under investigation; is that correct/intentional? If it is, it should be stated much more clearly and not left for the reader to draw that conclusion.
As an aside, that third para of the lead feels pretty slanted towards the left to me. Someone more on top of the news than I may want to adjust it a bit to reflect all viewpoints. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM. Discussion on this page should be about editing the article. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
That's all it is, is a theory. Just because the "U.S. intelligence community assessment expressed "high confidence" that Russia favored Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton" doesn't prove anything. Obama favored the UK voting "remain" over "leave" - so what? Lots of nations' governments have their own opinions subtle or not-so-subtle about how other nations conduct their affairs. Some even go so far as to use their platforms in the world to influence other countries (the US is no stranger to conducting this sort of business - we have our own PsyOps divisions & so on to do this). Taking out an ad campaign is not illegal, nor is happening to be preferred candidate by another country. The Saudi royal family, a regime infamous for brutal crimes against humanity & daily violations of human rights clearly favored a Hillary presidency, & donated millions to her, but where's the investigation into that scandal? Hey, remember when the "U.S. intelligence community assessment expressed "high confidence" that Saddam had WMDs"? Yeah, we're being expected to swallow the same snake -oil, hook, line, & sinker, with - again - no substantiated proof. What we do know from the Vault7 is that the CIA has an arsenal of malware that could make a cyberattack look like it was coming anywhere in the world - and then lost control of said arsenal, so anyone could have a copy of said malware. Also, Podesta wasn't "hacked", he fell for a phishing scam b/c he's old & tech-illiterate - so let's use the accurate terminology to describe what happened. All that the DNC leaks did was show us the extent of the Democrat party's & media's corruption - no "hacker" is so good that they somehow made those involved do the corrupt things in the first place. If you read " Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections", you see it's basically all assertions built on speculations - unlike the email leaks, not a shred solid evidence (as far as I'm aware, as of this writing) has been made available to the public to peruse & come to their own conclusions. We're being told to trust an "intelligence community" that at the best of times has a job description that involves being "professional deceivers" (I would know, having once worked side-by-side next to them in the military counterpart thereof). The burden of proof always rests on the accuser, not the skeptic, & in this case, the accusers have done nothing but make hollow allegations saying "trust us, we have the evidence, but we can't show any of it to you, because reasons". I guess I'm just saying that something that is still an unproven conspiracy theory is given undue weight by stating it as a matter-of-fact. I like Wikipedia & support what it stands for (the ability for anyone to access the body of human knowledge), so I don't want to see it degenerate into a dungheap of propaganda & wild hysteria - there are other places online people can go if they wanna find that. CitationKneaded ( talk) 20:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC) |
Hi, I am not a wikipedian so I'm not familiar with the settings for auto-reverts. It seems some section of this article do automatically revert while others do not? (I was able to add in jibberish that stayed when I tested in one section but another user commented that they were not able) I'm just posting this because I worry that the good content assembled here could be cumbersome to manually police against misinformation. Forgive me if this post is naive, I am only trying to be a concerned citizen. Great article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.236.125.65 ( talk) 00:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
In a Private Dinner, Trump Demanded Loyalty. Comey Demurred.
Imo worth to mention in the article. -- Neun-x ( talk) 10:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Currently the lead mentions several opinion writers: Chemi Shalev, Andrew Nusca, Eugene Robinson, Dan Rather and Jeffrey Frank. I think it would be best to keep opinion stuff out of the lead of this particular article, and just focus on facts. This would not only be easier for readers, but would also spare editors the trouble of tracking down punditry in an effort to tilt or neutralize this article. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 02:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Now we (ya'll?) are discussing two different issues: how to summarize opinions in the lede and whether the timing/previous opinions on Comey should be mentioned. For the timing thing see my comment below. For the opinion thing see my comment above. Most opinions in reliable sources were critical, and so the lede simply reflects that. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 14:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Volunteer Marek: "The thing to do in such cases is to have a summary of various notable opinions and positions in broad general terms, rather than listing specific opinions and persons." Obviously the basic and not-reasonably-contested facts, as reported by the reliable sources, should get put up front (I'd say should comprise 85% of the lead section). But we should also include in the lead a reference to most common perspectives/opinions (I'd say many 15% of the lead section), introduced appropriately. "A number of critics said X (citations)" or "Some commentators have written Y (citations)" is fine here. (We shouldn't have a laundry list of names in the lead, nor is it required: general attributions may be used "in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph").
Now, obviously how to summarize these views might be difficult, but that doesn't allow us to ignore them. -- Neutrality talk 22:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm a bit leery about including "Tuesday Night Massacre" in the lead, in bold. As Drmies said, "it's not known informally as that at all. it's just a buzzword. I'm sure the reactions will contain this phrase--it does not need to be here." None of the three cited sources strikes me as a reliable secondary source. The first cited source, a piece by Chemi Shalev, is labelled as "analysis" whereas WP:RS says "analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." The second cited source in Mediaite is also problematic because the reliability of that source is disputed. [17] And, the third cited source from Fortune is a problem because it's not clearly labelled as opinion or news, and Fortune regularly calls it a "massacre" when Trump fires someone. [18] Anyway, even if all three of those cited authors were reliable, and happened to call it a "massacre", that would not necessarily make it a common synonym. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 08:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm a bit leery about including "Tuesday Night Massacre" in the lead, in boldas well as that we should reserve the term "massacre" for actual massacres :-). K.e.coffman ( talk) 20:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
This edit removed from the lead that Trump has hinted he may have tapes of his discussions with Comey. Is that too trivial for the lead? I think not. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 17:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Moved from article. Not encyclopedic content, but secondary RS discussion may be appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO ( talk • contribs) 01:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This section may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience.(May 2017) |
Combined | Republican | Democratic | Independent | |
---|---|---|---|---|
President Trump's decision to fire James Comey | ||||
Approve | 39% | 79% | 14% | 32% |
Disapprove | 46% | 13% | 78% | 45% |
No opinion | 15% | 8% | 8% | 24% |
Gallup poll conducted May 10–11, 2017, ±4.0%* [1] | ||||
President Trump's dismissal of James Comey was... | ||||
Appropriate | 38% | 79% | 13% | 30% |
Inappropriate | 54% | 13% | 84% | 61% |
President Trump's fired James Comey due to... | ||||
Clinton email investigation | 24% | 43% | 13% | 21% |
Russia investigation | 46% | 22% | 67% | 47% |
Something else | 22% | 27% | 18% | 26% |
Allegations of Trump campaign contact with Russia | ||||
Serious issue | 54% | 17% | 86% | 54% |
More of a distraction | 40% | 78% | 13% | 40% |
NBC News/ SurveyMonkey poll conducted May 10–11, 2017, ±2.5%* [2] | ||||
President Trump's firing of James Comey | ||||
Right decision | 33% | 61% | 10% | 34% |
Wrong decision | 34% | 9% | 63% | 26% |
Not sure | 33% | 30% | 27% | 40% |
How much does it bother you that President Trump fired James Comey? a | ||||
Bothers me a lot | 55% | — | 61% | 50% |
Bothers me somewhat | 24% | — | 17% | 32% |
Bothers me a little | 13% | — | 12% | 14% |
Doesn't bother me at all | 7% | — | 8% | 3% |
Not sure | 1% | — | 2% | 1% |
What did President Trump fire James Comey for? b | ||||
Clinton investigation | 22% | 39% | 12% | 18% |
Different reason | 47% | 26% | 68% | 43% |
Not sure | 31% | 35% | 20% | 39% |
Why did President Trump fire James Comey? c | ||||
Disrupt Russia investigation | 47% | 24% | 75% | 40% |
Unrelated to Russia investigation | 26% | 47% | 8% | 27% |
Not sure | 27% | 29% | 17% | 33% |
HuffPost/ YouGov poll conducted May 10–11, 2017, ±4.4%* [3] | ||||
What is your view on President Trump's firing of James Comey? d | ||||
Right to remove | 35% | 62% | 16% | 30% |
Should have kept | 33% | 10% | 58% | 28% |
Don't know/No opinion | 32% | 28% | 26% | 42% |
President Trump's decision to remove James Comey was... | ||||
Appropriate | 37% | 63% | 17% | 33% |
Inappropriate | 34% | 11% | 61% | 29% |
Don't know/No opinion | 29% | 26% | 22% | 38% |
President Trump's decision to remove James Comey was... e | ||||
Appropriate | 36% | 58% | 20% | 31% |
Inappropriate | 41% | 17% | 65% | 38% |
Don't know/No opinion | 24% | 25% | 15% | 31% |
President Trump's decision to remove James Comey was... f | ||||
Appropriate | 47% | 70% | 29% | 44% |
Inappropriate | 28% | 10% | 46% | 26% |
Don't know/No opinion | 25% | 20% | 25% | 30% |
Who do you think should be most responsible for handling the investigation? g | ||||
FBI Director | 22% | 30% | 13% | 22% |
Special prosecutor | 36% | 26% | 48% | 32% |
Independent commission | 24% | 24% | 22% | 25% |
Don't know/No opinion | 19% | 20% | 16% | 21% |
Politico/ Morning Consult poll conducted May 9–11, 2017, ±2.0%** [4] |
References
Since both White House Spokesman and Trump have stated this was over Russia, should we change the title somehow to reflect that? If so, how? Casprings ( talk) 03:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I've removed this content, addressing Claude Taylor's claims that there are a number of sealed indictments relating to the Russia-Trump investigation. Taylor's statements may or may not be correct, but it's speculation and I don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia article yet. If the New York Times, Washington Post, AP, etc. started to report on this, then maybe there would be an argument for inclusion, but as of now we have (1) one opinion piece in Newsweek; and (2) two Inquisitr posts that basically quote Taylor's tweets. I don't think that's enough for the claim being made. Neutrality talk 03:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I seem to be in a dispute of sorts with Neutrality on the lead sentence. The last version I attempted to introduce in order to comply with MOS:BOLDTITLE was
Neutrality seems to prefer something like
Neutrality has cited WP:BOLDITIS as a a justification. Unfortunately this is starting to degenerate into an edit war.
