Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:James Comey/Archive 1) (bot |
Hidden Tempo (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 89: | Line 89: | ||
:::::Thanks for the comments, and I agree with all of your remarks. It seems unnecessary to do a RfC for each of these changes, but what do you think would be the best course of action at this point to help trim it down and make it a bit more neutral? Maybe just wait a bit and give some editors a chance to agree with the modifications? [[User:Hidden Tempo|Hidden Tempo]] ([[User talk:Hidden Tempo|talk]]) 02:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC) |
:::::Thanks for the comments, and I agree with all of your remarks. It seems unnecessary to do a RfC for each of these changes, but what do you think would be the best course of action at this point to help trim it down and make it a bit more neutral? Maybe just wait a bit and give some editors a chance to agree with the modifications? [[User:Hidden Tempo|Hidden Tempo]] ([[User talk:Hidden Tempo|talk]]) 02:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC) |
||
::::::Yes, we should wait a few more days to allow others to share their suggestions/opinions. Usually a week is sufficient time for a discussion at which time there maybe a clear direction to proceed or more discussion may be needed. Since anything or anyone related with the 2016 election seems to cause quite a bit of controversy it is best for editors to bear in mind our policies, guidelines and previous practice and try to come up with some sort of compromise in the instances where there is a difference of opinion. [[User:Cbs527|<span style="color: purple;">'''CBS'''</span><span style="color: red;">'''527'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:cbs527|<span style="color:orange;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 20:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC) |
::::::Yes, we should wait a few more days to allow others to share their suggestions/opinions. Usually a week is sufficient time for a discussion at which time there maybe a clear direction to proceed or more discussion may be needed. Since anything or anyone related with the 2016 election seems to cause quite a bit of controversy it is best for editors to bear in mind our policies, guidelines and previous practice and try to come up with some sort of compromise in the instances where there is a difference of opinion. [[User:Cbs527|<span style="color: purple;">'''CBS'''</span><span style="color: red;">'''527'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:cbs527|<span style="color:orange;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 20:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC) |
||
{{u|Bbb23}}, as you can see, we have a discussion open regarding the revised lead. You stated that "some" of the material is "convoluted" and "most" is "not neutral," yet you reverted ''all'' content. Could you come to the talk page and explain your reasoning behind that, as well as what you believe is "convoluted"? The dismissal content is taken directly from [[Dismissal of James Comey]], so I'm a bit puzzled by your characterizations. Also, I note that in your capacity as an administrator, you have had several prior interactions with the original reverting user, including personally letting him go from at least one of his numerous ANI edit-warring complaints[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive241&oldid=748449487#User:Volunteer_Marek_reported_by_User:Petr_Matas_.28Result:_Declined.29] and obliging to at least a few of his requests for you to block other editors[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive262#User:Spotter_1_reported_by_User:Volunteer_Marek_.28Result:_Blocked.29][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive262#User:Kenfree_reported_by_User:Volunteer_Marek_.28Result:_Blocked_Kenfree_and_User:Sayerslle.29]. Not sure if an uninvolved admin could/should weigh in here, but this history seems like it could potentially pose some sort of conflict. Anyway, I look forward to your joining the discussion and hearing your logic behind your revert. Thanks. [[User:Hidden Tempo|Hidden Tempo]] ([[User talk:Hidden Tempo|talk]]) 18:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:21, 16 July 2017
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Template:Friendly search suggestions
Article on Comey's replacement started.. come help out
Article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_A._Wray
Alleged memos
During the hearing of Comey, he stated that he had written the memos and orchestrated their leaks. Is it wise to keep language such as "allegedly written by Comey" in the article? Supertanno (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- Comey is otherwise not suitable for Donalt Trump crash. He is al to male. Mr President has it been "swallowed". (How that could watch them all, yes) Against President Trrump "our" should use someone like Monika Levinski. On the other hand. Mr President the confidence to can the population against win. By, - of big power Russia, publicly to distance from Diplomate-terroriste. The i! st first. And. The insurgents (anti Moskva / anti-SHWGK / anti-GRU / anti-FSB-SWR) Wikipedia - Uwer's to support it via small donation to Wikipedia Proect. So for all the interested parties become clear-not is the same of the Government in Washington and the Government in Moscow.Tatarsfann (talk) 11:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
The Letter/Wiener's Laptop
This sentence is a bit troubling from my standpoint: "His decisions have been regarded by a number of analysts, including Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight, to have likely cost Clinton the election." The "number of analysts" is actually three avowed liberal blogs sympathetic to Hillary Clinton: 538 (mentioned), Vox (which cites 538), and Vanity Fair. As has been established, it's acceptable to use biased sources, but not to sway the tone of the article with these biased sources. It's important that the reader is not given the impression that the "analysts" are in any way independent or disinterested. SInce I see no reason to single out Nate Silver from the trio, I removed his specific reference from a few rephrasing suggestions I came up with:
- a) "...regarded by several liberal blogs to have likely cost Clinton the election."
