TheTimesAreAChanging (talk | contribs) →Second paragraph of lead: Re, edit conflict. |
|||
Line 547: | Line 547: | ||
::::::::::MelanieN, it's not "changing the subject" to insist that WP reflect RS reporting. 1) Rosenstein pointedly did not say he was making a "recommendation" - RS report that he was deeply troubled by his role in the whole affair, and that was too much for him to swallow. Sessions went along but Sessions is himself tainted in the entire Russian interference matter. 2) Since RS tell us the Sessions/Comey documents were created to provide a pretext, a rationale, or a legally or politically conforming "cause" for a decision President Trump had already reached and documented in a problematic way, WP should not call them "recommendations" when they were not recommendations, they were pretexts, rationales, or legally or politically conforming "causes" for Trump's action. I've stated that clearly many times here but the dogged opposition, which you appear now to have endorsed, has repeatedly declined to "address the central point", choosing instead to attack me personally. There's nothing phony about my expecting that the article not state in WP's voice that these documents were "recommendations". If you think recent RS, after more and more of the story is now revealed, are predominantly calling these documents recommendations, you could resolve the matter by showing us all the many RS accounts, since the latest revelation on Friday, that call the Justice Dept. documents "recommendations. Wouldn't that be a simpler resolution than biting me and disparaging my thoughtful "arguments" as "phony"? [[User:SPECIFICO |<font color ="0011FF"> '''SPECIFICO'''</font>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 16:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC) |
::::::::::MelanieN, it's not "changing the subject" to insist that WP reflect RS reporting. 1) Rosenstein pointedly did not say he was making a "recommendation" - RS report that he was deeply troubled by his role in the whole affair, and that was too much for him to swallow. Sessions went along but Sessions is himself tainted in the entire Russian interference matter. 2) Since RS tell us the Sessions/Comey documents were created to provide a pretext, a rationale, or a legally or politically conforming "cause" for a decision President Trump had already reached and documented in a problematic way, WP should not call them "recommendations" when they were not recommendations, they were pretexts, rationales, or legally or politically conforming "causes" for Trump's action. I've stated that clearly many times here but the dogged opposition, which you appear now to have endorsed, has repeatedly declined to "address the central point", choosing instead to attack me personally. There's nothing phony about my expecting that the article not state in WP's voice that these documents were "recommendations". If you think recent RS, after more and more of the story is now revealed, are predominantly calling these documents recommendations, you could resolve the matter by showing us all the many RS accounts, since the latest revelation on Friday, that call the Justice Dept. documents "recommendations. Wouldn't that be a simpler resolution than biting me and disparaging my thoughtful "arguments" as "phony"? [[User:SPECIFICO |<font color ="0011FF"> '''SPECIFICO'''</font>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 16:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::::<s>[[User:SPECIFICO|SPECIFICO]]: If I do, will you drop it? I'm not inclined to do the work of finding half a dozen sources if it's not going to change anything. BTW since you ask for sources from just the last three days I will see what I can find, but IMO that kind of time requirement is unreasonable. RS have been calling it a "recommendation" all along, and RS are RS; they don't expire like last week's carton of milk. And your apparent insistence that the Sept. 1 revelation changed everything is new; you have been arguing against "recommendation" (and rejecting any RS people showed you) long before that --[[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 17:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)</s> |
:::::::::::<s>[[User:SPECIFICO|SPECIFICO]]: If I do, will you drop it? I'm not inclined to do the work of finding half a dozen sources if it's not going to change anything. BTW since you ask for sources from just the last three days I will see what I can find, but IMO that kind of time requirement is unreasonable. RS have been calling it a "recommendation" all along, and RS are RS; they don't expire like last week's carton of milk. And your apparent insistence that the Sept. 1 revelation changed everything is new; you have been arguing against "recommendation" (and rejecting any RS people showed you) long before that --[[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 17:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)</s> |
||
:::::::::::::"Carton of milk?" Is that really the tone of discourse you wish to exemplify here? RS accounts expire? Straw man. RS accounts reflect current knowledge, and current knowledge does expire. It's fresh every day. And so, if we look at the very first accounts, the Administration's spin was more or less reported straightfaced. And over time, as information as increasingly become available from President's own words, from the words of other principals, and from investigative reporting, the RS narrative has changed. So yes, it expires. In fact, the use of stale sources is one of the most widespread devices of POV-pushing and non-policy compliant editing on Wikipedia. Because it's possible to choose dated accounts that are written in the authoritative style of an RS based on what was known as of the fresh date but which has been superseded by more recent facts and developments. Not all editors form a coherent view at the same pace. Very often some will understand an issue before others. I cited Sept. 1 because it provided overwhelming fresh details that I reasonably expect will clarify the issue for some of the editors who may previously have thought I was splitting hairs. So in this case, those of us who saw this earlier may have been ahead of the curve, but additional RS evidence is offered to be helpful, not as you appear to suggest, to change the tune. [[User:SPECIFICO |<font color ="0011FF"> '''SPECIFICO'''</font>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 17:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::(''Edit conflict'') SPECIFICO is moving the goalpost again: Virtually all RS do use the term "recommendation," and she has been provided many such sources, but they've all been invalidated {{tq|"since the latest revelation on Friday"}} (i.e., three days ago), so we need {{tq|"'''many''' RS accounts"}} from ''just the past three days'' to satisfy her.[[User:TheTimesAreAChanging|TheTimesAreAChanging]] ([[User talk:TheTimesAreAChanging|talk]]) 17:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC) |
::::::::::::(''Edit conflict'') SPECIFICO is moving the goalpost again: Virtually all RS do use the term "recommendation," and she has been provided many such sources, but they've all been invalidated {{tq|"since the latest revelation on Friday"}} (i.e., three days ago), so we need {{tq|"'''many''' RS accounts"}} from ''just the past three days'' to satisfy her.[[User:TheTimesAreAChanging|TheTimesAreAChanging]] ([[User talk:TheTimesAreAChanging|talk]]) 17:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC) |
||
{{od}}Look, [[User:SPECIFICO|SPECIFICO]], let's cut to the chase. We are supposed to talk about what the article should actually SAY. Here's what the article lede currently says: {{tq|Trump dismissed Comey by way of a termination letter citing recommendations from Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein}}. That is unequivocally true; his letter did cite the two memos as "recommending your dismissal" and said "I have accepted their recommendation." We would be false to the source if we removed "recommendations" from our sentence. |
{{od}}Look, [[User:SPECIFICO|SPECIFICO]], let's cut to the chase. We are supposed to talk about what the article should actually SAY. Here's what the article lede currently says: {{tq|Trump dismissed Comey by way of a termination letter citing recommendations from Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein}}. That is unequivocally true; his letter did cite the two memos as "recommending your dismissal" and said "I have accepted their recommendation." We would be false to the source if we removed "recommendations" from our sentence. |
Revision as of 17:28, 4 September 2017
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Let's improve the revised Aug 5 lede
I think that today's revision has many problems. A few: Comey was not under ongoing public pressure about the Clinton email matter. The Justice Department documents were not "recommendations". RS tell us they were coerced by Trump. Both of these POV insinuations in the lede are manifestly promoting an unverified POV narrative and are unacceptable. SPECIFICO talk 18:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- There is no insinuation that I can distinguish in the new text. We do say quite explicitly that Trump had requested a rationale from Rosenstein to justify firing Comey, a decision he had already made. Now, if you have specific suggestions to improve the text, let's read them. — JFG talk 19:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- +SPECIFICO - "Comey was not under ongoing public pressure about the Clinton email matter." - He was, actually. Donald constantly said that Comey wasn't tough enough on Clinton regarding her email misuse, and that he should have been tougher on her, which was one of the many reasons why he was fired. See: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-fires-fbis-comey-over-clinton-email-investigation/article/2622593. Also, the current lead is a massive improvement compared to what was there before, without a single doubt. Yes, the current lead may need some more improvement, but the under construction template is there for a reason. --M.W.B.A.B. 20:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) SPECIFICO's other objection is equally meritless: Contrary to SPECIFICO,
"Comey had been under public and political pressure as a result of both the FBI's role in the Hillary Clinton email controversy and the FBI's investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections"
is long-standing text from the old lead, which was simply carried over with no changes in the latest revision. SPECIFICO appears to be playing some sort of word game with her reference to"ongoing public pressure"
above, but obviously Comey's handling of the Clinton email investigation had been widely criticized across the political spectrum, with prominent Democrats accusing Comey of costing Clinton the election and demanding his ouster; to insinuate that none of that ever happened is to play chess with extra pieces.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)- Maybe that sentence could be reworded to something like: Comey had been under major political pressure during the Trump Administration, due to the FBI's role on both the Clinton email controversy and the investigation of the Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections. --M.W.B.A.B. 20:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- That would be incorrect: Comey had been under pressure from all colors of the political spectrum ever since he gave the July 2016 press conference regarding Clinton emails. Democrats thought he was too harsh, Republicans too lenient. Some said he cleared Clinton, others said he buried her. Not a comfortable situation for him either way… — JFG talk 21:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe that sentence could be reworded to something like: Comey had been under major political pressure during the Trump Administration, due to the FBI's role on both the Clinton email controversy and the investigation of the Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections. --M.W.B.A.B. 20:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) SPECIFICO's other objection is equally meritless: Contrary to SPECIFICO,
Folks, let's discuss the edits, not criticize the editor. I do think it is accurate to say that Comey was under "ongoing public pressure" about both of the matters named. In recent months it had been more about Russia and less about the emails, but the email issue and particularly his handling of public disclosure about that issue had not been forgotten or forgiven by large segments of the public and of congress. That issue was "live" enough that Rosenstein used it as the rationale for firing him, and many Democrats in Congress felt he deserved to be fired for that reason. Thanks, M.W.B.A.B., but I don't think the sentence needs expansion. For one thing, the public pressure preceded the Trump administration. As for the Justice Department, it is difficult to read Rosenstein's memo any other way than as a recommendation (although I guess he later insisted it wasn't one). Anyhow, Sessions put it very directly in his cover letter: "I must recommend that you remove Director James B. Comey, Jr." --MelanieN (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- I think there is no justification for the language, hence...