Simply put, as general principle WP articles should attempt to follow MOS as much as reasonable. Side policies like WP:BOLDITIS are meant to say, in essence, that if an exceptional situation arises where the standard MOS policy does not make sense, then individual articles should not be held hostage to it. These side policies are not, however, meant to say that MOS should be violated simply because a given editor (or editors) prefers something different. This is not an exceptional situation. Not that my choice of wording is necessarily the only option, but there is no good reason that the phrase "dismissal of James Comey" cannot appear in the lead sentence to follow MOS. Even aside from MOS compliance, my version makes the topic explicitly clear in the sentence itself whereas the other version makes it a tad more vague.
-- MC
I have fixed the following misleading sentence in the lead section:
Other experts and politicians supported the firing or said it was legal. [1] [2]
I have changed it to more accurately reflect the sources:
Other Republican politicians supported the firing. [1]
References
The first sentence had many, many problems — it was downright inaccurate.
I don't think that this edit will be controversial but I thought it important to explain my thought process.
-- Neutrality talk 00:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Comey was fired four years into a ten-year term as director. [Cites] The president has the authority to fire the FBI director, but exercising this authority is rare: Comey's dismissal was the second time in U.S. history that an FBI director had been fired. [Cites]
That again axes from the lead the issue of whether Trump used his firing authority in a legal way in this particular matter. The cited piece from WaPo by Andrew Rudalevige, a Professor of Government at Bowdoin College, says he did. So:
Other Republican politicians supported the firing, [1] while political scientists said the firing was done legally whether or not it was a good idea. [2]
As for the other thing, saying this was the second firing is of uncertain accuracy and importance; technically, Sessions was pressured to resign, I think, rather than actually fired, and I don't know how many of the others were pressured to resign too. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 02:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
References
The image of the termination letter is currently way down in the article, and I think it would be better to have it up top, either in place of Comey's picture or immediately below Comey's picture. The image is kind of redundant where it is now, since our article text quotes the whole thing, so nothing would be lost by moving the image up. The letter is discussed in the lead, so it's image ought to accompany the lead for convenience of readers. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
this edit to the lead by User:PerfectlyIrrational has too many problems for me to fully list. Here are some of them:
Accordingly, I will revert. Please try again, and keep in mind WP:NPOV. Thanks. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 20:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing
It is my belief that this entire wikipedia page needs to be completely removed and rewritten. It is clear there is no neutral editing going on. There are conclusions already being drawn from unsettled theories, many so called sources are actually from opinion piece articles rather than actually news based on fact. It's clear there is a liberal centric bias written into every corner of this 'Dismissal of James Comey' wiki page.
Here's a prime example: "Trump had asked Comey in January for a pledge of personal loyalty to him alone", which at Today's press briefing (5/12/2017), Sean Spicer was asked a question about that and said it was untrue. There is a LOT of Trump hate in this wiki page in general, and I think there is ZERO room for this type of bias.
This is just one of many issues, and to edit them all would be not only tedious, it would require a near complete rewrite. I think what needs to happen is this wiki page needs to be stripped down to the bare facts of Comey's dismissal, then locked from any editing at all. We don't need conspiracy theories or opinion sources or anyone trying to piece together false conclusions as part of his dismissal record at wikipedia. There is a lot in this article that is just completely unfounded, and frankly, completely unnecessary. They've turned a wiki page of Comey's dismissal into a conspiracy theory attack page hit piece against the president of the United states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardwarz ( talk • contribs) 00:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
There are no sources that say that, this was completely made up and posted as news. Unless you can come up with a credible source rather than hearsay, it should be treated as untrue and thus has no place.
Furthermore, there was a section called "reaction from scholars", yet ONLY listed negative reactions. That is inherently not neutral. Just a prime example of the bias inherently present throughout this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardwarz ( talk • contribs) 00:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
To add, if Sean Spicer says it, and news agencies decide to report on it.....isn't that multiple sources contradicting that Trump asked Comey for loyalty? And what if they decide to not report on Sean Spicer (aka the white house official response) does that make it not a source somehow? NO. The fact is, unless someone has a new source, then all old sources are completely invalid due to Sean Spicer's answer. Either way, it's clear that there is a lot in this article that is not neutral.
In regards to my edit, it had nothing to do with sourcing, it had everything to do with clear Tendentious editing. You cannot give the reactions of one side but leave out any competing reactions. Clearly a reaction by scholars only listing negative reactions, is tendentious editing, and biased in nature, therefore not neutral. I'd say that if you cannot give at LEAST one competing reaction, then one should not list reactions at all.
"I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Are you saying that all reporting becomes null and void as soon as Sean Spicer says something"
Yes actually, because that is a new source, whether news agencies report on it or not. The old sources were hearsay, when Sean Spicer says it, he's representing the white house, from the 'horses mouth' if you will......therefore it should be taken as truth until proven otherwise. Therefore yes, Sean Spicer's words do nullify previous sources that were based entirely on hearsay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardwarz ( talk • contribs) 00:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
You guys are clearly going off message, and clearly trying to cherry pick. Fact: New sources trump hearsay. Old sources based on hearsay, are not sources at all.
I will reiterate: This entire wiki page about Comey's dismissal is completely interlaced with biased and tendentious editing. It should be stripped down to the raw facts of his dismissal, then locked entirely from any further editing. I will not argue every single contention here against multiple users trying to gang up and twist neutrality or argue every one of their defenses of bad sourcing. It's just a simple fact, and clear to see, that Tendentious editing is happening excessively in this article. Hardwarz ( talk) 00:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Drmies If you could quit maliciously editing this page, that'd be great thanks. Hardwarz ( talk) 01:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Drmies Look I'm not going to play the 'who can edit things to appear they're right' game with you, nor am I going to argue with you. This is for discussion, not a malicious argument.....and you are completely off topic.
Let me revitalize the purpose of this section: The discussion of the non neutral nature of how this wiki page is being framed/written. Also known as, tendentious editing. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the wikipedia page on tendentious editing before you 'contribute' more comments to this section, and if you have nothing to add to the topic at hand, then you should probably not try to derail this sections discussion any further. Hardwarz ( talk) 02:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Drmies, Once again, if you have nothing to add to the topic of this discussion, then do not reply further. Any further replies of this nature will be taken as malicious and reported to WP:ANI where direct punitive action will be sought and taken. This is not a section meant for you to attempt to get in the last word or derail the topic with convolution like you clearly have attempted to do. There is nothing for 'we', i.e you and I, to discuss with the way you've been behaving.