- b) "...regarded by several liberal blogs to have likely cost Clinton the election. Others are skeptical of this notion and dispute that the letter had any discernible effect." [NYT, Townhall, hotair]
- c) "His handling of the discovery on Wiener's laptop was met with bipartisan criticism.[a few liberal sources and a few conservative sources]"
Another option that actually may be my preferred choice is to remove this tidbit altogether, as one letter a man wrote probably does not belong in the opening paragraphs of a biography of that man's life. Thoughts? Hidden Tempo (talk) 03:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- Literally none of the sources you describe as "liberal blogs" are, in actuality, liberal blogs. Vanity Fair is a well-respected dead-tree magazine. Same with 538; it's an analysis site written by Nate Silver and others (and hence we cite it as an analyst) published by a mainstream media organization. I'm not aware of any significant description of 538 as "liberal" among reliable sources. Vox is a news and analysis site, and it's the only one of the three which could be fairly described as "liberal" in terms of any significant editorial slant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Sure, I mean we could go back and forth all day about what qualifies a magazine/blog for the "liberal" or "conservative" label. I don't know if you can find a single story published by Vanity Fair or Vox (or Nate Silver, for that matter) that reflects favorably or reports positive information related to Republicans and/or the president, but I couldn't. Anyway, as I stated, the third option is my personal preference anyhow. I rewrote the lead in a new section below this one if you want to take a look. I'm open to keeping the final two sentences, but I stand by my assertion that the reporting of one New York Times reporter relying on an anonymous alleged "letter" is undue, POV, and unnecessarily detailed for the lead.Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- The statement, as written, is well referenced. Nate Silver is an analytic journalist whose analysis has been reported by a large number a media outlets including the self described "fair and balanced" network Fox News which I doubt many would refer to as "liberal". The sources are provided so that the reader can reference the information directly. None of these sources are "avowed" (self described) "liberal blogs". To add "liberal" to the statement without reliable sources that verify such would be expressing an editor's point of view which an encyclopedia does not do.
- What would be acceptable, if you feel it is necessary, would be a contrasting analysis backed up by reliable, independent sources with in depth coverage.
- This is far from a "tidbit" - Comey's actions, of which this letter and it's possible influence on the election is part of, are currently being investigated by the FBI, the Inspector General’s office and Office of Government Ethics and is a major part of his professional career and should be part of the lead. CBS527Talk 18:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Nate Silver (as far as I'm aware) has made no effort to hide his liberal leanings, but you're right, "avowed" wasn't the right word. I probably meant to say "devout." And I'm in no way insinuating that liberalism is a bad thing or that liberal blogs are automatically discredited, but if you're going to use the word "analysts" to describe 3-4 liberal writers/bloggers, I think the word "liberal" is a highly relevant descriptor. If we absolute must put the opinion of these liberal writers/bloggers that Comey's letter is why Clinton lost, then yes, I do think it's necessary to add something to the effect of: "Others believe that the letter had no effect on the outcome of the election, and have referred to suggestions to the contrary as 'a groundless liberal myth.'[1]" That link is just something I dug up, there are much better sources I'm sure that use other descriptors. What source are you using for what you just said about the FBI and IG investigating the Comey letter? Also, what do you think about my revised lead below? (putting this particular piece aside, for now) Thanks. Hidden Tempo (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- The guidlines Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, WP:BIASED, WP:QUESTIONABLE, WP:UGC explain far better than I could the problems with adding liberal to the sentence and sourcing.