- @M.W.B.A.B.: Self-interested statements by Trump are not "public pressure" -- those are job-related threats or as was later revealed by RS, attempts to deflect attention from Trump's motivation for the dismissal. Trump≠"the public". SPECIFICO talk 21:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oops, I read that wrong, I thought it said "political pressure," not "public pressure." Sorry about that, SPECIFICO. I take back what I said before. --M.W.B.A.B. 21:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- Melanie, please, what RS says that Rosenstein initiated the memo due to that concern. Plenty of RS say he was instructed to cite that, none say he was motivated by it. RS say he chose to remain employed at the Justice Dept. and wrote the memo the lack of which which, had he refused, would not have kept Comey in place. SPECIFICO talk 21:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- Again, SPECIFICO, it would be easier to debate your point if you made a specific suggestion to amend the text. Thanks for your consideration. — JFG talk 21:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, Rosenstein was ordered to come up with a rationale for dismissing Comey. He was told to do it and he did so. Trump has said he meant to fire Comey regardless, which kinds of lets Rosenstein off the hook, doesn't it? The fact that he wrote the memo under orders does not wipe out the fact that he wrote it. We have no reason to suspect he thought his memo was false or didn't mean it. He had a full range of reasons he could have chosen for dismissing Comey, and he chose the one he felt most comfortable with and thought might "sell" well with the public. Nobody told him what reason to pick, and no RS that I have seen says he was "instructed to cite" the Clinton email controversy. He was just told to come up with a reason. So I don't think there's anything unverified or POV, or any "insinuation" of something false, going on here. In any case, the "Justice Department memo" justification did not last long. Trump's "I fired him because Justice recommended it" claim was dropped - within less than 24 hours if I remember correctly - and other reasons were quickly advanced, as our lede points out. --MelanieN (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- P.S. to JFG about a specific suggestion: Little play on words there, I s'pose? --MelanieN (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- JFG, it's not my job to make your job easy when it's your job to NPOV V AGF BURDEN, etc etc. Try demonstrating that you meet site policy. It's getting late around here so maybe I'll find a pleasant surprise in the morning. SPECIFICO talk 21:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO, it is not OUR job to try to figure out what you are asking for here. Several of us have disputed your premise that something or other in this lede is POV or unverified or unacceptable, or that there is "no justification for the language" - exactly what language we don't know. If you can't explain clearly what wording you want to have changed, I for one am going to quit responding to this unproductive thread and move on. --MelanieN (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
"Plenty of RS say he was instructed to cite that."
Like MelanieN, I'd love to see some of those alleged plentiful "sources," SPECIFICO.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO, it is not OUR job to try to figure out what you are asking for here. Several of us have disputed your premise that something or other in this lede is POV or unverified or unacceptable, or that there is "no justification for the language" - exactly what language we don't know. If you can't explain clearly what wording you want to have changed, I for one am going to quit responding to this unproductive thread and move on. --MelanieN (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- Again, SPECIFICO, it would be easier to debate your point if you made a specific suggestion to amend the text. Thanks for your consideration. — JFG talk 21:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, based on your comments on my talk page, I believe the language you are objecting to is: 1) you think the current lede implies that Trump fired Comey because of public opinion against Comey, and 2) you think we should not say or imply that the Justice recommendations had anything to do with the dismissal, because those recommendations were requested rather than spontaneous. Also, 3) that our current lede language implies that there was some kind of professional evaluation of Comey's job performance and leadership, when in fact there was not. Have I understood your objections correctly? If so we can look at the individual issues here. --MelanieN (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
One sentence to last paragraph in lead
FYI: I have revised this:
In light of the dismissal, the memo, and Comey's testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee in June 2017, some media figures and political opponents accused Trump of attempting to obstruct justice.
to this:
In light of the dismissal, the memo, and Comey's testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee in June 2017, some commentators, Trump critics, and legal scholars said that Trump's acts could be construed as obstruction of justice.
This makes a few improvements which I think should be noncontroversial, but it is good to explain the reasons anyway:
- Many commentators didn't actually say that it was definitely obstruction of justice, but could be construed that way, or pointed in that direction - I think the second sentence is more accurate. Many commentators were carefully to say that while the question was raised, more investigation was needed.
- This debate was not limited to "some media figures and political opponents" but also included many law professors; e.g., Ryan Goodman (link), Laura K. Donohue (link), and Laurence Tribe (link), all said that Trump's acts could be construed as obstruction of justice. (And, conversely, there were other law professors who were more skeptical; this summary from The Atlantic is good). The point is that there was a robust debate about the implications of the acts among scholars/experts - this issue wasn't just discussed by pundits and congressmen. Neutralitytalk 21:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- This goes back to the same problem we're having with the James Comey lead line of "some analysts think Comey influenced the election." Sure some do and some don't (including a scientific study proving that it didn't), just like some legal experts think Trump obstructed justice. But just as many say that there is no case at all here, and ridicule any suggestion otherwise.[1][2] From NBC, "Legal experts are divided." If they're divided, it's POV to only say that some legal experts think that Trump obstructed justice, to the exclusion of "Some legal experts do NOT think Trump obstructed justice." Hidden Tempo (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- Neutrality, I think your change is an improvement and I endorse it. HT, I am getting really tired of your dragging that one sentence into unrelated discussions all over the 'pedia. It is under discussion at the relevent talk page; let's keep it there. --MelanieN (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- HT - as Melanie notes, that's not what we are talking about here. But, in any case, the word "some" implies "a number, but not all." See, e.g., Merriam-Webster definition: "being one, a part, or an unspecified number of something (such as a class or group)." So I'm not sure what your complaint is. Neutralitytalk 23:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- Lol I thought the analogy worked perfectly, my bad. But yeah, just wanted to go on record that I disagree with the choice to include only what some legal experts think to the exclusion of other legal experts. As NBC stated, legal experts are divided and this should be communicated in the lead.
- Yes, I know what the word "some" means. Some analysts believe the Apollo 11 moon landing was a hoax. Some commentators believe there's more questions than answers surrounding the 9/11 terrorist attacks. And yes, some legal analysts believe that Trump obstructed justice. "Some" isn't a magic word that provides a loophole to placing POV content in leads. How do we decide which legal experts' opinion we put in the lead? How did you decide to choose the legal experts that think Trump obstructed justice, instead of the legal experts that do not think Trump obstructed justice? What was your process? Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- HT, yes, there were respected scholars who said that this does not amount to obstruction of justice. (You don't add strength to your argument by comparing it to Apollo 11 deniers and 9/11 theorists, in fact you weaken it. Unlike those cases, in this case there is respected opinion on both sides.) Do you think we should add a "while others said" phrase to this sentence in the lede, or just defer the whole debate to the article text? --MelanieN (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- What's wrong with something like "...some commentators and Trump critics believe it's obstruction. Legal experts and scholars remain divided."? At least until the investigation is over and all the speculation and conjecture can be replaced with the findings of Mueller and Co. Don't pay too much attention to the nuance of the metaphors - the principle remains the same. We don't get to pick certain opinions to place in leads as long as the word "some" goes in front of it. Isn't the "some say" tactic considered WP:WEASEL anyhow? Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- If we are going to work from Neutrality's sentence (and on second thought I think we could leave out "Trump critics" - I mean, what do we EXPECT them to say?), how about "In light of the dismissal, the memo, and Comey's testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee in June 2017, some commentators and legal scholars said that Trump's acts could be construed as obstruction of justice, while others said his actions do not rise to that level." Neutrality, what would you think about that? --MelanieN (talk) 23:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hope I'm not taking up all the air in the room but I'd be good with that just to throw it out there. Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- MelanieN, that's fine with me. Neutralitytalk 00:46, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- If we are going to work from Neutrality's sentence (and on second thought I think we could leave out "Trump critics" - I mean, what do we EXPECT them to say?), how about "In light of the dismissal, the memo, and Comey's testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee in June 2017, some commentators and legal scholars said that Trump's acts could be construed as obstruction of justice, while others said his actions do not rise to that level." Neutrality, what would you think about that? --MelanieN (talk) 23:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- What's wrong with something like "...some commentators and Trump critics believe it's obstruction. Legal experts and scholars remain divided."? At least until the investigation is over and all the speculation and conjecture can be replaced with the findings of Mueller and Co. Don't pay too much attention to the nuance of the metaphors - the principle remains the same. We don't get to pick certain opinions to place in leads as long as the word "some" goes in front of it. Isn't the "some say" tactic considered WP:WEASEL anyhow? Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- HT, yes, there were respected scholars who said that this does not amount to obstruction of justice. (You don't add strength to your argument by comparing it to Apollo 11 deniers and 9/11 theorists, in fact you weaken it. Unlike those cases, in this case there is respected opinion on both sides.) Do you think we should add a "while others said" phrase to this sentence in the lede, or just defer the whole debate to the article text? --MelanieN (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- This goes back to the same problem we're having with the James Comey lead line of "some analysts think Comey influenced the election." Sure some do and some don't (including a scientific study proving that it didn't), just like some legal experts think Trump obstructed justice. But just as many say that there is no case at all here, and ridicule any suggestion otherwise.[1][2] From NBC, "Legal experts are divided." If they're divided, it's POV to only say that some legal experts think that Trump obstructed justice, to the exclusion of "Some legal experts do NOT think Trump obstructed justice." Hidden Tempo (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree that Neutrality brought an important point to the lede, however the resulting change completely omits reactions by political opponents. There was a rather stunning switch from bipartisan criticism of Comey to a sudden "Comey sainthood" after Trump decided to fire him. Likewise among media figures, we saw hysterical pile-ons about deceit, obstruction of justice and Nixonism, while Bob Woodward of Watergate fame said this was not comparable to the Saturday Night Massacre. Trump trolled everybody with his "Comey tapes" adding fuel to the fire. We can't just ignore that and defer the debate to legal pettifoggery. Not sure yet how to write something concise reflecting those events, but I think some of the political atmosphere following Comey's dismissal must be conveyed in the lede; it is well-covered in the article body. — JFG talk 03:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- I thought "commentators and legal scholars" should cover it; who else should we mention? We already have some wording (your wording) about the political pressure he was under before getting fired. For encyclopedia purposes and especially lede purposes, this calm and balanced sentence about the "obstruction" claims (our new added wording covers Woodward) seems appropriate to me, but can you come up with some new or additional wording? Of course it has be documented in the article text if we are to put it in the lede; can you find some wording in the article that we could draw on for a summary? Hopefully brief, so we don't overbalance the lede we just reduced to proper proportions? --MelanieN (talk) 04:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- Right, will think more about it. Other editors have jumped into the lead without discussing changes here, so the concise text we developed has become a bit blurred already. I agree it should not be excessively expanded again — JFG talk 15:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- MelanieN - I'm pinging you specifically since you were the last editor of the lead, but anyone could chime in here. How did the "But Trump soon stated..." part end up in there? I don't remember that language in any of the proposed versions. I believe "But" is one of the NPOV/weasel words to avoid. "Trump soon stated..." is more neutral, and the reader can draw their own conclusions from the two facts. Hidden Tempo (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- It looks as if I was the one who inserted "But". I agree it could be construed as a weasel word and I have removed it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- I have performed some more copy-editing,[3] taking into account prior consensus and useful additions. — JFG talk 23:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- JFG, you seem to have accepted SPECIFICO's unsupported assertion that Trump
"requested that rationale"