Fact is, I've made my case very clearly that virtually every way this wiki page has been worded and framed, has either been a direct attack at Trump, framed in a negative connotation toward Trump, or have been based completely in hearsay that doesn't even have credible sourcing, and actually has sourcing directly from the White House saying otherwise that is being ignored. In fact, the very idea of saying shot in the dark hearsay has more credibility than official statements from the White House, is in and of itself a clear bias. There are many omissions, and framings in this article that try to paint pictures, and hide other facts, to the point that one would need to write a small book worth of examples to address them all. You however clearly don't want this to be about proper unbiased and neutral editing, you want this to be about political arguments, and this Drmies, is simply NOT the place for political arguments.
Let's go for some examples though: ---
"Senator Charles Grassley has stated that Comey briefed him and another senator on the targets of the FBI's investigation and they heard nothing contradicting Trump's termination letter to Comey.[9]"
Seems like a true statement, but Diane Feinstein admitted the same thing....yet somehow she's not listed here at all.....and it's clear that she's omitted because she attacked Trump for months pretending as if she didn't know that piece of information. Yet was forced to admit that she knew Trump wasn't under investigation, which exposes her attacks as clearly partisan and taking advantage of the fact that the public did not know Trump wasn't actually under investigation. ---
"According to The Washington Post, sources knowledgeable about the matter stated that this and other assertions Trump made about events leading up to the dismissal were false,[6][7]"
Again, this is an opinion, not a source. I mean honestly, who is anyone to contradict the reasoning's of the President of the United States? And what does any of this have to do with the base information of Comey's firing other than to be used as a venue to attack Trump for firing him? It may be relevant to the sphere of media surrounding it, but not at all sourced with any fact or proof, and not at all belonging in a wikipedia page about James Comey's dismissal. This is supposed to be a page about facts, about neutral truth, not partisan opinion and partisan hit jobs. ---
"has been heavily disputed, as any recordings he holds are believed to be government property under United States v. Nixon and can be not be destroyed"
"Can be not be destroyed"? Maybe not tendentious, but a clear sign that we have 12 year olds running around here editing things without even thinking them through. And this error has existed for quite a while already.....so clearly the focus of this article is not fair and accurate writings. The bar here, has clearly been lowered by quite a bit. ---
"Several sources within the FBI have stated that the White House's firing of Comey was a culmination of high-level efforts to interfere in the Russia investigation.[29] "
Which again, relies on hearsay rather than actual sourcing, and implies that the firing of Comey would affect the investigation into Russia at all.....which the acting Director Andrew G. McCabe already clearly and publicly said that Comey's firing would not affect the investigation in any way. So not only is this whole sentence unnecessary, it clearly has malicious intent in the direction it's trying to lead the reader. ---
And let me point out, that all of these examples, are just from the opening of this wiki page, before even the table of contents is displayed! And I could have actually thrown a few more examples from that opening. But I think I've adequately made my point. This entire wiki page is interlaced with non neutral conclusions, hit jobs, and bad opinion based sourcing, or sourcing that is based on hearsay with no actual real sources. You can only go so far with 'anonymous' sources before you need to step back and say. "hey maybe let's wait for some actual sources that can be corroborated."
And one could ask "Well why don't you simply fix it all". Firstly, I'm one person. Secondly, it would all be quickly undone with the 'undo' by malicious actors, and would quickly turn into an 'undo' war, won by whoever is the most vigilant, rather than by who is correct. Which is exactly why I proposed that this article be stripped down to the base facts of Comey's firing, and protected from random editing.
Hardwarz ( talk) 22:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I support moving from the lead the following new material, which starts by pretending the lead did not already mention the tapes, is too detailed, is poorly written, argumentative, gives undue weight to an ACLU lawsuit, etc:
Trump later threatened Comey with the existence of multiple tapes of private conversations between Comey and himself if he testified or talked to the press. On the issue of the tapes themselves, Trump later refused to confirm or deny the existence of tapes when asked, but has stated that it falls under his right to hold private property and his executive privilege as the current President of the United States. This has been heavily disputed, as any recordings he holds are believed to be government property under United States v. Nixon and can be not be destroyed.[32][33]On May 15, the ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act request on all documents related to Comey's firing, which would include any Comey tapes that exist.[34]
I will go ahead and move this per WP:BRD. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 13:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Drmies said above: "First of all, it's the timing...." Exactly so. And I've accordingly put that into the second sentence of the lead:
U.S. President Donald Trump dismissed Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey from his position on May 9, 2017.[1][2] Many of the politicians criticizing Trump's firing of Comey had previously themselves called for Comey's ouster, and their primary objection to Trump's action is not to the ouster but rather to the timing of it.[3] Comey had been under public and political pressure resulting from both the FBI's role in the Hillary Clinton email controversy, as well as its investigation of alleged Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections including possible collusion with the 2016 Donald Trump campaign.[4][5] Trump said in the termination letter that Comey had told him "on three separate occasions that I am not under investigation".[6] According to the The Washington Post, unnamed sources knowledgeable about the matter disputed the accuracy of Trump's statement in the termination letter, but they declined to describe how that statement by Trump was inaccurate.[7]
The rest of the lead is dedicated to explaining the timing issue. That's why I oppose removal of the second sentence from the lead paragraph. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 04:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Poisoning whose well? If this information is correct (obviously it is) then it's central to the entire article, because it explains why there is a controversy. No detailed explanation is required to convey the simple notion that many politicians have supported firing Comey in the past, and primarily object now not to the firing but to the timing. Further explanation is already provided by the rest of the lead, which describes the Russia investigation (that's the top source of the timing concern), and also describes the lapse of time since Comey's initial public involvement in the Clinton investigation (that's the other timing concern).
I've inserted the following into the article body, and think it would also be very suitable for the lead:
Generally speaking, the timing of the dismissal was a main point of contention given the ongoing Russia investigation, whereas Comey's suitabilty for the job was not as big of an issue as the timing; many Democrats had previously called for Comey's resignation or doubted his credibility. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
References
Any objections to that in the lead? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 19:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Usually, when someone is fired, it's because their job performance is deemed inadequate, and they're no longer considered suitable for the job. That's not what the controversy has been about in this matter, and that's unusual, hence well worth clarifying for readers in the lead. I have tried to rephrase it given the discussion above. I would urge anyone who doesn't like this wording to propose an alternative for the lead:
The controversy surrounding Comey’s dismissal was not mainly about his suitability as FBI Director, but rather about whether the timing of the dismissal during the ongoing Russia investigation marked an effort by Trump to improperly cut short that investigation; many Democrats who had previously called for Comey's resignation or doubted his credibility also opposed the dismissal at this time because of Trump's alleged conflict of interest. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]References
- ^ "Democrats cry foul over Comey firing after previously calling for him to resign", ABC News (May 11, 2017): "Democrats in Congress are questioning the timing of Donald Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey....but less than a year ago, some of the same Democratic politicians who are now attacking Trump for firing Comey called for the director's resignation or questioned his credibility."
- ^ "Democrats Question Timing Of James Comey's Dismissal From FBI", NPR (May 9, 2017).
- ^ Sen. Amy Klobuchar: 'Stunned' by timing of Comey ouster", CNN (May 12, 2017).
- ^ "Timing of Comey's firing 'frightening,' says Hillary Clinton's former campaign manager", CNBC (May 10, 2017).
- ^ "Sen. Angus King Questions Timing Of James Comey's Firing From FBI", NPR (May 9, 2017).
Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I've started an RFC about it below. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 07:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Editors are trying here to stamp out well-sourced information that might tend to reflect favorably upon Trump. In the immediately preceding talk page section, I described this activity in violation of WP:Preserve which says, "Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia". Another example is that User:Casprings has deleted the following:
“ | The White House responded that "the president has never asked Mr. Comey or anyone else to end any investigation, including any investigation involving General Flynn". [1] | ” |
References
According to WP:BLP, "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." I also note another Wikipedia policy: WP:UNRESPONSIVE, which says "Be sure to leave a comment about why you made the change. Try to use an appropriate edit summary." Caspring's deletion was unaccompanied by any edit summary, much less any discussion here at this talk page. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 05:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Let us consider U.S. Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa who is presently absent from this Wikipedia article. Previously, we had this in the lead:
Senator Charles Grassley has stated that Comey briefed him and another senator on the targets of the FBI's investigation and they heard nothing contradicting Trump's termination letter to Comey. [1]References
- ^ Levitz, Eric. "Grassley Strongly Implies That Comey Told Him Trump Isn’t Under Investigation", New York (May 11, 2017).