- Quite a number of news organizations have reported that the FBI have initiated an investigation of Comey's actions and that the OGE has been asked to investigated Comey's possible violation of the Hatch Act. "Justice Department watchdog says it will investigate FBI director's decision to speak about Clinton investigation". Los Angeles Times. January 12, 2017.. "Trump-Loving Fox News Host Blasts FBI Head James Comey for 'Disgraceful' Meddling in Election". alternet.org., "On Clinton Emails, Did the F.B.I. Director Abuse His Power?". New York Times. October 30, 2016..
- Nate Silver (as far as I'm aware) has made no effort to hide his liberal leanings, but you're right, "avowed" wasn't the right word. I probably meant to say "devout." And I'm in no way insinuating that liberalism is a bad thing or that liberal blogs are automatically discredited, but if you're going to use the word "analysts" to describe 3-4 liberal writers/bloggers, I think the word "liberal" is a highly relevant descriptor. If we absolute must put the opinion of these liberal writers/bloggers that Comey's letter is why Clinton lost, then yes, I do think it's necessary to add something to the effect of: "Others believe that the letter had no effect on the outcome of the election, and have referred to suggestions to the contrary as 'a groundless liberal myth.'[1]" That link is just something I dug up, there are much better sources I'm sure that use other descriptors. What source are you using for what you just said about the FBI and IG investigating the Comey letter? Also, what do you think about my revised lead below? (putting this particular piece aside, for now) Thanks. Hidden Tempo (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Revising the lead
Upon taking another look at the lead, I think it's probably time for an overhaul/cleanup of the whole thing. We have summaries of his early life, education, and career in the lead instead of in the appropriate sections, and some POV stuff that's covered in great detail in Dismissal of James Comey. Here's a revision draft, with new material in italics:
- James Brien Comey Jr. (born December 14, 1960) is an American lawyer who served as the seventh Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) from September 4, 2013 until May 9, 2017.[2]
- As the director of the FBI, he was responsible for overseeing the FBI's investigation of the Hillary Clinton email controversy. His role in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, particularly with regard to his public communications, was highly controversial.[6] Comey's July 5 press conference regarding the controversy, as well as his letter to congress related to the discovery of new Clinton emails, was met with bipartisan criticism.
- Comey was dismissed by President Donald Trump on May 9, 2017.[10][11][12] A statement released by the White House said that removing Comey will help bring the Russia investigation to a conclusion.[13] Later that day, Trump stated that he fired Comey because he "was not doing a good job."http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/10/trump-why-i-fired-james-comey-238212 In an interview on May 11 with NBC's Lester Holt, Trump criticized Comey for being a "showboat" and added that he was thinking of "this Russia thing with Trump and Russia" when he decided to dismiss Comey, referring to his frustration with the ongoing investigation into Russian intereference in the 2016 election.[14] The New York Times published a report that in a private conversation with the Russian government, Trump stated that he "faced great pressure on the Russian investigation. That's [now] taken off".[15] The Times also reported that Trump stated that he fired Comey to "ease" the Russian investigation against him, calling him a "nut job".[15] According to a personal memo allegedly written by Comey, Trump asked him to personally end the investigation into General Michael Flynn.