from Rosenstein. Are there, in fact, any sources to support that language? If not, you should change it to"requested a rationale"
from Rosenstein.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- JFG, you seem to have accepted SPECIFICO's unsupported assertion that Trump
- I have performed some more copy-editing,[3] taking into account prior consensus and useful additions. — JFG talk 23:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- It looks as if I was the one who inserted "But". I agree it could be construed as a weasel word and I have removed it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- MelanieN, JFG: I understand that there has been a lot of back-and-forth on the article in the last two days while I've been offline, so this comment is directed at material no longer in the lead, but in case the issue pops up again: I want to specifically object to name-dropping individual commentators in isolation in the lead. For example, in the lead section, I would oppose mentioning Bob Woodward by name, unless we are going to also to mention other commentators by name. (It makes no sense to name Woodward specifically, but not others - is his view more important than Carl Bernstein's? Laurence Tribe's? John Dean's? I think not). In the lead, we should summarize. Neutralitytalk 17:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Neutrality: Totally agree. This is not on the table. — JFG talk 18:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- MelanieN - I'm pinging you specifically since you were the last editor of the lead, but anyone could chime in here. How did the "But Trump soon stated..." part end up in there? I don't remember that language in any of the proposed versions. I believe "But" is one of the NPOV/weasel words to avoid. "Trump soon stated..." is more neutral, and the reader can draw their own conclusions from the two facts. Hidden Tempo (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- Right, will think more about it. Other editors have jumped into the lead without discussing changes here, so the concise text we developed has become a bit blurred already. I agree it should not be excessively expanded again — JFG talk 15:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Trump did not tell Rosenstein what to say
This BLP used to say (citations omitted):
“ | He dismissed Comey by way of a termination letter which said it was recommended by the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, who had been contemplating firing Comey for many months. Trump then stated that he had intended to fire Comey regardless of recommendation. | ” |
Today it was edited to say:
“ | Trump dismissed Comey by way of a termination letter highlighting recommendations from Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. He quickly stated that he had intended to fire Comey regardless, and had requested this rationale from Rosenstein. | ” |
The sources indicate that this second newer version is incorrect, that Trump did not provide any rationale to Rosenstein, much less the rationale that Comey had bungled the Clinton investigation; instead, the sources say that Rosenstein had already been considering for months both firing Comey and the rationale for firing Comey. In other words, Rosenstein's reasoning in the memo was not trumped up by Trump, as we currently say. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- I see it's been changed back to "requested a rationale", as it was in the consensus version. --MelanieN (talk) 23:52, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) That is correct. I just reverted the text to "a rationale", not "this rationale", as noted by TheTimesAreAChanging above. — JFG talk 23:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- That's better, but I still think it's highly relevant that Rosenstein had been contemplating firing Comey for many months, so Rosenstein was not merely inventing a rationale to satisfy Trump, which is what we currently imply (falsely). Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- I reverted that from the lede as unnecessary detail. It could be added to the article text. (In fact it shouldn't be in the lede if it isn't in the article text. The lede is supposed to summarize the main points from the text.) --MelanieN (talk) 23:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- Per WP:Preserve you should have put it in the article text. I will do so. But that is no reason to convey a false impression in the lead which is what we're now doing. Rosenstein did not create a rationale to satisfy Trump. That is simply false. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- So it's just a coincidence that Trump asked on a Friday for a rationale in writing to fire Comey, and Rosenstein and Sessions presented him with one on Monday?[4] --MelanieN (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Of course that was not a coincidence. What I am saying is that the rationale pre-existed Trump's request. It was developed by Rosenstein and Sessions months before. The rationale was not formulated simply to please Trump in response to Trump's request. Got it? Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- So it's just a coincidence that Trump asked on a Friday for a rationale in writing to fire Comey, and Rosenstein and Sessions presented him with one on Monday?[4] --MelanieN (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Per WP:Preserve you should have put it in the article text. I will do so. But that is no reason to convey a false impression in the lead which is what we're now doing. Rosenstein did not create a rationale to satisfy Trump. That is simply false. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- I reverted that from the lede as unnecessary detail. It could be added to the article text. (In fact it shouldn't be in the lede if it isn't in the article text. The lede is supposed to summarize the main points from the text.) --MelanieN (talk) 23:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- That's better, but I still think it's highly relevant that Rosenstein had been contemplating firing Comey for many months, so Rosenstein was not merely inventing a rationale to satisfy Trump, which is what we currently imply (falsely). Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
JFG and Anythingyouwant, would you PLEASE stop inserting stuff into the lede without discussing it first? First Anything inserted that Rosenstein "already had one (rationale) ready", then JFG made it into a whole sentence, "Rosenstein had already prepared arguments against Comey several months earlier". But that is not supported by the cited source, which merely says Rosenstein and Sessions had "discussed" the need for new leadership. The source actually contradicts your claim about having a rationale all ready in his back pocket having "prepared arguments against Comey several months earlier". The source says "Rosenstein told House members he learned on May 8 that Trump planned to fire Comey and 'sought my advice and input'. He then wrote his memo, dated May 9." That's from Rosenstein himself. Also "Rosenstein defended his decision to write last week's memo". "to write last week's memo," got it? I just don't see any support for the claim that he had this argument all written up ready to use, or even that he and Sessions had decided to use "Clinton's email" as their reason for firing him. I think this new material should be removed, at least until it is verified. What we do know is that Sessions and Rosenstein had agreed, months before, that "the FBI needed new leadership" - but I don't see any evidence that they developed the "Clinton's email handling" or any other agreed-upon rationale at that time. --MelanieN (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Neither I nor JFG ever suggested that Rosenstein had a memo "all written up ready to use". That's an invention, User:MelanieN. What Rosenstein already had was a reason, which is synonymous with a rationale, for firing Comey, but that doesn't mean he had written any of it down or developed it in detail. I strongly oppose any version of this lead that falsely implies Rosenstein devised a rationale to satisfy Trump, which is just not true. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- May I please see your evidence that Rosenstein and Sessions had decided, months ago, that their reason for firing Comey would be the Clinton email handling? Or had "prepared arguments against Comey months earlier" as the article currently says?--MelanieN (talk) 02:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Rosenstein already had a rationale for firing Comey, which is obvious from the fact that he already supported firing Comey. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please provide it. I really don't care how we phrase it. If you can improve on JFG's phrasing, that would be fine. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- I've read the sources before writing the sentence. Rosenstein is quoted as testifying: “Among the concerns that I recall were to restore the credibility of the FBI, respect the established authority of the Department of Justice, limit public statements and eliminate leaks.” – sure, he doesn't say "Clinton emails" explicitly, but neither does our text. Anythingyouwant correctly points out that Rosenstein already had considered several reasons to replace Comey, so that when Trump prompted him to come up with a rationale, he was quick to produce his letter. That being said, I'm open to alternate ideas for the phrasing. — JFG talk 02:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Rosenstein already had a rationale for firing Comey, which is obvious from the fact that he already supported firing Comey. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please provide it. I really don't care how we phrase it. If you can improve on JFG's phrasing, that would be fine. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- May I please see your evidence that Rosenstein and Sessions had decided, months ago, that their reason for firing Comey would be the Clinton email handling? Or had "prepared arguments against Comey months earlier" as the article currently says?--MelanieN (talk) 02:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Neither I nor JFG ever suggested that Rosenstein had a memo "all written up ready to use". That's an invention, User:MelanieN. What Rosenstein already had was a reason, which is synonymous with a rationale, for firing Comey, but that doesn't mean he had written any of it down or developed it in detail. I strongly oppose any version of this lead that falsely implies Rosenstein devised a rationale to satisfy Trump, which is just not true. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, I obviously think my version [5] is superior to both the original text (which MelanieN tried to restore) and the monkeyed-up version that Anythingyouwant and JFG constructed. Let me make an argument for it, although I think the version MelanieN tried to restore [6] is a fine starting point (edited).
So, first the wording "Trump has offered "shifting and contradictory accounts" for why he fired Comey" is straight from the source AND it succinctly summarizes the nature of Trump's explanations. And THAT is what the lede is suppose to do, summarize. Hence it's a very useful sentence.
Second, the "claimed" vs. "said" is fine. Let's put this aside.
The fact that Rosenstein letter was a cover for something that was going to be done regardless for other reasons is highlighted in several sources. For example [7]. At the very least the fact that Rosenstein explicitly said that the letter was not meant as a justification for firing needs to be mentioned.
Finally, the fact that the subsequent of criticism of Comey by Trump and the claims that he wasn't liked or respected among the rank and file was indeed a latter "justification" and this is born out in sources as well.
Anyway, like I said, MelanieN's version should be the starting point for discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
OK, so we have dropped the claim that "he already had his rationale figured out" (which was raised as an argument against the straw man implication "Trump told him what to say"). Glad that's behind us. According to his testimony he had considered a number of possible rationales. This sentence, currently in the article, is simply false, or at least unverified: Rosenstein had already prepared arguments against Comey several months earlier.
What IS verified is that Rosenstein and Sessions discussed replacing Comey, back before Sessions took office. Then they apparently put it on a back burner for five months, until Trump told them he wanted a reason and they came up with one.
So what should we do with the article? We had nothing about this until today. Then Anythingyouwant added the phrase "who had been contemplating firing Comey for many months". I removed that. with the edit summary This lede has consensus; please don't introduce new (and not very widely reported) information without discussing at the talk page. (So much for THAT request!) But since some people think it's important to have something about this, that's a model that might work. IMO "for many months", as if they had been working on it constantly, is not well supported by sources. How about "who had discussed (or "considered", or "contemplated") removing Comey earlier in the year"? --MelanieN (talk) 04:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- I think "who had discussed (or 'considered', or 'contemplated') removing Comey earlier in the year" would be fine. This article is about the Comey dismissal, so mentioning when that idea arose would be apt for the lead, even if it were not also useful for clarifying whether Rosenstein wrote the memo because he was an obedient robot. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Other issues
- What on Earth is going on here? Why is Volunteer Marek re-inserting the "But Trump soon stated" material that he "prefers" after talk page discussion determined this was a weasel word and is POV? Hidden Tempo (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- So you're here to sabotage yet another effort at collaboration? I've restored the version that MelanieN restored.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- In particular this is the version I've restored. Not my version - as you can see it clearly states "as edited by MelanieN". So please stop trying to derail the discussion just because you want to get your kicks in at me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- What on Earth is going on here? Why is Volunteer Marek re-inserting the "But Trump soon stated" material that he "prefers" after talk page discussion determined this was a weasel word and is POV? Hidden Tempo (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
VM, please don't invoke my name as if I approved of this kind of "bold", cowboy editing, reverting or changing without discussion. I don't. I haven't taken a look at your edits and won't until morning. But I am not proposing any kind of "Melanie's version" and would rather do things Wikipedia style, discussing until we reach consensus, rather than a "my version" vs. "your version" battleground. --MelanieN (talk) 04:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- The point is that I restored the same version you restored rather than, as HiddenTempo falsely claims (again) "my own version".Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Who's ever "version" it is - IMO this is a very unhelpful approach to an article. Who even knows what is in the article, or what to discuss, when you do something like this? --MelanieN (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Restore the same stable version you restored?