This was completely deleted from this BLP earlier today, by
User:SPECIFICO with this edit summary: "delete SYNTH off topic and requires reader to supply implied connection."
[22] Then, it was restored by
User:JFG with this edit summary: "Undid revision 780596228 by SPECIFICO (talk) This is fully on-topic".
[23] Then, it was again completely deleted from this BLP by
User:Volunteer Marek, with this edit summary: "belongs in response section not lede - lede too long anyway".
[24]
I agree with JFG that this obviously belongs in the lead, and obviously should not have been completely removed from this BLP. It is one of the few tiny things in this BLP that happen to corroborate what Trump said in his termination letter. It is reliably sourced to New York Magazine. Further sources are available, e.g. Brown, Pamela. "Source: Comey is 'not worried about any tapes'", CNN (May 12, 2017). Anythingyouwant ( talk) 04:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
As we know from RS reporting, Trump's letter stated that Comey three times told Trump that Trump is not under investigation. Grassley did not state that Comey did not three times tell Trump that Trump is under investigation. Equivocation and deflection are common devices public figures may use to blur scrutiny of their actions, but that does not mean that this encyclopedia should juxtapose these two fundamentally and logically distinct statements of fact. SPECIFICO talk 15:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Grassley did not state that Comey did not three times tell Trump that Trump is under investigation.– Can't make sense of this. Could you kindly rephrase your thoughts without double negatives? — JFG talk 16:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Should the lead include one or both of the following?
A.
The controversy surrounding Comey’s dismissal was not mainly about his suitability as FBI Director, but rather about whether the timing of the dismissal was appropriate; many Democrats who had previously called for Comey's resignation or doubted his credibility also opposed the dismissal at this time because of Trump's alleged conflict of interest regarding the FBI's ongoing Russia investigation. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]References
- ^ "Democrats cry foul over Comey firing after previously calling for him to resign", ABC News (May 11, 2017): "Democrats in Congress are questioning the timing of Donald Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey....but less than a year ago, some of the same Democratic politicians who are now attacking Trump for firing Comey called for the director's resignation or questioned his credibility."
- ^ "Democrats Question Timing Of James Comey's Dismissal From FBI", NPR (May 9, 2017).
- ^ Sen. Amy Klobuchar: 'Stunned' by timing of Comey ouster", CNN (May 12, 2017).
- ^ "Timing of Comey's firing 'frightening,' says Hillary Clinton's former campaign manager", CNBC (May 10, 2017).
- ^ "Sen. Angus King Questions Timing Of James Comey's Firing From FBI", NPR (May 9, 2017).
B.
Senator Charles Grassley has said that Comey briefed him and another senator on the targets of the FBI's investigation and Grassley strongly implied that Comey told him Trump was not under investigation. [1] [2]References
- ^ Levitz, Eric. "Grassley Strongly Implies That Comey Told Him Trump Isn’t Under Investigation", New York (May 11, 2017).
- ^ Brown, Pamela. "Source: Comey is 'not worried about any tapes'", CNN (May 12, 2017).
Anythingyouwant ( talk) 07:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Usually, when someone is fired, it's because their job performance is deemed inadequate, and they're no longer considered suitable for the job. That's not what the controversy has been about in this matter, which is unusual, and therefore well worth clarifying for readers in the lead. Regarding Grassley, the source's headline says "Grassley Strongly Implies That Comey Told Him Trump Isn’t Under Investigation". That's as relevant as anything else already in the lead, if not much more so. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 07:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
B definitely doesn't belong in the lede. A is awkwardly worded. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 13:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I see that User:MrX is now assiduously deleting the word "alleged" prior to every accusation against Trump and against Russia, thus rendering the guilt of both in wikivoice. I object to this preposterous and relentless abuse of Wikipedia and its policies and guidelines. Per WP:Alleged (emphasis added):
“ | Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate, although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear. So-called can mean commonly named, falsely named, or contentiously named, and it can be difficult to tell these apart. Simply called is preferable for the first meaning; detailed and attributed explanations are preferable for the others. | ” |
Anythingyouwant ( talk) 19:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Is there any reason to delete the word "allegedly"?. Yes, attribution is prominently provided which makes "allegedly" redundant. The addition of allegedly tends to cast doubt, and is not a fair representation of what sources report.- Mr X 19:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Enthusiast01 edited Dismissal of James Comey at 06:12, 15 May 2017 changing
to
I, Anomalocaris, edited Dismissal of James Comey at 07:25, 15 May 2017, removing "that an FBI director serves at the pleasure of the President," leaving the text as
Enthusiast01 reverted this change and I re-reverted.
To avoid edit warring, I believe a discussion would be helpful. Here is my reasoning supporting my change:
1. At the pleasure of the President redirects to Powers of the President of the United States#Powers of appointment, where it explains:
This implies that "at the pleasure of the President" applies mainly to his (or her) staff of aides, advisers, and assistants, who are selected by the president, do not continue from one administration to the next, and are not subject to review by the Senate. They are completely different from the FBI Director, who does continue from one admistration to the next and is subject to review by the Senate. So, at minimum, if the "at the pleasure of the President" phrase really does apply to the FBI Director, we can't use it as a wikilink here until a better article is written for it that explains how the phrase includes offices that, unlike presidential staff, continue from one administration to the next and require Senate approval.
2. Neither of the references closely following use the phrase "at the pleasure of the President". Even if this phrase is correct and worthy of being in this article, we need a reference.
3. Without formal definitions but just based on ordinary meanings of words, "at the pleasure of the President" would seem to mean "as long as the President is pleased by the officeholder's performance; should the officeholder fail to please the President, the President may terminate the officeholder's service." But that is the same as the following point, "the President has the power to dismiss an FBI Director for any reason or no reason at all." So, if all we mean by "at the pleasure of the President" is its ordinary meaning and not some special legal meaning, it adds nothing.
But, my version still has three things wrong!
Therefore, I am changing it one more time:
I will make this change. I won't edit or revert this again (except to remove vandalism) unless and until warranted by discussion here. — Anomalocaris ( talk) 09:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Important pieces that should be cited in the article somewhere:
Don't have time to do it right now but hoping someone will get to it at some point. Neutrality talk 05:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because...
I literally heard MSNBC anchor say this term. It's being coined as time continues on. --Imsodrunklol
The article looks reasonably fair and balanced. Well done, Wikipedia. Dlohcierekim ( talk) 03:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I was tempted to put the Saturday night massacre page into the see also section, but I'm afraid that will be seen as too biased. If this does end up being an attempt by Trump to subvert dissent like Nixon, it would totally be relevant, but we still don't know if it is that yet. So should Saturday night massacre be put in the see also section since it's been compared to this previously or is it too soon to know if the link should be included? -- pluma ♫ ♯ 06:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
There are some active arguments going on related to this new article. Because some editors seem very eager to push for a decision I am putting out a pair of RFCs to answer these questions. --MC
A couple of editors have proposed deleting the article. The rationale for deletion seems to have changed over time so I will allow those editors to comment as they wish. But the question is "Should this article be deleted?" -- MC 2605:6000:ec16:c000:eda6:ef34:694a:122c ( talk) 02:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Uhhh... we have a page for that: WP:AfD. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 15:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
There is debate about the primary name for the article. The original name was Tuesday Night Massacre. It was then renamed to Firing of FBI Director James Comey. The question is "Which of these names (or a variant thereof) should be used?" -- MC 2605:6000:ec16:c000:eda6:ef34:694a:122c ( talk) 02:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I've attempted to shorten the lead by moving content into the body: [15].
Subsequent edits added more content to the lead: [16].
I consider the lead to be too long for a relatively short article (or any article). Any thoughts on this? K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved per WP:SNOW – closing earlier because the article is in the news. No such user ( talk) 10:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Dismissal of FBI Director James Comey →
Dismissal of James Comey – There is no need for "FBI Director" in the title of the article. For example,
Dismissals of Sally Yates and Daniel Ragsdale does not need "acting Attorney General" and "ICE Director".