Those last two sentences contain highly POV language due to the fiercely contested and ambiguous nature of the conversations, however it's probably too much detail for the lead anyway and can also be moved to main "Dismissal" page). Again, the deleted information was removed from this lead draft for the sake of conciseness and for organization, as these sections can clearly be moved to the subsections. No references need to be added or removed save for the Politico article. Anybody have any objections or suggestions for this version? Normally I'd just be BOLD, but this is somewhat long-standing material and want to invite collaboration.Hidden Tempo (talk) 02:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Those last two sentence are neither too detailed nor POV. They're a huge part of this story.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
MrX, did you read my edits or did you just take a quick skim and revert the whole thing? I added the citation for the "cn" tag in the second sentence of the article (now reverted), deleted his duplicate "private sector" time as it's already in the "Private Sector" section (biographical detail is still there), and removed highly POV editorializing ("Trump then sensationally admitted that the true reason for the dismissal was that"). I also added the findings of experts (not Vanity Fair "analysts") on the Comey letter, required per WP:V when reliable sources disagree. As I'm sure you'll acknowledge, NPR, Bloomberg, and the New York Times are reliable. So. Of this material, what do you specifically object to? Hidden Tempo (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- I reverted your edit because the vast majority of it was bad. For example, you removed the third paragraph which contained a summary of his career. Information about his political affiliation should not be in the lead since he did not hold a political office. The American Association for Public Opinion Research material should be attributed to them (not 'scientists'). Also, the lead is supposed to summarize the article. This material is not even in the article. The NYT attribution that you added in two places is unnecessary. Trump's dubious rebuttals don't belong in the lead. - MrX 15:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- MrX - I'm curious as to what policy, guideline or consensus you based your removal of Comey's political affiliation from the lead on. Some FBI Director's bio contain info in the lead about their political affliation, some do not.
- User:Volunteer Marek has re added this information. Since Comey's decision to publicly release information about the bureau's investigation into Hillary Clinton's handling of classified material is currently under investigation by the FBI ("Justice Department watchdog says it will investigate FBI director's decision to speak about Clinton investigation". Los Angeles Times. January 12, 2017.), IMO his political affiliation is important enough to put in he lead. CBS527Talk 19:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Cbs527, I didn't actually remove Comey's changed political affiliation, but I do think it should be removed from the lead based on WP:DUEWEIGHT. It seems to be nothing more than a minor point mentioned in the source.- MrX 19:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate your opinion that my edit was bad, although I of course disagree. Your response here is extremely confusing.
- I removed the third paragraph (his early 2000's career, not a "summary") since (as I just stated) it a duplicate paragraph from the "Private Sector" section. There's no reason to copy-paste the "Private Sector" section into the lead. It makes the lead needlessly long.
- I didn't put the information about his political affiliation in the lead, only added the citation (fulfilling MelanieN's cn tag. But even if you felt that it shouldn't be the lead, you left it in anyway! So you see the confusion here lol. You never answered my question. Did you read the edit or just skim it?
- The AAPOR material is attributed to them because...they did the study. Take it up with NPR, The New York Times, and Bloomberg if you feel they cited the wrong study. If writers from a fashion mag are "analysts," scientists from AAPOR cited by are unquestionably scientists. Nate Silver is given undue weight in my opinion, but the least we can do is balance his opinion out with that of actual science. Agreed? Wikipedia:Verifiability says if reliable sources disagree, they must both be represented. See for yourself.
- Your opinion that Trump's reasons for firing Comey are "dubious" is not relevant to Wikipedia. Excluding Trump's response because MrX feels that it's "dubious" is textbook POV. Again, I think the only dismissal-related information that belongs in the lead is the first exceedingly neutral sentence "On May 9th, Trump dismissed Comey," but if we must get into the weeds as to the reasons and background of the dismissal right in the lead, then we need to include Trump's response, not just what the New York Times claims what an anonymous source claims. That's called "cherry picking." As disinterested editors, we don't get to pick and choose which dismissal reasons we include and which ones we don't. The first reason the POTUS gave for the firing was that he "wasn't doing a good job," and that needs to go into the lead.
- You didn't respond to your implied opinion that you think the language "Trump then sensationally admitted that the true reason for the dismissal was that" is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Any comment on that? Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Hidden Tempo Wholesale changes to the lead are usually reverted, I wouldn't change the whole lead unless you have a clear consensus. Also, I would suggest removing the word "alleged" from the last sentence as Comey has acknowledged writing the memo and the FBI has refused to release any of Comey's memos because of an ongoing or future investigation."FBI refuses to release Comey memos while investigation ongoing". thehill.com.
- With that being said, I have no objection and support changing:
- "His decisions have been regarded by a number of analysts, including Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight, to have likely cost Clinton the election."