- Also re: [8] a single word is NOT a copyright violation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- On the other hand it appears that Anythingyouwant agrees that we can use the current version (as of right now) as a starting point, so I think we're good to go.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Who's ever "version" it is - IMO this is a very unhelpful approach to an article. Who even knows what is in the article, or what to discuss, when you do something like this? --MelanieN (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
"Revealing" that Trump was not under investigation
This edit removed the word "reveal" because it is not used by the source. However, my understanding is that good paraphrasing will always use words that are not used by the source. The edit has the effect of hiding from readers that Trump was not being investigated by Comey. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Good paraphrasing doesn't change the meaning of the text. When you put in "refused to reveal" or something like that, it seems like he was actively trying to hide it or imply otherwise, which wasn't the case. He just simply thought it wasn't his place to make that kind of statement. Which is why "say" is the appropriate word here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Your edit followed another edit by yourself where your edit summary supported going back to "the reasonable starting point for discussion". So why not stay with "the reasonable starting point for discussion" instead of deleting "reveal"? I find your explanation completely unpersuasive. Why not just say up front that you'd prefer the lead not to inform readers that Trump wasn't being investigated by Comey? Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Because that's not necessarily my preference. I do think that "reveal" does imply that Comey was trying to hide it, which wasn't the case.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Please suggest how we can inform readers that Trump was not under investigation by Comey, when we say in the lead that Trump was frustrated Comey would not say so. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- I think it's already implied. But I guess we could add something like "...extremely frustrated that Comey would not publicly state the fact that Trump was not under investigation". However, at that point you sort of get into the WHY of why he didn't want to do that. And that becomes too much for the lede. So my preference would be for keeping it as it is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Please suggest how we can inform readers that Trump was not under investigation by Comey, when we say in the lead that Trump was frustrated Comey would not say so. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Because that's not necessarily my preference. I do think that "reveal" does imply that Comey was trying to hide it, which wasn't the case.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Your edit followed another edit by yourself where your edit summary supported going back to "the reasonable starting point for discussion". So why not stay with "the reasonable starting point for discussion" instead of deleting "reveal"? I find your explanation completely unpersuasive. Why not just say up front that you'd prefer the lead not to inform readers that Trump wasn't being investigated by Comey? Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
If we keep this phrase, I would suggest this wording: Trump was reportedly "enormously frustrated" that Comey would not publicly confirm that the president was not personally under investigation.
It cites the source about Trump's frustration, and the verb "confirm" reflects reality: people doubted Trump's assertion in the dismissal letter that Comey had told him that he was not personally under investigation, and those statements were eventually confirmed in Comey's Senate testimony (the infamous "three times"). — JFG talk 05:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- That wording is fine. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- I also support JFG's proposal.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- If we add this we should also have "at this time" in there since it may not be true anymore.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- You're right: Trump may or may not be personally under investigation now, that's not clear. All we know indeed is that contrary to expectations, he was not targeted directly as long as Comey was in office (there must be some brilliant Shakespearian analogy here, but my English literature skills are weak). Don't think we should go into that level of detail for the lede, lest we turn it into lead. — JFG talk 10:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- But we know that Trump is personally under investigation now, and even back then, he, as the leader of the Trump administration/campaign, was under investigation in a general sense, since the whole campaign was under investigation. Comey was being coy with his language. He was speaking to a suspect. He was telling a technical, but misleading truth, not the "whole" truth. It was not accidental that Comey refused to publicly say it. He didn't want to have to later state the opposite. Later revelations reveal that to be true. Comey used this reasoning on several occasions. So we just need to be careful to state the knowns, without implying anything one way or the other. We can say that Comey said it, but not that Comey stated "the fact that Trump was not under..." (Volunteer Marek's wording above). We can't assume it was a "fact", only that Comey stated it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- I support JFG's proposal
Trump was reportedly "enormously frustrated" that Comey would not publicly confirm that the president was not personally under investigation.
I don't think we need to say "at that time" or "during Comey's tenure" because obviously Comey could only confirm what was the case during his tenure. (I wonder if Trump has already asked Wray about this? And requested a public declaration?) --MelanieN (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- I support JFG's proposal
- But we know that Trump is personally under investigation now, and even back then, he, as the leader of the Trump administration/campaign, was under investigation in a general sense, since the whole campaign was under investigation. Comey was being coy with his language. He was speaking to a suspect. He was telling a technical, but misleading truth, not the "whole" truth. It was not accidental that Comey refused to publicly say it. He didn't want to have to later state the opposite. Later revelations reveal that to be true. Comey used this reasoning on several occasions. So we just need to be careful to state the knowns, without implying anything one way or the other. We can say that Comey said it, but not that Comey stated "the fact that Trump was not under..." (Volunteer Marek's wording above). We can't assume it was a "fact", only that Comey stated it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- You're right: Trump may or may not be personally under investigation now, that's not clear. All we know indeed is that contrary to expectations, he was not targeted directly as long as Comey was in office (there must be some brilliant Shakespearian analogy here, but my English literature skills are weak). Don't think we should go into that level of detail for the lede, lest we turn it into lead. — JFG talk 10:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- If we add this we should also have "at this time" in there since it may not be true anymore.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- I also support JFG's proposal.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Commenters are mostly in agreement with my proposed wording (Anything, TTAAC, MelanieN). Applying change to article. @BullRangifer: As my proposal doesn't state the absence of investigation as a fact, I hope it takes into account your reservation. @Volunteer Marek: We don't need to add "at this time"; the whole sentence is in past tense. — JFG talk 23:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'll support JFG's wording. I don't see any problems with it at the moment. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Recap and move forward
A lot of stuff has happened to this lede in a short time, so let's first get the history right.
- There was a constructive discussion in the thread above that reached a consensus trim of the lead by M.W.B.A.B., Hidden Tempo, MelanieN, Anythingyouwant, Neutrality, Octoberwoodland and myself. The result was this version of 5 August 15:19 UTC (A).
- Then Neutrality made a point at #One sentence to last paragraph in lead, which was debated by MelanieN and Hidden Tempo, and endorsed in the version of 6 August 02:23 UTC (B).
- Then, Anythingyouwant, BullRangifer and Volunteer Marek made a bunch of bold changes without hitting the talk page; the result was the version of 6 August 08:47 UTC (C).
- Later, MelanieN reverted part of those changes,[9] (version D of 22:47) and I performed some cleanup and copyediting,[10] (version E of 23:50).
- Finally, Anythingyouwant added that Rosenstein had his rationale ready [11] (version F) but that formulation was unclear so I replaced it with a sentence.[12] (version G)
Now VM restored version D and suggests to restart talking from there. I would rather move forward to version E as a starting point, because the prose is cleaner and nothing of substance has changed. I hope my fellow editors will agree.
Now there is obvious editor disagreement about versions F and G. The question is:
- Should we say that Rosenstein had already thought of arguments against Comey prior to Trump's request for a rationale?
- And if yes, how should we say it?