Jay Coop ·
Talk ·
Contributions
19:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
PLEASE CLOSE THIS DISCUSSION: There is already a pending discussion on the name above. -- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 ( talk) 20:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I have attempted to edit the article stating that the dismissal was to cover-up the Russia scandal, ala Watergate, but it keeps getting reverted. What do you think? Tarkus ( talk) 18:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC) Tarkus Rules, Manticore Drools!
Full interview here: http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/pres-trump-s-extended-exclusive-interview-with-lester-holt-at-the-white-house-941854787582
I am sure news stories are coming. Casprings ( talk) 23:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
New reporting by the Washington Post on the Trump administration's "anger and impatience" with Comey before his firing, has been updated regarding the involvement of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to state the following:
If this is elaborated on more by other news outlets, and if the story is further built on, it will mark a new turning point regarding Comey's firing. Thanks. WClarke ( talk) 04:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
What's up with this part of the lead?
Trump claimed in the termination letter that Comey had told him "on three separate occasions that I am not under investigation".[12] This statement has been overwhelmingly contested as false, including by 30 officials at the White House, the Justice Department, the FBI and on Capitol Hill,[13] who state that Roger Stone, Rudy Giuliani, Jeff Sessions, Keith Schiller, and other associates of Donald Trump promoted the firing of Comey.[13]
I've been following the news coverage, but I'm unclear from reading this on how Trump's associates promoting Comey's dismissal has anything to do with Trump's statement about being under investigation being false. The two may well be independently correct statements, but joining them like this implies that Trump's associates urged Trump to fire Comey because Trump was under investigation; is that correct/intentional? If it is, it should be stated much more clearly and not left for the reader to draw that conclusion.
As an aside, that third para of the lead feels pretty slanted towards the left to me. Someone more on top of the news than I may want to adjust it a bit to reflect all viewpoints. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM. Discussion on this page should be about editing the article. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
That's all it is, is a theory. Just because the "U.S. intelligence community assessment expressed "high confidence" that Russia favored Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton" doesn't prove anything. Obama favored the UK voting "remain" over "leave" - so what? Lots of nations' governments have their own opinions subtle or not-so-subtle about how other nations conduct their affairs. Some even go so far as to use their platforms in the world to influence other countries (the US is no stranger to conducting this sort of business - we have our own PsyOps divisions & so on to do this). Taking out an ad campaign is not illegal, nor is happening to be preferred candidate by another country. The Saudi royal family, a regime infamous for brutal crimes against humanity & daily violations of human rights clearly favored a Hillary presidency, & donated millions to her, but where's the investigation into that scandal? Hey, remember when the "U.S. intelligence community assessment expressed "high confidence" that Saddam had WMDs"? Yeah, we're being expected to swallow the same snake -oil, hook, line, & sinker, with - again - no substantiated proof. What we do know from the Vault7 is that the CIA has an arsenal of malware that could make a cyberattack look like it was coming anywhere in the world - and then lost control of said arsenal, so anyone could have a copy of said malware. Also, Podesta wasn't "hacked", he fell for a phishing scam b/c he's old & tech-illiterate - so let's use the accurate terminology to describe what happened. All that the DNC leaks did was show us the extent of the Democrat party's & media's corruption - no "hacker" is so good that they somehow made those involved do the corrupt things in the first place. If you read " Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections", you see it's basically all assertions built on speculations - unlike the email leaks, not a shred solid evidence (as far as I'm aware, as of this writing) has been made available to the public to peruse & come to their own conclusions. We're being told to trust an "intelligence community" that at the best of times has a job description that involves being "professional deceivers" (I would know, having once worked side-by-side next to them in the military counterpart thereof). The burden of proof always rests on the accuser, not the skeptic, & in this case, the accusers have done nothing but make hollow allegations saying "trust us, we have the evidence, but we can't show any of it to you, because reasons". I guess I'm just saying that something that is still an unproven conspiracy theory is given undue weight by stating it as a matter-of-fact. I like Wikipedia & support what it stands for (the ability for anyone to access the body of human knowledge), so I don't want to see it degenerate into a dungheap of propaganda & wild hysteria - there are other places online people can go if they wanna find that. CitationKneaded ( talk) 20:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC) |
Hi, I am not a wikipedian so I'm not familiar with the settings for auto-reverts. It seems some section of this article do automatically revert while others do not? (I was able to add in jibberish that stayed when I tested in one section but another user commented that they were not able) I'm just posting this because I worry that the good content assembled here could be cumbersome to manually police against misinformation. Forgive me if this post is naive, I am only trying to be a concerned citizen. Great article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.236.125.65 ( talk) 00:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
In a Private Dinner, Trump Demanded Loyalty. Comey Demurred.
Imo worth to mention in the article. -- Neun-x ( talk) 10:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Currently the lead mentions several opinion writers: Chemi Shalev, Andrew Nusca, Eugene Robinson, Dan Rather and Jeffrey Frank. I think it would be best to keep opinion stuff out of the lead of this particular article, and just focus on facts. This would not only be easier for readers, but would also spare editors the trouble of tracking down punditry in an effort to tilt or neutralize this article. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 02:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Now we (ya'll?) are discussing two different issues: how to summarize opinions in the lede and whether the timing/previous opinions on Comey should be mentioned. For the timing thing see my comment below. For the opinion thing see my comment above. Most opinions in reliable sources were critical, and so the lede simply reflects that. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 14:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Volunteer Marek: "The thing to do in such cases is to have a summary of various notable opinions and positions in broad general terms, rather than listing specific opinions and persons." Obviously the basic and not-reasonably-contested facts, as reported by the reliable sources, should get put up front (I'd say should comprise 85% of the lead section). But we should also include in the lead a reference to most common perspectives/opinions (I'd say many 15% of the lead section), introduced appropriately. "A number of critics said X (citations)" or "Some commentators have written Y (citations)" is fine here. (We shouldn't have a laundry list of names in the lead, nor is it required: general attributions may be used "in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph").