- with what you have written above
- "Comey's July 5 press conference regarding the controversy, as well as his letter to congress related to the discovery of new Clinton emails, was met with bipartisan criticism."
- My reason for that is, IMHO, it is more concise and on point and, secondly, Comey’s controversial decision to publicly discuss the case is currently under investigation. per WP:BLP. CBS527Talk 18:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation, that makes sense @cbs527. I'm fine with taking out "alleged" in regards to the memos. I can also live with your replacement, as this tidbit seems undue in the lead, and there doesn't seem to be any discernible reason to single out Nate Silver as some sort of authority on voting patterns. Any comment on massively trimming the dismissal summary in the last paragraph? Or adding Trump's publicly stated reasoning (rather than relying solely on the reasons allegedly given to the New York Times by an anonymous source)? Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- For the purpose of clarity my comments are in regard to the lead as it currently appears in the article.
- 1. I agree the lead is way too long. See WP:LEAD. Of all the info contained in the lead, the 3rd paragraph is the least important in regard to Comey's legacy and could be removed.
- 2. The fifth (last paragraph): Is unnecessarily to long as Trump and the White House have given so many different reasons for Comey's firing (beginning with Rosenstein's letter that stated "it was wrong of Comey to say that the investigation into Clinton's private email server should be closed and that no charges should be issued."). The reasons for the firing should be contained in the dismissal section as it is not necessary to discuss that in the lead. See WP:LEAD. If the reasons for the dismissal are removed, the Comey's memo section could also be removed as this info is already contained in the "Russian election interference investigation". The first sentence in the paragraph, with the sources listed, should be sufficient for the lead.
- Other's may have some other suggestions to bring the lead more concise version as per [[WP:LEAD}} CBS527Talk 00:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments, and I agree with all of your remarks. It seems unnecessary to do a RfC for each of these changes, but what do you think would be the best course of action at this point to help trim it down and make it a bit more neutral? Maybe just wait a bit and give some editors a chance to agree with the modifications? Hidden Tempo (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, we should wait a few more days to allow others to share their suggestions/opinions. Usually a week is sufficient time for a discussion at which time there maybe a clear direction to proceed or more discussion may be needed. Since anything or anyone related with the 2016 election seems to cause quite a bit of controversy it is best for editors to bear in mind our policies, guidelines and previous practice and try to come up with some sort of compromise in the instances where there is a difference of opinion. CBS527Talk 20:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments, and I agree with all of your remarks. It seems unnecessary to do a RfC for each of these changes, but what do you think would be the best course of action at this point to help trim it down and make it a bit more neutral? Maybe just wait a bit and give some editors a chance to agree with the modifications? Hidden Tempo (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Other's may have some other suggestions to bring the lead more concise version as per [[WP:LEAD}} CBS527Talk 00:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation, that makes sense @cbs527. I'm fine with taking out "alleged" in regards to the memos. I can also live with your replacement, as this tidbit seems undue in the lead, and there doesn't seem to be any discernible reason to single out Nate Silver as some sort of authority on voting patterns. Any comment on massively trimming the dismissal summary in the last paragraph? Or adding Trump's publicly stated reasoning (rather than relying solely on the reasons allegedly given to the New York Times by an anonymous source)? Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Bbb23, as you can see, we have a discussion open regarding the revised lead. You stated that "some" of the material is "convoluted" and "most" is "not neutral," yet you reverted all content. Could you come to the talk page and explain your reasoning behind that, as well as what you believe is "convoluted"? The dismissal content is taken directly from Dismissal of James Comey, so I'm a bit puzzled by your characterizations. Also, I note that in your capacity as an administrator, you have had several prior interactions with the original reverting user, including personally letting him go from at least one of his numerous ANI edit-warring complaints[2] and obliging to at least a few of his requests for you to block other editors[3][4]. Not sure if an uninvolved admin could/should weigh in here, but this history seems like it could potentially pose some sort of conflict. Anyway, I look forward to your joining the discussion and hearing your logic behind your revert. Thanks. Hidden Tempo (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)