Comments please. I have no strong opinion one way or the other at this stage. — JFG talk 05:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, merely saying in the lead that Trump requested a rationale from Rosenstein and Rosenstein supplied it makes it sound like Rosenstein devised the rationale to provide cover for Trump's decision. And that's false. Alternatively, we could say that Rosenstein agreed with Trump's decision and supplied a memorandum explaining why, without getting into the longstanding nature of Rosenstein's concerns. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Why is that false? Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC
- In particular, it's way too much to say that Rosenstein had a prepared reason. What happened is that him and Sessions had discussed the possibility previously. And in fact, they both had different reasons for it, which were then different from the ones Trump finally gave. This doesn't sound like something that was "planned months in advance".Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- It's false for us to imply that Rosenstein devised a rationale for firing Comey to satisfy Trump, because that's not what happened. Trump said he was considering firing Comey, and Rosenstein said he agreed, and wrote a memo saying why, based partly on arguments he had developed months before with Sessions ("restore the credibility of the FBI, respect the established authority of the Department of Justice, limit public statements and eliminate leaks"). Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- No, at least not in these words. Personally I don't understand this concern from some people that our language somehow implies... what exactly? that Rosenstein made up a rationale to provide cover for Trump without really believing it? I truly can't see where this objection comes from, or what problem we are trying to fix. The proposed language here seems to imply that Sessions and Rosenstein had decided, months ago, that the Clinton emails would be the reason to fire Comey, and there is no sourcing to support that. What there IS, is sourcing that they had discussed firing him long before, even before Sessions took office. So I would suggest something like Anythingyouwant's original approach: adding a phrase after "highlighting recommendations from the AG and the DAG". Anything added ""who had been contemplating firing Comey for many months". If we must have anything, I think that is clear and well sourced, and gets Rosenstein off the (imaginary) hook of having invented a rationale just to keep his job. --MelanieN (talk) 14:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- That would be fine, thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. Frankly, we could even do without this level of detail for the lead. If people want to add it, let's keep it short and factual. I would make a separate sentence: "Sessions and Rosenstein had already discussed Comey's fate before Trump took office." (+source) — JFG talk 18:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- JFG, now I'm confused. You said "sounds good to me" with regard to the phrase "who had been contemplating firing Comey for many months"; then you said there is already too much detail and "keep it short and factual"; then you suggested a separate sentence which is longer and has more detail. I had thought we were about to get consensus for this one point? Where do we stand now? --MelanieN (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Haha, yeah, that's what happens when I think about an edit while writing a comment. Let me clarify my stance: either we drop this thing from the lede entirely, or we write a proper sentence for it, because as you and VM pointed out, the earlier Sessions/Rosenstein musings about Comey during the transition are not strongly connected with the recommendations they ended up writing in May. I'll defer to consensus from other editors to decide whether we mention it or not; I have no personal preference. If we do mention it, I suggest this wording:
Sessions and Rosenstein had already discussed Comey's fate before Trump took office. (+source)
— JFG talk 20:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)- I'd rather have nothing than this. But in case consensus overrules me, do we really have to say "discussed Comey's fate"? Were they planning to shoot him or something? How about "discussed replacing Comey"? --MelanieN (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- With the now-tuned version of some phrases that were in flux, I think this particular bit of Sessions/Rosenstein discussion is unnecessary for the lede; it does not bring significant information to the reader. @Anythingyouwant: Would you agree to drop this request? Our current text doesn't imply that Rosenstein codified a rationale somehow dictated by Trump; he apparently made the case for dismissal on his own, although he did put it in writing at the request of Trump. — JFG talk 23:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that this isn't necessary for the lead. It's too much nitty gritty detail. Save it for the body. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- In answer to JFG's question, yes. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- With the now-tuned version of some phrases that were in flux, I think this particular bit of Sessions/Rosenstein discussion is unnecessary for the lede; it does not bring significant information to the reader. @Anythingyouwant: Would you agree to drop this request? Our current text doesn't imply that Rosenstein codified a rationale somehow dictated by Trump; he apparently made the case for dismissal on his own, although he did put it in writing at the request of Trump. — JFG talk 23:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'd rather have nothing than this. But in case consensus overrules me, do we really have to say "discussed Comey's fate"? Were they planning to shoot him or something? How about "discussed replacing Comey"? --MelanieN (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Haha, yeah, that's what happens when I think about an edit while writing a comment. Let me clarify my stance: either we drop this thing from the lede entirely, or we write a proper sentence for it, because as you and VM pointed out, the earlier Sessions/Rosenstein musings about Comey during the transition are not strongly connected with the recommendations they ended up writing in May. I'll defer to consensus from other editors to decide whether we mention it or not; I have no personal preference. If we do mention it, I suggest this wording:
- JFG, now I'm confused. You said "sounds good to me" with regard to the phrase "who had been contemplating firing Comey for many months"; then you said there is already too much detail and "keep it short and factual"; then you suggested a separate sentence which is longer and has more detail. I had thought we were about to get consensus for this one point? Where do we stand now? --MelanieN (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Version D to E
I think version D is more accurate than version E.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- How so? I don't see much difference in meaning. Let's check each change between D and E in turn:
- "in which he said the dismissal was recommended by" vs "highlighting recommendations from" (more compact, same meaning)
- "by the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General" vs "from Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein." (more precise with names)
- "But Trump soon stated" vs "He quickly stated" (better grammar, same meaning)
- "regardless of any recommendation" vs "regardless, and had requested a rationale from Rosenstein" (more info in E for this part)
- "He then said he believed" vs "He believed that" (simpler)
- "Russia investigation" vs "Russia probe" (that was just to avoid repeating the same word over and over again: synonyms are healthy)
- "Trump's advisers have said that he was extremely frustrated that Comey would not publicly reveal that Trump was not under investigation." vs "Trump was reportedly "enormously frustrated" that Comey would not publicly confirm that the president was not personally under investigation." (that change is being discussed up there)
- "a memo Comey had written while FBI Director, recounting a February 2017 conversation where Trump asked Comey to "let go"" (I kept this at version D in the current version)
- "some commentators and legal scholars" vs "several media figures, political opponents and legal scholars" (more precise in E)
- Which of those pieces do you object to, and what do you suggest? — JFG talk 10:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Highlighting is for hair. It has no meaning in this context. Do you mean "citing"? Anyway they're what he claimed were recommendations or they're purported recco's. The point is they were not rec's because RS tell us his mind was already made up and folks don't get rec's after their minds are made up. Maybe ...which he rationalized by citing what he said were recommendations from... ? Remember, we need to convey what RS tell us are the facts and context, not Trump's interim narrative. SPECIFICO talk 21:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- We report RS'ed facts. The termination letter refers to "recommendations" and the memos of Sessions and Rosenstein are annexed to justify why Comey was fired. We don't pass judgment on Trump's ultimate motives, we just list all his explanations one after the other. I'd be fine replacing "highlighting" with "citing" or "referring to" if your hairdresser feels better that way. — JFG talk 23:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Highlighting is for hair. It has no meaning in this context. Do you mean "citing"? Anyway they're what he claimed were recommendations or they're purported recco's. The point is they were not rec's because RS tell us his mind was already made up and folks don't get rec's after their minds are made up. Maybe ...which he rationalized by citing what he said were recommendations from... ? Remember, we need to convey what RS tell us are the facts and context, not Trump's interim narrative. SPECIFICO talk 21:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
It is usually best not to treat these things as "one version vs. another" when there are many differences, but to analyze them and pick out the best features of both. But in this case, many changes were made at once so that is where we are. If we are to choose between D and E for a starting point, I would choose E for most purposes. Some of the reasons I prefer E: elimination of the weasel word "But"; naming the AG and DAG; adding that Trump had requested a rationale from Rosenstein; use of "confirm" in the final sentence. The only place where I think D is preferable is that IMO "He then said he believed" is better than "He believed". IMO we can't state in Wikipedia's voice what he believed - we are not mind readers. --MelanieN (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Why not just rollback to the version we had before all the consensus-skipping additions? Starting fresh would solve a lot of these problems. Hidden Tempo (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- There are changes no one has objected to, so I don't think those should be rolled back. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- MelanieN I'd be OK to write "He said he believed that…" although that's hair-splitting. Trump has been quoted extensively as stating his belief that firing Comey would ease the pressure from the Russia probe, to colleagues, to interviewers, to Lavrov… This is not hearsay, although he turned to be wrong. I think we can confidently write "He believed". @Hidden Tempo: Looks like a rollback to something earlier would be counter-productive at this stage. — JFG talk 19:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think it's even necessary to put anything about who believed what in there. Just include it bluntly and neutrally: "According to the New York Times, Trump stated that Comey's dismissal relieved the pressure of the ongoing Russia investigation." As far as I know, NYT is the only media outlet that has verified this supposed interaction. All other sources that mention it link straight back to the NYT. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
"I'm not under investigation"
- The quote in the article body is this: "I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off....I’m not under investigation". The last four words suggest that he believed the pressure was taken off because the process of firing Comey put into the public record that Comey had not been investigating Trump. Without those last four words, a reader would be more inclined to think Trump felt relieved because Comey might have uncovered the truth. So, if we don't include those last four words in the lead, they at least ought to be paraphrased, IMHO. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- "... the pressure was taken off because the process of firing Comey put into the public record that Comey had not been investigating Trump." That makes no sense. If he believed that there was nothing to investigate, he wouldn't have felt a need to fire Comey. Pressure was taken off because Trump thought that by firing Comey he stopped the investigation. That's what makes sense, and RS and subsequent events back that up. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- That ellipsis ... implies that the two thoughts came together or were connected, that we have simply removed something in between. But the sources do not give any indication of that. The Times story, which is where most of the other sources are getting their information, puts "I'm not under investigation," he added, in a separate paragraph from "that's taken off". No way to tell whether there was any connection between the two quotes, or how close together they were in time. If we connect these two thoughts in a single set of quotation marks, separated by an ellipsis, that suggest the an immediate connection between the two thoughts that is not supported by the source. (Notice, Anything, how you assumed a causal connection between the two quotes.) This wording is OR in my opinion. --MelanieN (talk) 02:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- No, it's not OR. Per Vanity Fair, Trump said: "'He was crazy, a real nut job. I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.' He then added: 'I’m not under investigation'". The two quotes are thus connected. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- No, this is pure OR. In fact, it's pretty strange OR which tries to squeeze out a fairly implausible connection out of these words and tries to read the guy's mind.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed. It's OR. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- The Vanity Fair link proves nothing and adds nothing. Vanity Fair's source is the New York Times, same as our original source. AFAIK NYT is the only source for this information, and all other reports are drawing from it. Anyhow, Vanity Fair separates the two quotes into two paragraphs just as the New York Times does; they don't elide them. IMO we are being deceptive with this ellipsis format, which implies these two quotes were spoken in close association and we just eliminated a little verbiage in between. But actually, for all we know the two quotes could have been separated by 15 minutes. --MelanieN (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- I have no problem removing the ellipsis and more closely tracking Vanity Fair. But I must say, I've never encountered a situation at Wikipedia where a reliable source reported "Person X said A. Person X then said B" and the slightest dispute arose about rendering that as "Person X said A [and]....B." Four dots instead of three denotes that it wasn't in the same sentence. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- I think that's too much hair-splitting for the lede. "He believed that dismissing Comey would relieve the pressure" is an accurate paraphrasing of several well-reported quotes by Trump. We don't need to single out the New York Times or Vanity Fair in there.