Now, obviously how to summarize these views might be difficult, but that doesn't allow us to ignore them. -- Neutrality talk 22:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm a bit leery about including "Tuesday Night Massacre" in the lead, in bold. As Drmies said, "it's not known informally as that at all. it's just a buzzword. I'm sure the reactions will contain this phrase--it does not need to be here." None of the three cited sources strikes me as a reliable secondary source. The first cited source, a piece by Chemi Shalev, is labelled as "analysis" whereas WP:RS says "analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." The second cited source in Mediaite is also problematic because the reliability of that source is disputed. [17] And, the third cited source from Fortune is a problem because it's not clearly labelled as opinion or news, and Fortune regularly calls it a "massacre" when Trump fires someone. [18] Anyway, even if all three of those cited authors were reliable, and happened to call it a "massacre", that would not necessarily make it a common synonym. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 08:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm a bit leery about including "Tuesday Night Massacre" in the lead, in boldas well as that we should reserve the term "massacre" for actual massacres :-). K.e.coffman ( talk) 20:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
This edit removed from the lead that Trump has hinted he may have tapes of his discussions with Comey. Is that too trivial for the lead? I think not. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 17:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Moved from article. Not encyclopedic content, but secondary RS discussion may be appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO ( talk • contribs) 01:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This section may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience.(May 2017) |
Combined | Republican | Democratic | Independent | |
---|---|---|---|---|
President Trump's decision to fire James Comey | ||||
Approve | 39% | 79% | 14% | 32% |
Disapprove | 46% | 13% | 78% | 45% |
No opinion | 15% | 8% | 8% | 24% |
Gallup poll conducted May 10–11, 2017, ±4.0%* [1] | ||||
President Trump's dismissal of James Comey was... | ||||
Appropriate | 38% | 79% | 13% | 30% |
Inappropriate | 54% | 13% | 84% | 61% |
President Trump's fired James Comey due to... | ||||
Clinton email investigation | 24% | 43% | 13% | 21% |
Russia investigation | 46% | 22% | 67% | 47% |
Something else | 22% | 27% | 18% | 26% |
Allegations of Trump campaign contact with Russia | ||||
Serious issue | 54% | 17% | 86% | 54% |
More of a distraction | 40% | 78% | 13% | 40% |
NBC News/ SurveyMonkey poll conducted May 10–11, 2017, ±2.5%* [2] | ||||
President Trump's firing of James Comey | ||||
Right decision | 33% | 61% | 10% | 34% |
Wrong decision | 34% | 9% | 63% | 26% |
Not sure | 33% | 30% | 27% | 40% |
How much does it bother you that President Trump fired James Comey? a | ||||
Bothers me a lot | 55% | — | 61% | 50% |
Bothers me somewhat | 24% | — | 17% | 32% |
Bothers me a little | 13% | — | 12% | 14% |
Doesn't bother me at all | 7% | — | 8% | 3% |
Not sure | 1% | — | 2% | 1% |
What did President Trump fire James Comey for? b | ||||
Clinton investigation | 22% | 39% | 12% | 18% |
Different reason | 47% | 26% | 68% | 43% |
Not sure | 31% | 35% | 20% | 39% |
Why did President Trump fire James Comey? c | ||||
Disrupt Russia investigation | 47% | 24% | 75% | 40% |
Unrelated to Russia investigation | 26% | 47% | 8% | 27% |
Not sure | 27% | 29% | 17% | 33% |
HuffPost/ YouGov poll conducted May 10–11, 2017, ±4.4%* [3] | ||||
What is your view on President Trump's firing of James Comey? d | ||||
Right to remove | 35% | 62% | 16% | 30% |
Should have kept | 33% | 10% | 58% | 28% |
Don't know/No opinion | 32% | 28% | 26% | 42% |
President Trump's decision to remove James Comey was... | ||||
Appropriate | 37% | 63% | 17% | 33% |
Inappropriate | 34% | 11% | 61% | 29% |
Don't know/No opinion | 29% | 26% | 22% | 38% |
President Trump's decision to remove James Comey was... e | ||||
Appropriate | 36% | 58% | 20% | 31% |
Inappropriate | 41% | 17% | 65% | 38% |
Don't know/No opinion | 24% | 25% | 15% | 31% |
President Trump's decision to remove James Comey was... f | ||||
Appropriate | 47% | 70% | 29% | 44% |
Inappropriate | 28% | 10% | 46% | 26% |
Don't know/No opinion | 25% | 20% | 25% | 30% |
Who do you think should be most responsible for handling the investigation? g | ||||
FBI Director | 22% | 30% | 13% | 22% |
Special prosecutor | 36% | 26% | 48% | 32% |
Independent commission | 24% | 24% | 22% | 25% |
Don't know/No opinion | 19% | 20% | 16% | 21% |
Politico/ Morning Consult poll conducted May 9–11, 2017, ±2.0%** [4] |
References
Since both White House Spokesman and Trump have stated this was over Russia, should we change the title somehow to reflect that? If so, how? Casprings ( talk) 03:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I've removed this content, addressing Claude Taylor's claims that there are a number of sealed indictments relating to the Russia-Trump investigation. Taylor's statements may or may not be correct, but it's speculation and I don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia article yet. If the New York Times, Washington Post, AP, etc. started to report on this, then maybe there would be an argument for inclusion, but as of now we have (1) one opinion piece in Newsweek; and (2) two Inquisitr posts that basically quote Taylor's tweets. I don't think that's enough for the claim being made. Neutrality talk 03:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I seem to be in a dispute of sorts with Neutrality on the lead sentence. The last version I attempted to introduce in order to comply with MOS:BOLDTITLE was
Neutrality seems to prefer something like
Neutrality has cited WP:BOLDITIS as a a justification. Unfortunately this is starting to degenerate into an edit war.
Simply put, as general principle WP articles should attempt to follow MOS as much as reasonable. Side policies like WP:BOLDITIS are meant to say, in essence, that if an exceptional situation arises where the standard MOS policy does not make sense, then individual articles should not be held hostage to it. These side policies are not, however, meant to say that MOS should be violated simply because a given editor (or editors) prefers something different. This is not an exceptional situation. Not that my choice of wording is necessarily the only option, but there is no good reason that the phrase "dismissal of James Comey" cannot appear in the lead sentence to follow MOS. Even aside from MOS compliance, my version makes the topic explicitly clear in the sentence itself whereas the other version makes it a tad more vague.
-- MC
I have fixed the following misleading sentence in the lead section:
Other experts and politicians supported the firing or said it was legal. [1] [2]
I have changed it to more accurately reflect the sources:
Other Republican politicians supported the firing. [1]
References
The first sentence had many, many problems — it was downright inaccurate.
I don't think that this edit will be controversial but I thought it important to explain my thought process.
-- Neutrality talk 00:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Comey was fired four years into a ten-year term as director. [Cites] The president has the authority to fire the FBI director, but exercising this authority is rare: Comey's dismissal was the second time in U.S. history that an FBI director had been fired. [Cites]
That again axes from the lead the issue of whether Trump used his firing authority in a legal way in this particular matter. The cited piece from WaPo by Andrew Rudalevige, a Professor of Government at Bowdoin College, says he did. So:
Other Republican politicians supported the firing, [1] while political scientists said the firing was done legally whether or not it was a good idea. [2]
As for the other thing, saying this was the second firing is of uncertain accuracy and importance; technically, Sessions was pressured to resign, I think, rather than actually fired, and I don't know how many of the others were pressured to resign too. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 02:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
References
The image of the termination letter is currently way down in the article, and I think it would be better to have it up top, either in place of Comey's picture or immediately below Comey's picture. The image is kind of redundant where it is now, since our article text quotes the whole thing, so nothing would be lost by moving the image up. The letter is discussed in the lead, so it's image ought to accompany the lead for convenience of readers. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
this edit to the lead by User:PerfectlyIrrational has too many problems for me to fully list. Here are some of them:
Accordingly, I will revert. Please try again, and keep in mind WP:NPOV. Thanks. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 20:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing
It is my belief that this entire wikipedia page needs to be completely removed and rewritten. It is clear there is no neutral editing going on. There are conclusions already being drawn from unsettled theories, many so called sources are actually from opinion piece articles rather than actually news based on fact. It's clear there is a liberal centric bias written into every corner of this 'Dismissal of James Comey' wiki page.
Here's a prime example: "Trump had asked Comey in January for a pledge of personal loyalty to him alone", which at Today's press briefing (5/12/2017), Sean Spicer was asked a question about that and said it was untrue. There is a LOT of Trump hate in this wiki page in general, and I think there is ZERO room for this type of bias.
This is just one of many issues, and to edit them all would be not only tedious, it would require a near complete rewrite. I think what needs to happen is this wiki page needs to be stripped down to the bare facts of Comey's dismissal, then locked from any editing at all. We don't need conspiracy theories or opinion sources or anyone trying to piece together false conclusions as part of his dismissal record at wikipedia. There is a lot in this article that is just completely unfounded, and frankly, completely unnecessary. They've turned a wiki page of Comey's dismissal into a conspiracy theory attack page hit piece against the president of the United states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardwarz ( talk • contribs) 00:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
There are no sources that say that, this was completely made up and posted as news. Unless you can come up with a credible source rather than hearsay, it should be treated as untrue and thus has no place.
Furthermore, there was a section called "reaction from scholars", yet ONLY listed negative reactions. That is inherently not neutral. Just a prime example of the bias inherently present throughout this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardwarz ( talk • contribs) 00:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
To add, if Sean Spicer says it, and news agencies decide to report on it.....isn't that multiple sources contradicting that Trump asked Comey for loyalty? And what if they decide to not report on Sean Spicer (aka the white house official response) does that make it not a source somehow? NO. The fact is, unless someone has a new source, then all old sources are completely invalid due to Sean Spicer's answer. Either way, it's clear that there is a lot in this article that is not neutral.
In regards to my edit, it had nothing to do with sourcing, it had everything to do with clear Tendentious editing. You cannot give the reactions of one side but leave out any competing reactions. Clearly a reaction by scholars only listing negative reactions, is tendentious editing, and biased in nature, therefore not neutral. I'd say that if you cannot give at LEAST one competing reaction, then one should not list reactions at all.