- Aside: Never heard of the "four dots" rule. When citing disjoined utterances, typographers usually write […] between the two quoted parts. — JFG talk 23:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- An ellipsis (THREE dots) only indicates content in the SAME sentence was left out. If what follows after the dots is from other sentences, then FOUR dots are used, the three to indicate content was left out and the fourth to indicate a period. An ellipsis doesn't indicate any type of logical connection between the parts, although the parts usually can be seen as a continuum, but that's not required and should not be assumed. Sometimes it's just to shorten a very long passage, nothing more. An improper use of ellipses can easily create an OR or SYNTH violation. That's what's happening here. It's a dishonest use of ellipsis, no doubt inadvertent, but nonetheless improper. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- I have no problem removing the ellipsis and more closely tracking Vanity Fair. But I must say, I've never encountered a situation at Wikipedia where a reliable source reported "Person X said A. Person X then said B" and the slightest dispute arose about rendering that as "Person X said A [and]....B." Four dots instead of three denotes that it wasn't in the same sentence. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- No, this is pure OR. In fact, it's pretty strange OR which tries to squeeze out a fairly implausible connection out of these words and tries to read the guy's mind.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- No, it's not OR. Per Vanity Fair, Trump said: "'He was crazy, a real nut job. I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.' He then added: 'I’m not under investigation'". The two quotes are thus connected. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- The quote in the article body is this: "I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off....I’m not under investigation". The last four words suggest that he believed the pressure was taken off because the process of firing Comey put into the public record that Comey had not been investigating Trump. Without those last four words, a reader would be more inclined to think Trump felt relieved because Comey might have uncovered the truth. So, if we don't include those last four words in the lead, they at least ought to be paraphrased, IMHO. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
User:JFG, per the Wikipedia article Ellipsis:
The MLA now indicates that a three-dot, spaced ellipsis ( … ) should be used for removing material from within one sentence within a quote. When crossing sentences (when the omitted text contains a period, so that omitting the end of a sentence counts), a four-dot, spaced (except for before the first dot) ellipsis (. . . . ) should be used. When ellipsis points are used in the original text, ellipsis points that are not in the original text should be distinguished by enclosing them in square brackets (e.g. "text […] text").[9]
Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Good to know, thanks. I'm afraid the subtlety would be lost on most readers, though. — JFG talk 23:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Have we properly killed the idea of ". . . . I'm not under investigation" being part of this quote? If not, please let me quote some of the people just above in this thread, using the same technique. MelanieN said, "The Vanity Fair link proves nothing and adds nothing. . . . these two quotes were spoken in close association." Anythingyouwant said, "I have no problem removing the ellipsis. . . . it wasn't in the same sentence." BullRangifer said, "An ellipsis (THREE dots) only indicates content in the SAME sentence was left out. . . . That's what's happening here." See how it works? In each case, I was able to use an ellipsis to completely alter their meaning, or to connect two completely different ideas. We don't know if that's what is happening with ". . . . I'm not under investigation" (because we don't know what came between), but it's a distinct possibility. --MelanieN (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, I was behind the times. I see the ellipsis has been replaced in the article text with "He then said, "I'm not under investigation". That's better, but I object to "then" as if he said it immediately after the other. We don't know that. How about "He later added," ? Or else leave it out, as a side issue to the reasons for dismissal.--MelanieN (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- I removed the ellipsis yesterday (22:07, 8 August 2017), though it seemed entirely unobjectionable to me, in response to criticism at this talk page of the ellipsis. Thus, ". . . . I'm not under investigation" is no longer part of the quote, but rather is quoted separately. The word "then" is explicitly used by Vanity Fair because it is implied by NYT. Saying he "later added" is directly contradictory to "then". I would like to keep the "I'm not under investigation" quote, because sources like the NYT and Vanity Fair consider it important context, and without it readers would be more likely to think Trump was trying to get Comey off his trail. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, I was behind the times. I see the ellipsis has been replaced in the article text with "He then said, "I'm not under investigation". That's better, but I object to "then" as if he said it immediately after the other. We don't know that. How about "He later added," ? Or else leave it out, as a side issue to the reasons for dismissal.--MelanieN (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- Have we properly killed the idea of ". . . . I'm not under investigation" being part of this quote? If not, please let me quote some of the people just above in this thread, using the same technique. MelanieN said, "The Vanity Fair link proves nothing and adds nothing. . . . these two quotes were spoken in close association." Anythingyouwant said, "I have no problem removing the ellipsis. . . . it wasn't in the same sentence." BullRangifer said, "An ellipsis (THREE dots) only indicates content in the SAME sentence was left out. . . . That's what's happening here." See how it works? In each case, I was able to use an ellipsis to completely alter their meaning, or to connect two completely different ideas. We don't know if that's what is happening with ". . . . I'm not under investigation" (because we don't know what came between), but it's a distinct possibility. --MelanieN (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Other changes
- @MelanieN: I recently made this edit to the lede re:public/private. I see there are multiple discussions and I'm having difficulty contextualizing comments among article edits. The article is under 1RR so if there was or is consensus not to include this please ping me and I'll self revert. James J. Lambden (talk) 14:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- @James J. Lambden: Your recent edit has been overridden by a different wording that reached consensus in the above discussion. Nevertheless, that wording could be amended to include your distinction between public and private assurances given by Comey: for example we could add “although Comey had told him so in private“ at the end of §2, with a source to Comey's testimony. I would suggest asking that question in a new thread. — JFG talk 23:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- @MelanieN: I recently made this edit to the lede re:public/private. I see there are multiple discussions and I'm having difficulty contextualizing comments among article edits. The article is under 1RR so if there was or is consensus not to include this please ping me and I'll self revert. James J. Lambden (talk) 14:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
As to the points.
- "highlighting" is not better wording and is somewhat inacurate in this context.
- You can put their names in there if you want
- "soon stated" is better grammar than "quickly stated". "Quickly stated" suggests that 1) the claims were made in quick succession (not true) and 2) the second claim was a clarification of the first claim (not true)
- Again I think the original wording is ore to the point.
- You can put in "He believe that"
- Russia probe is fine
- As you say this is the change being discussed. Original wording is better.
- ...
- The stuff about political opponents appears to be an attempt at poisoning the well.
Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Volunteer Marek: Thanks for your comments.
- "highlighting" --> would you accept "citing" as suggested by SPECIFICO?
- names, ok
- "soon" vs "quickly" – Trump did make the claims in quick succession; "soon" is too vague. Perhaps "the next day"? In any case, the initial "But" has to go: it's bad grammar, and it's editorializing.
- "regardless of any recommendation" vs "regardless, and had requested a rationale from Rosenstein" – we disagree, I think saying "had requested a rationale from Rosenstein" clarifies what happened.
- "He believed", ok
- "Russia probe", ok
- Defer to separate discussion about "reveal" vs "confirm"
- description of memo, ok
- "political opponents" are among critics often cited by RS; some even went so far to call for impeachment from the House floor, we can't weasel that away – keeping
Let's close this asap. I have restored the points we agree on and tentatively replaced "highlighting" with "citing". Waiting for input from other editors regarding "soon" vs"quickly" vs "the next day"? and "had requested a rationale from Rosenstein"? — JFG talk 22:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Let me address the last one really quick. If "political opponents" were the only people making the criticism then we could include it. But the criticism came from a pretty broad spectrum of folks (unless one thinks that anyone who questions anything Trump does is automatically a "political opponent"). So it is poisoning the well. Why not describe their professions, roles, etc. rather than tarring them with that label? How does the MAJORITY of reliable sources do it? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Rather than weaseling with "some people said", we name three categories of people who criticized Trump's action: media figures, political opponents and legal scholars. That sounds fair. Nobody is getting tarred and feathered, except maybe Trump himself. — JFG talk 23:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Not "rationale" Rationale does not mean a fabricated, after the fact, deflection, and a rationalization. This is not a helpful suggestion. We need to convey what RS report. Whether before or after the fact, Rosenstein's memo was a fabrication, an excuse, or an justification that was contrived for the occasion. That should be conveyed in as few words as possible. SPECIFICO talk 23:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- That Rosenstein's memo was "a fabrication" or "an excuse" sounds like merely your personal opinion. Excuse or not, it's the rationale that was cited by the AG and the President to relieve the FBI Director from his duties. Not for us to judge whether it was an excuse. — JFG talk 23:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Let me address the last one really quick. If "political opponents" were the only people making the criticism then we could include it. But the criticism came from a pretty broad spectrum of folks (unless one thinks that anyone who questions anything Trump does is automatically a "political opponent"). So it is poisoning the well. Why not describe their professions, roles, etc. rather than tarring them with that label? How does the MAJORITY of reliable sources do it? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
"Shifting and contradictory accounts"
Ok, let's cut to the chase with this "say" vs. "quickly" thing. This is really about the fact that Trump/WH offered several contradictory reasons for the dismissal, something which some editors have tried to to best to keep out of the article and lede. The phrase "Trump has offered "shifting and contradictory accounts" for why he fired Comey." was in the lede but it was removed. And this aspect of the story - the "shifting and contradictory accounts" - is VERY MUCH backed by reliable sources. Indeed, that was THE major party of the story as it unfolded.
So that part of the lede needs to be restored.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Agree Occam's razor. SPECIFICO talk 23:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Disagree. If we provide the various explanations (which we do), there is no need to take the reader by the nose and tell the reader what kind of crummy, lousy, implausible reasons they were. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Guys, could we please get closure on all of the above before discussing the addition proposed by VM? Pretty please? — JFG talk 23:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Some of the above is basically wrapped up in this proposal.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- Disagree – "shifting and contradictory" doesn't sound neutral at all, especially in wikivoice. I could accept "Trump gave several explanations for the dismissal," followed by said explanations as currently stated, and finally "Most commenters gave more weight to Trump's apparent attempt to curtail the Russia collusion probe than to the official rationale provided for dismissing Comey." But we would be back to bludgeoning the lede. — JFG talk 23:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- "Shifting and contradictory" is straight from the source. Indeed most sources emphasized the fact that the "several explanations" offered were contradictory.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- We could say "arbitrary and contradictory" -- the contradictory part is self-evident. We need to nail down the starter. SPECIFICO talk 00:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- Agree. Those words are found in RS. An accurate quote from a source, and even a good paraphrase, cannot violate NPOV. NPOV does not refer to neutral "content", but to neutral "editors". We must stay neutral and not change the meaning of the source. We must preserve its bias. It's all about how editors do not insert their own POV, either by deletion, censorship, or twisting and undue highlighting. See: NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content (essay) -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose "shifting", oppose "contradictory", oppose "arbitrary". Let's skip the editorializing and stick with the facts: "Trump gave several explanations for the dismissal" would work, and in fact I think we used to have something like that as an introductory sentence. But IMO this is the lede and we don't need introductory sentences. Just "he cited this, then he said that, then he said the other." --MelanieN (talk) 03:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- I think "arbitrary" would indeed be editorializing, "contradictory" and even "shifting", is not. And as I pointed out earlier, this sentence actually does exactly what the lede is suppose to do - it summarizes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Here is more sources on the "contradictory", or something similar. Like I said, this was emphasized across most sources.
- Five Contradictions in the White House’s Story About Comey’s Firing
- All of the White House’s conflicting explanations for Comey’s firing: A timeline
- "The White House can't get its story straight on why President Donald Trump fired FBI Director James Comey"... "His tweet comes after a week of multiple contradictions by his top aides and advisers"
- Trump contradicts earlier claims on Comey sacking
- Trump contradicted himself on the Comey firing
- Contradicting White House Accounts, Trump Says He Planned to Fire Comey Regardless of Recommendation
- In interview, Trump contradicts Pence on Comey
- A comprehensive timeline of all the conflicting explanations for Comey’s firing
- 3 reasons Trump’s excuse for firing Comey doesn’t add up
- White House struggles to explain conflicting Comey stories
- "Aides said Trump does not believe his team gave contradictory stories about his decision to fire Comey, despite the fact that the White House’s explanation changed dramatically over a 48-hour period"
- Trump v Comey: Truth blurred by contradictions and denials
- Acting FBI chief McCabe contradicts White House explanations on Comey firing
- "The White House gave a number of contradictory reasons for the dismissal"
- Contradictions by Trump create credibility gap for aides "The reliability of White House statements was again questioned after the firing of FBI Director James Comey last week"
- Week of contradictions: The interview on Thursday capped a week of contradictory statements on Comey. (freakin FOX!)
- "providing perplexing and often contradictory explanations in the days following the firing. "
- "Trump’s other top surrogate directly contradicted the White House’s official rationale for the firing"
- "Mr Trump’s comments run counter to the White House’s original account of why he decided to dismiss Mr Comey" and "a second later appeared to contradict himself " and "Mr Trump’s claim that Mr Comey had lost the support of employees was contradicted by Andrew McCabe"
- Contradictions by Trump create credibility gap for aides
- Acting FBI director McCabe contradicts White House statement on Comey dismissal
- "no warning, conflicting explanation} (National Review!)
- "The backlash from last week's dismissal of Comey and White House contradictions has carried over in new polls this week."
- James Comey firing | White House contradictions
... and I could probably keep going for a dozen or two more. Indeed, after reviewing these, I'm of a mind to simply unilaterally restore that phrase since there is absolutely no good reason to exclude it. The contradicting explanations offered by Trump and the White House were almost as big part of the story as the firing itself. You just can't omit something like that from the article or the lede.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- Suport "contradictory" per Volunteer Marek; oppose SPECIFICO's "arbitrary" as WP:POV editorializing.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- User:TheTimesAreAChanging, AFAIK, not all of the administrations' reasons for firing Comey were contradictory. For example, Trump said Comey had not been doing a good job, and the Rosenstein memo did not say the opposite (i.e. that Comey had been doing a good job). Since the lead summarizes the reasons, I don't see any need for the lead to also tell the reader that they were contradictory. Can't the reader use the lead to discern what was contradictory and what was not contradictory, without us trying to force that conclusion upon the reader? In any event, if we say that the reasons were contradictory, wouldn't we also need to say that some of them were not contradictory? Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- The sources call the reasons "contradictory". I guess your OR says something else. We go with sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- All the reasons, some of the reasons, or is it unclear which reasons? Were some contradictory while others were mutually consistent/cumulative? In any event, the sources have said a great deal and we are not obliged to put it all into the lead, especially if the lead already provides the basic information that enables readers to reach conclusions. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- Read the sources. The set of reasons offered was contradictory. The text we had in the article, before it was removed, reflected the sources perfectly well. Let's not try to engage in little WP:WIKILAWYER games here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- All the reasons, some of the reasons, or is it unclear which reasons? Were some contradictory while others were mutually consistent/cumulative? In any event, the sources have said a great deal and we are not obliged to put it all into the lead, especially if the lead already provides the basic information that enables readers to reach conclusions. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- The sources call the reasons "contradictory". I guess your OR says something else. We go with sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- VM, you have made a good case for including "contradictory" in the body of the text. IMO it does not need to be, and should not be, in the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 15:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- Melanie, there's like twenty sources there and more can be provided. These sources strongly establish that the 'contradictory' nature of the explanations given was a BIG part of the story. Indeed, the reason why people called this obstruction of justice is precisely because Trump and his team couldn't even get their story straight. That's not just worthy of inclusion in text. That's lede material, especially if we discuss it in text.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- MelanieN, Volunteer Marek is right. That word is important enough for the lead. It's one word. The body should go into detail and describe the shifting and contradictory stories. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- Why is the word "shifting" less important than the word "contradictory"? Because the latter has a stronger editorial tone? Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- No, because "contradictory" is found in almost all sources that cover this story. I don't know if "shifting" is. But... why not both? That was the original text after all.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- Both would be fine, but "contradictory" is the essential one, since "shifting" alone does not necessarily imply contradiction, but "contradictory" already has the idea of "shifting" in it, thus "shifting" is not essential. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- No, because "contradictory" is found in almost all sources that cover this story. I don't know if "shifting" is. But... why not both? That was the original text after all.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- Why is the word "shifting" less important than the word "contradictory"? Because the latter has a stronger editorial tone? Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- MelanieN, Volunteer Marek is right. That word is important enough for the lead. It's one word. The body should go into detail and describe the shifting and contradictory stories. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- Melanie, there's like twenty sources there and more can be provided. These sources strongly establish that the 'contradictory' nature of the explanations given was a BIG part of the story. Indeed, the reason why people called this obstruction of justice is precisely because Trump and his team couldn't even get their story straight. That's not just worthy of inclusion in text. That's lede material, especially if we discuss it in text.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Anythingyouwant: I'm going to cal random rabbit on that one. Just because you draw two of a kind does not mean you have a winning hand. Because... They are both contradicted by other "explanations" or groups of similar explanations that Pres. Trump offered. "Contradictory" is what drew attention to the firing and led to extensive RS reporting trying to get to the bottom of it. SPECIFICO talk 17:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- User:TheTimesAreAChanging, AFAIK, not all of the administrations' reasons for firing Comey were contradictory. For example, Trump said Comey had not been doing a good job, and the Rosenstein memo did not say the opposite (i.e. that Comey had been doing a good job). Since the lead summarizes the reasons, I don't see any need for the lead to also tell the reader that they were contradictory. Can't the reader use the lead to discern what was contradictory and what was not contradictory, without us trying to force that conclusion upon the reader? In any event, if we say that the reasons were contradictory, wouldn't we also need to say that some of them were not contradictory? Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Alright, I think a strong argument has been made, sources have been provided and there appears to be enough support to include this in the lede. Can we agree to that and then move on to other things? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- There's about an even split between supporters and opponents of your proposal, so I wouldn't call it consensus. Why don't you do a quick survey pinging everyone with some exact language proposed? — JFG talk 08:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Look, there's two dozen sources. This is a key aspect of the story. The people I see objecting is you and Anythingyouwant. And MelanieN but I think I can or have, convinced her otherwise. If you can't behind an edit that is so well sourced, and so central to the article's topic then I have trouble seeing how anything is going to get resolved here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Don't make it personal. I might well support the inclusion if you suggest an exact phrasing that takes into account everybody's remarks. — JFG talk 08:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not. I'm characterizing the current nature of the disagreement. Anyway - we already have the phrasing: ""Trump has offered "shifting and contradictory accounts" for why he fired Comey." which is straight from the source. If we want to tweak that then something like "Trump and the White House have offered contradictory accounts".Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Too long for the lede imho. — JFG talk 08:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Uhh.... seven words is "too long for the lede"? Seriously, that's your last objection? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- It's not my "last objection". The lede dedicates a whole paragraph to listing the various reasons offered for firing Comey. We can certainly call them "contradictory" somewhere in all that prose without adding an extra sentence to point out the obvious. — JFG talk 08:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- It's about as short a phrase as we can add. How about "Trump has offered contradictory accounts"? The lede is suppose to summarize. This is what a summary looks like. It's hard to escape an impression that you are just inventing spurious objections because you can't argue against it on the merits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Here you go again, making assumptions about my motives, just like many commenters make assumptions about Trump's motives for this and many other issues. Can we leave partisanship at the door please? I'm just looking at the whole paragraph from the perspective of a new reader, and trying to best inform them. How about this:
Trump dismissed Comey by way of a termination letter citing recommendations from Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.[4][5] Trump criticized Comey's leadership and credibility at the FBI,[4] and stated that he had intended to fire him regardless.[6] He also offered contradictory explanations not found in the
recommendation lettersofficial rationale.[pick the best source for this statement] He believed that dismissing Comey would relieve pressure he had felt from the Russia probe,[7] which he called a "witch hunt".[8] Trump was reportedly "enormously frustrated" that Comey would not publicly confirm that the president was not personally under investigation.[9]
- How do you like it? — JFG talk 08:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Trump has offered contradictory explanations for the dismissal.[pick the best source for this statement] He dismissed Comey by way of a termination letter citing recommendations from Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.[4][5] He then criticized Comey's leadership and credibility at the FBI,[4] and stated that he had intended to fire him regardless.[6] He also expressed the belief that dismissing Comey would relieve pressure from the Russia probe,[7] which he called a "witch hunt".[8] Trump was reportedly "enormously frustrated" that Comey would not publicly state that the president was not personally under investigation.[9]
- That's two words shorter.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- That's illogical: the contradictions came after the termination letter. We should preserve the order of events. — JFG talk 08:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- No, it's Paragraph Writing 101. State the main point. Elaborate. Conclude. "And then this happened, and then this happened, and then this happened, and then and then, this happened..." is really bad writing. So. It's not too long. It's not "illogical". It's fine. Again I can't help getting the sense that you're just inventing arbitrary objections as a cover for the good ol' WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Volunteer Marek: I do agree that a well-written paragraph should start with the main point. And the main point is "Trump fired Comey." How? "Via a termination letter citing recommendations by Rosenstein and Sessions". Why? "He gave many reasons, some included in the official rationale, some out of his ass." Reactions? "He was lambasted for contradictions, and although he thought that would relieve pressure from the Russia probe, it only made suspicions worse, adding allegations of obstruction of justice." Putting the "why" before the "what happened" and "how" is placing the carriage before the horse. — JFG talk 13:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- And for the last time, please stop with WP:ASPERSIONS; you should know better than stoop that low. I could very well assume that you "don't like it" as well, but I'm not saying that. — JFG talk 13:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- There's no horsies here no aspersions, only equivocal POV language. It was not a "recommendation" it was only a "rationale" in a certain inferior 7th level meaning of that English word. If the text is to convey the RS account, namely, that a series of fabrications and misrepresentations were offered, then the wording must clearly and accurately convey that. WP can't push the very Trump-words that RS tell us were disingenuous or false. And it's not a theory or interpretation that they were false. They were shown false by PoTuS own explanations and his administration's own summary of the no-American-press tete-a-tete with the Russians. SPECIFICO talk 13:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- No, it's Paragraph Writing 101. State the main point. Elaborate. Conclude. "And then this happened, and then this happened, and then this happened, and then and then, this happened..." is really bad writing. So. It's not too long. It's not "illogical". It's fine. Again I can't help getting the sense that you're just inventing arbitrary objections as a cover for the good ol' WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- We could say "not found in the official rationale" instead of "not found in the recommendation letters". Which of your numerous sources would you recommend to back up that statement? — JFG talk 09:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- That's illogical: the contradictions came after the termination letter. We should preserve the order of events. — JFG talk 08:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Here you go again, making assumptions about my motives, just like many commenters make assumptions about Trump's motives for this and many other issues. Can we leave partisanship at the door please? I'm just looking at the whole paragraph from the perspective of a new reader, and trying to best inform them. How about this:
- It's about as short a phrase as we can add. How about "Trump has offered contradictory accounts"? The lede is suppose to summarize. This is what a summary looks like. It's hard to escape an impression that you are just inventing spurious objections because you can't argue against it on the merits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- It's not my "last objection". The lede dedicates a whole paragraph to listing the various reasons offered for firing Comey. We can certainly call them "contradictory" somewhere in all that prose without adding an extra sentence to point out the obvious. — JFG talk 08:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Uhh.... seven words is "too long for the lede"? Seriously, that's your last objection? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Too long for the lede imho. — JFG talk 08:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not. I'm characterizing the current nature of the disagreement. Anyway - we already have the phrasing: ""Trump has offered "shifting and contradictory accounts" for why he fired Comey." which is straight from the source. If we want to tweak that then something like "Trump and the White House have offered contradictory accounts".Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Don't make it personal. I might well support the inclusion if you suggest an exact phrasing that takes into account everybody's remarks. — JFG talk 08:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Look, there's two dozen sources. This is a key aspect of the story. The people I see objecting is you and Anythingyouwant. And MelanieN but I think I can or have, convinced her otherwise. If you can't behind an edit that is so well sourced, and so central to the article's topic then I have trouble seeing how anything is going to get resolved here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Excellent short form:
Trump gave contradictory reasons for the dismissal.[pick the best source for this statement] Initially, in his termination letter to Comey, Trump cited a memo from Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.[4][5] However it was later reported that Trump had solicited this memo the day before,[13][4] and Trump stated that he had already decided to fire him.[6] Trump later said that his dismissal of Comey would relieve pressure from the Russia probe,[7] which he called a "witch hunt".[8]
SPECIFICO talk 13:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Again, if the lead gives Trump's reasons (which it does), then I don't see why we need to tell readers what we (or what opinion journalists) think about them. But for the sake of compromise, I could go with something like this:
Trump dismissed Comey by way of a termination letter citing recommendations from the Department of Justice (DOJ).[4][5] Trump criticized Comey's leadership and credibility at the FBI,[4] and stated that he had intended to fire him regardless of recommendations.[6] He also said he was motivated by the Russia investigation, though that investigation had not been mentioned in DOJ's recommendation letter, nor was it explicitly mentioned in Trump's dismissal letter.[pick the best source for this statement] He believed that dismissing Comey would relieve pressure he had felt from the Russia probe,[7] which he called a "witch hunt".[8] Trump was reportedly "enormously frustrated" that Comey would not publicly confirm that the president was not personally under investigation.[9]
Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- The memo was not a recommendation. It was a memo Trump instructed them to write so that he could cite it as if it were a recommendation. This is all RS verified. Also we know that Rosenstein nearly quit over this compromising his professional integrity. Calling the memo a "recommendation" is POV against amply documented facts. SPECIFICO talk 23:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- That "excellent short form" isn't too bad.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
@Volunteer Marek: RE And MelanieN but I think I can or have, convinced her otherwise.