"I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Are you saying that all reporting becomes null and void as soon as Sean Spicer says something"
Yes actually, because that is a new source, whether news agencies report on it or not. The old sources were hearsay, when Sean Spicer says it, he's representing the white house, from the 'horses mouth' if you will......therefore it should be taken as truth until proven otherwise. Therefore yes, Sean Spicer's words do nullify previous sources that were based entirely on hearsay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardwarz ( talk • contribs) 00:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
You guys are clearly going off message, and clearly trying to cherry pick. Fact: New sources trump hearsay. Old sources based on hearsay, are not sources at all.
I will reiterate: This entire wiki page about Comey's dismissal is completely interlaced with biased and tendentious editing. It should be stripped down to the raw facts of his dismissal, then locked entirely from any further editing. I will not argue every single contention here against multiple users trying to gang up and twist neutrality or argue every one of their defenses of bad sourcing. It's just a simple fact, and clear to see, that Tendentious editing is happening excessively in this article. Hardwarz ( talk) 00:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Drmies If you could quit maliciously editing this page, that'd be great thanks. Hardwarz ( talk) 01:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Drmies Look I'm not going to play the 'who can edit things to appear they're right' game with you, nor am I going to argue with you. This is for discussion, not a malicious argument.....and you are completely off topic.
Let me revitalize the purpose of this section: The discussion of the non neutral nature of how this wiki page is being framed/written. Also known as, tendentious editing. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the wikipedia page on tendentious editing before you 'contribute' more comments to this section, and if you have nothing to add to the topic at hand, then you should probably not try to derail this sections discussion any further. Hardwarz ( talk) 02:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Drmies, Once again, if you have nothing to add to the topic of this discussion, then do not reply further. Any further replies of this nature will be taken as malicious and reported to WP:ANI where direct punitive action will be sought and taken. This is not a section meant for you to attempt to get in the last word or derail the topic with convolution like you clearly have attempted to do. There is nothing for 'we', i.e you and I, to discuss with the way you've been behaving.
Fact is, I've made my case very clearly that virtually every way this wiki page has been worded and framed, has either been a direct attack at Trump, framed in a negative connotation toward Trump, or have been based completely in hearsay that doesn't even have credible sourcing, and actually has sourcing directly from the White House saying otherwise that is being ignored. In fact, the very idea of saying shot in the dark hearsay has more credibility than official statements from the White House, is in and of itself a clear bias. There are many omissions, and framings in this article that try to paint pictures, and hide other facts, to the point that one would need to write a small book worth of examples to address them all. You however clearly don't want this to be about proper unbiased and neutral editing, you want this to be about political arguments, and this Drmies, is simply NOT the place for political arguments.
Let's go for some examples though: ---
"Senator Charles Grassley has stated that Comey briefed him and another senator on the targets of the FBI's investigation and they heard nothing contradicting Trump's termination letter to Comey.[9]"
Seems like a true statement, but Diane Feinstein admitted the same thing....yet somehow she's not listed here at all.....and it's clear that she's omitted because she attacked Trump for months pretending as if she didn't know that piece of information. Yet was forced to admit that she knew Trump wasn't under investigation, which exposes her attacks as clearly partisan and taking advantage of the fact that the public did not know Trump wasn't actually under investigation. ---
"According to The Washington Post, sources knowledgeable about the matter stated that this and other assertions Trump made about events leading up to the dismissal were false,[6][7]"
Again, this is an opinion, not a source. I mean honestly, who is anyone to contradict the reasoning's of the President of the United States? And what does any of this have to do with the base information of Comey's firing other than to be used as a venue to attack Trump for firing him? It may be relevant to the sphere of media surrounding it, but not at all sourced with any fact or proof, and not at all belonging in a wikipedia page about James Comey's dismissal. This is supposed to be a page about facts, about neutral truth, not partisan opinion and partisan hit jobs. ---
"has been heavily disputed, as any recordings he holds are believed to be government property under United States v. Nixon and can be not be destroyed"
"Can be not be destroyed"? Maybe not tendentious, but a clear sign that we have 12 year olds running around here editing things without even thinking them through. And this error has existed for quite a while already.....so clearly the focus of this article is not fair and accurate writings. The bar here, has clearly been lowered by quite a bit. ---
"Several sources within the FBI have stated that the White House's firing of Comey was a culmination of high-level efforts to interfere in the Russia investigation.[29] "
Which again, relies on hearsay rather than actual sourcing, and implies that the firing of Comey would affect the investigation into Russia at all.....which the acting Director Andrew G. McCabe already clearly and publicly said that Comey's firing would not affect the investigation in any way. So not only is this whole sentence unnecessary, it clearly has malicious intent in the direction it's trying to lead the reader. ---
And let me point out, that all of these examples, are just from the opening of this wiki page, before even the table of contents is displayed! And I could have actually thrown a few more examples from that opening. But I think I've adequately made my point. This entire wiki page is interlaced with non neutral conclusions, hit jobs, and bad opinion based sourcing, or sourcing that is based on hearsay with no actual real sources. You can only go so far with 'anonymous' sources before you need to step back and say. "hey maybe let's wait for some actual sources that can be corroborated."
And one could ask "Well why don't you simply fix it all". Firstly, I'm one person. Secondly, it would all be quickly undone with the 'undo' by malicious actors, and would quickly turn into an 'undo' war, won by whoever is the most vigilant, rather than by who is correct. Which is exactly why I proposed that this article be stripped down to the base facts of Comey's firing, and protected from random editing.
Hardwarz ( talk) 22:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I support moving from the lead the following new material, which starts by pretending the lead did not already mention the tapes, is too detailed, is poorly written, argumentative, gives undue weight to an ACLU lawsuit, etc:
Trump later threatened Comey with the existence of multiple tapes of private conversations between Comey and himself if he testified or talked to the press. On the issue of the tapes themselves, Trump later refused to confirm or deny the existence of tapes when asked, but has stated that it falls under his right to hold private property and his executive privilege as the current President of the United States. This has been heavily disputed, as any recordings he holds are believed to be government property under United States v. Nixon and can be not be destroyed.[32][33]On May 15, the ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act request on all documents related to Comey's firing, which would include any Comey tapes that exist.[34]
I will go ahead and move this per WP:BRD. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 13:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Drmies said above: "First of all, it's the timing...." Exactly so. And I've accordingly put that into the second sentence of the lead:
U.S. President Donald Trump dismissed Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey from his position on May 9, 2017.[1][2] Many of the politicians criticizing Trump's firing of Comey had previously themselves called for Comey's ouster, and their primary objection to Trump's action is not to the ouster but rather to the timing of it.[3] Comey had been under public and political pressure resulting from both the FBI's role in the Hillary Clinton email controversy, as well as its investigation of alleged Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections including possible collusion with the 2016 Donald Trump campaign.[4][5] Trump said in the termination letter that Comey had told him "on three separate occasions that I am not under investigation".[6] According to the The Washington Post, unnamed sources knowledgeable about the matter disputed the accuracy of Trump's statement in the termination letter, but they declined to describe how that statement by Trump was inaccurate.[7]
The rest of the lead is dedicated to explaining the timing issue. That's why I oppose removal of the second sentence from the lead paragraph. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 04:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Poisoning whose well? If this information is correct (obviously it is) then it's central to the entire article, because it explains why there is a controversy. No detailed explanation is required to convey the simple notion that many politicians have supported firing Comey in the past, and primarily object now not to the firing but to the timing. Further explanation is already provided by the rest of the lead, which describes the Russia investigation (that's the top source of the timing concern), and also describes the lapse of time since Comey's initial public involvement in the Clinton investigation (that's the other timing concern).
I've inserted the following into the article body, and think it would also be very suitable for the lead:
Generally speaking, the timing of the dismissal was a main point of contention given the ongoing Russia investigation, whereas Comey's suitabilty for the job was not as big of an issue as the timing; many Democrats had previously called for Comey's resignation or doubted his credibility. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
References
Any objections to that in the lead? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 19:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Usually, when someone is fired, it's because their job performance is deemed inadequate, and they're no longer considered suitable for the job. That's not what the controversy has been about in this matter, and that's unusual, hence well worth clarifying for readers in the lead. I have tried to rephrase it given the discussion above. I would urge anyone who doesn't like this wording to propose an alternative for the lead:
The controversy surrounding Comey’s dismissal was not mainly about his suitability as FBI Director, but rather about whether the timing of the dismissal during the ongoing Russia investigation marked an effort by Trump to improperly cut short that investigation; many Democrats who had previously called for Comey's resignation or doubted his credibility also opposed the dismissal at this time because of Trump's alleged conflict of interest. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]References
- ^ "Democrats cry foul over Comey firing after previously calling for him to resign", ABC News (May 11, 2017): "Democrats in Congress are questioning the timing of Donald Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey....but less than a year ago, some of the same Democratic politicians who are now attacking Trump for firing Comey called for the director's resignation or questioned his credibility."
- ^ "Democrats Question Timing Of James Comey's Dismissal From FBI", NPR (May 9, 2017).
- ^ Sen. Amy Klobuchar: 'Stunned' by timing of Comey ouster", CNN (May 12, 2017).
- ^ "Timing of Comey's firing 'frightening,' says Hillary Clinton's former campaign manager", CNBC (May 10, 2017).
- ^ "Sen. Angus King Questions Timing Of James Comey's Firing From FBI", NPR (May 9, 2017).
Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I've started an RFC about it below. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 07:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Editors are trying here to stamp out well-sourced information that might tend to reflect favorably upon Trump. In the immediately preceding talk page section, I described this activity in violation of WP:Preserve which says, "Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia". Another example is that User:Casprings has deleted the following:
“ | The White House responded that "the president has never asked Mr. Comey or anyone else to end any investigation, including any investigation involving General Flynn". [1] | ” |
References
According to WP:BLP, "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." I also note another Wikipedia policy: WP:UNRESPONSIVE, which says "Be sure to leave a comment about why you made the change. Try to use an appropriate edit summary." Caspring's deletion was unaccompanied by any edit summary, much less any discussion here at this talk page. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 05:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Let us consider U.S. Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa who is presently absent from this Wikipedia article. Previously, we had this in the lead:
Senator Charles Grassley has stated that Comey briefed him and another senator on the targets of the FBI's investigation and they heard nothing contradicting Trump's termination letter to Comey. [1]References
- ^ Levitz, Eric. "Grassley Strongly Implies That Comey Told Him Trump Isn’t Under Investigation", New York (May 11, 2017).
This was completely deleted from this BLP earlier today, by
User:SPECIFICO with this edit summary: "delete SYNTH off topic and requires reader to supply implied connection."
[22] Then, it was restored by
User:JFG with this edit summary: "Undid revision 780596228 by SPECIFICO (talk) This is fully on-topic".
[23] Then, it was again completely deleted from this BLP by
User:Volunteer Marek, with this edit summary: "belongs in response section not lede - lede too long anyway".
[24]
I agree with JFG that this obviously belongs in the lead, and obviously should not have been completely removed from this BLP. It is one of the few tiny things in this BLP that happen to corroborate what Trump said in his termination letter. It is reliably sourced to New York Magazine. Further sources are available, e.g. Brown, Pamela. "Source: Comey is 'not worried about any tapes'", CNN (May 12, 2017). Anythingyouwant ( talk) 04:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
As we know from RS reporting, Trump's letter stated that Comey three times told Trump that Trump is not under investigation. Grassley did not state that Comey did not three times tell Trump that Trump is under investigation. Equivocation and deflection are common devices public figures may use to blur scrutiny of their actions, but that does not mean that this encyclopedia should juxtapose these two fundamentally and logically distinct statements of fact. SPECIFICO talk 15:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Grassley did not state that Comey did not three times tell Trump that Trump is under investigation.– Can't make sense of this. Could you kindly rephrase your thoughts without double negatives? — JFG talk 16:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Should the lead include one or both of the following?
A.
The controversy surrounding Comey’s dismissal was not mainly about his suitability as FBI Director, but rather about whether the timing of the dismissal was appropriate; many Democrats who had previously called for Comey's resignation or doubted his credibility also opposed the dismissal at this time because of Trump's alleged conflict of interest regarding the FBI's ongoing Russia investigation. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]References
- ^ "Democrats cry foul over Comey firing after previously calling for him to resign", ABC News (May 11, 2017): "Democrats in Congress are questioning the timing of Donald Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey....but less than a year ago, some of the same Democratic politicians who are now attacking Trump for firing Comey called for the director's resignation or questioned his credibility."
- ^ "Democrats Question Timing Of James Comey's Dismissal From FBI", NPR (May 9, 2017).
- ^ Sen. Amy Klobuchar: 'Stunned' by timing of Comey ouster", CNN (May 12, 2017).
- ^ "Timing of Comey's firing 'frightening,' says Hillary Clinton's former campaign manager", CNBC (May 10, 2017).
- ^ "Sen. Angus King Questions Timing Of James Comey's Firing From FBI", NPR (May 9, 2017).
B.
Senator Charles Grassley has said that Comey briefed him and another senator on the targets of the FBI's investigation and Grassley strongly implied that Comey told him Trump was not under investigation. [1] [2]References
- ^ Levitz, Eric. "Grassley Strongly Implies That Comey Told Him Trump Isn’t Under Investigation", New York (May 11, 2017).
- ^ Brown, Pamela. "Source: Comey is 'not worried about any tapes'", CNN (May 12, 2017).
Anythingyouwant ( talk) 07:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Usually, when someone is fired, it's because their job performance is deemed inadequate, and they're no longer considered suitable for the job. That's not what the controversy has been about in this matter, which is unusual, and therefore well worth clarifying for readers in the lead. Regarding Grassley, the source's headline says "Grassley Strongly Implies That Comey Told Him Trump Isn’t Under Investigation". That's as relevant as anything else already in the lead, if not much more so. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 07:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
B definitely doesn't belong in the lede. A is awkwardly worded. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 13:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I see that User:MrX is now assiduously deleting the word "alleged" prior to every accusation against Trump and against Russia, thus rendering the guilt of both in wikivoice. I object to this preposterous and relentless abuse of Wikipedia and its policies and guidelines. Per WP:Alleged (emphasis added):
“ | Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate, although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear. So-called can mean commonly named, falsely named, or contentiously named, and it can be difficult to tell these apart. Simply called is preferable for the first meaning; detailed and attributed explanations are preferable for the others. | ” |
Anythingyouwant ( talk) 19:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Is there any reason to delete the word "allegedly"?. Yes, attribution is prominently provided which makes "allegedly" redundant. The addition of allegedly tends to cast doubt, and is not a fair representation of what sources report.- Mr X 19:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Enthusiast01 edited Dismissal of James Comey at 06:12, 15 May 2017 changing
to
I, Anomalocaris, edited Dismissal of James Comey at 07:25, 15 May 2017, removing "that an FBI director serves at the pleasure of the President," leaving the text as
Enthusiast01 reverted this change and I re-reverted.
To avoid edit warring, I believe a discussion would be helpful. Here is my reasoning supporting my change:
1. At the pleasure of the President redirects to Powers of the President of the United States#Powers of appointment, where it explains:
This implies that "at the pleasure of the President" applies mainly to his (or her) staff of aides, advisers, and assistants, who are selected by the president, do not continue from one administration to the next, and are not subject to review by the Senate. They are completely different from the FBI Director, who does continue from one admistration to the next and is subject to review by the Senate. So, at minimum, if the "at the pleasure of the President" phrase really does apply to the FBI Director, we can't use it as a wikilink here until a better article is written for it that explains how the phrase includes offices that, unlike presidential staff, continue from one administration to the next and require Senate approval.
2. Neither of the references closely following use the phrase "at the pleasure of the President". Even if this phrase is correct and worthy of being in this article, we need a reference.
3. Without formal definitions but just based on ordinary meanings of words, "at the pleasure of the President" would seem to mean "as long as the President is pleased by the officeholder's performance; should the officeholder fail to please the President, the President may terminate the officeholder's service." But that is the same as the following point, "the President has the power to dismiss an FBI Director for any reason or no reason at all." So, if all we mean by "at the pleasure of the President" is its ordinary meaning and not some special legal meaning, it adds nothing.
But, my version still has three things wrong!
Therefore, I am changing it one more time:
I will make this change. I won't edit or revert this again (except to remove vandalism) unless and until warranted by discussion here. — Anomalocaris ( talk) 09:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Important pieces that should be cited in the article somewhere:
Don't have time to do it right now but hoping someone will get to it at some point. Neutrality talk 05:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)