That is incorrect, and I can't imagine where you got that idea. What I actually said was VM, you have made a good case for including "contradictory" in the body of the text. IMO it does not need to be, and should not be, in the lede.
I think that's pretty clear. --MelanieN (talk) 18:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yes I know that's what you said that's why I wrote "I can or have". Come on, I gave more than a dozen sources above and there's a ton more. That's more than just including in text, that part shouldn't even be under discussion. This was a huge part of the story and it belongs in both the lede and the body.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Volunteer Marek: I have picked one of the best sources you provided (the ThinkProgress full summary and timeline) and included the "contradictory explanations" sentence.[14] Hope this settles the debate. — JFG talk 19:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- Think Progress is a partisan website, not a reliable source.[15]. Try again. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- JFG's version made things worse. It changed the meaning, suggesting that the various conflicting rationalizations of the dismissal were "also" rather than "conflicting". And any new text should not adopt in WP's voice that the Rosenstein document was a "recommendation" rather than an instrument solicited to support the false narrative that Comey was terminated for misconduct. SPECIFICO talk 21:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Anythingyouwant: You could have just picked another source among the 20+ that VM provided, instead of reverting the whole text.
- @SPECIFICO: the Rosenstein and Sessions memo are recommendations, whether you like it or not. We go out of our way to explain that they were by far not the only reasons, but they are still recommendations. Besides, the word "recommendations" was already in the prose before my edit, so I don't see how I "made things worse" from your point of view. If you don't like "also", then remove "also", leaving
He offered contradictory explanations not found in the official rationale
. - It's impossible to get consensus with attitudes like this. You guys duke it out; I'm outta here. — JFG talk 04:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for your effort. However I do like the short version better.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- User:JFG, please see Talk:Dismissal_of_James_Comey#What_was_purportedly_contradictory. I am not sure what the best source would be for us to use, as explained at that wikilink. But I'm sure it's not ThinkProgress. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- I made an edit to restore previously-agreed text and simplify/improve the "contradictory" part, taking into account remarks by several editors. Hops this helps come to an agreement by all participants. — JFG talk 16:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- The lead now says: "He then gave contradictory explanations for the dismissal. Ye Hee Lee, Michelle (May 12, 2017). "All of the White House's conflicting explanations for Comey's firing: A timeline". The Washington Post.
The president then contradicted his staff's earlier comments. In a preview video clip of his interview with NBC News, Trump said he planned to fire Comey all along, regardless of Department of Justice recommendations.
Contradicting what some staff member said is far different from Trump contradicting himself. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- The lead now says: "He then gave contradictory explanations for the dismissal. Ye Hee Lee, Michelle (May 12, 2017). "All of the White House's conflicting explanations for Comey's firing: A timeline". The Washington Post.
- I made an edit to restore previously-agreed text and simplify/improve the "contradictory" part, taking into account remarks by several editors. Hops this helps come to an agreement by all participants. — JFG talk 16:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- User:JFG, please see Talk:Dismissal_of_James_Comey#What_was_purportedly_contradictory. I am not sure what the best source would be for us to use, as explained at that wikilink. But I'm sure it's not ThinkProgress. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- OK, so are we set to put my short version in the article? SPECIFICO talk 10:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- That appears to best represent the sources IMO, I'm in favor of it. ValarianB (talk) 13:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- No, I think it's too short to capture the nuance of this situation. See subsection immediately below. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for your effort. However I do like the short version better.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Volunteer Marek: I have picked one of the best sources you provided (the ThinkProgress full summary and timeline) and included the "contradictory explanations" sentence.[14] Hope this settles the debate. — JFG talk 19:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
So it appears that Anythingyouwant has decided unilaterally not to just go against the current consensus for the short version but in fact to go ahead and substitute his own preferred (and highly POV) version, the one version that basically nobody agrees with. And he's willing to edit war to enforce it. Man, this is going to turn into HiddenTempo all over again - one person obstructing on talk page, and edit warring on article itself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
What was purportedly contradictory
Trump's first public explanation was in his letter of dismissal. As best I understand, none of the reliable sources say that the letter of dismissal contradicted any earlier public explanation, so I think it's worth being clear about that. It was the later public explanations that purportedly contradicted the letter of dismissal. Additionally, it's also worth being clear about how they purportedly contradicted the letter of dismissal. The sources say that later explanations contradicted the dismissal letter's reliance upon Rosenstein, but those sources do not say that Trump ever contradicted the reasons given by Rosenstein (as opposed to supplementing them), and this is a significant distinction. Additionally, do any of the sources listed above (or other sources) indicate why they think the dismissal letter purported to rely only upon the Rosenstein memo? After all, when someone accepts a recommendation, that does not normally imply that the recommendation is not being accepted for reasons other than (or additional to) the reasons given by the recommender. If a source explains this, then that would be the preferred source for us to use, IMHO. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- Sure. As I pointed out earlier, we follow the flow of events: first he sends the termination letter with the memos, then he fumbles on TV about the "Russia thing", everybody calls his contradictions, and finally we learn about his "enormous frustration" over Comey's silence. — JFG talk 16:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- Bring me up to date, JFG. Been out fishing. Did you shortcircuit talk page discussion and put your rejected version with all the POV problems into the article (erroneously claiming it was endorsed on talk) while the above thread was ongoing but converging to endorse my excellent short version alternative? Or am I just confused again, missed something, etc. ? SPECIFICO talk 22:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- I keep working constructively towards article improvement; you keep complaining about anything that is not your own "excellent" point of view, that's enough of an update. — JFG talk 23:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- Let's try again. You proposed some text. I pointed out the problem with it and proposed text that resolves that problem and is also better-written English. Editors in the tread above are saying they prefer my alternative suggestion. You ignore this, you go ahead and put your own text into the article and say "per talk" -- If that's correct, you shouldn't have done that, so please undo it and see whether you can either endorse what appears to be my shorter better consensus version or see whether you can do even better. SPECIFICO talk 00:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- The "problems" you pointed out are unfounded: you said I changed the meaning when I only changed the sequence to clarify, you said the Rosenstein and Sessions memos were not recommendations whereas that's what it says on the tin and RS call them the same. Besides, you blissfully ignore everything that has been discussed and agreed earlier. Several people offered comments, there was one last sentence to build in order to introduce the "contradictory explanations" properly. Please look at the latest version of the middle sentences in this paragraph, resulting from efforts by VM, Anything and myself:
He then gave contradictory explanations for the dismissal.[6][7] Trump publicly stated that he had already decided to fire Comey,[8] and it emerged that he had solicited the Rosenstein memo the day before citing it.[9]
Please focus your comments on that section; I'm not interested in re-litigating settled issues. — JFG talk 01:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)- The settled issue is that editors on this page in the thread above preferred my suggestion to yours. So I'm sure one of them will place it in the article unless you can do even better. SPECIFICO talk 01:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- Some people liked your version, some people didn't. I think we have collectively done "even better" already; care to comment on the present version specifically, which I just quoted for your convenience? — JFG talk 01:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thought you were "done with this" and were leaving? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- And seriously, Anything, reverting to your preferred version, which has the least consensus out of all the proposals here, because ... "bare urls bad". Come on! If you're gonna WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT you'll need to come up with better excuses than that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- JFG you've reinserted the same flawed version that prompted me and others to prefer the solution I wrote above. Yours is poorly-written English "by way of" e.g. It takes Trump's false assertion that the memo was a "recommendation" and insinuates this POV in Wikipedia's voice. And there's no possible benefit to your having edited it into the article while it's rejected by an active talk discussion. And to assert that this POV version, rejected, is "per talk" beggars the imagination. I'm not going to repeat this any further, as it cannot be stated more clearly. Why not stick to your oath above and step away from this for a while?[16] — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 02:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, I should probably sleep instead of trying to work with you. There is no POV in explaining events to the reader in the order they happened or were revealed. There is no POV in stating that a recommendation is a recommendation. There is no POV in stating that Trump had solicited this recommendation after he had already decided to fire Comey. There is no POV in stating that he offered contradictory explanations. There is no POV in writing that Trump believed this would ease the Russia pressure. There is POV, however, in trying to make the whole paragraph only about Trump contradicting himself. Oh, and there is no "insinuation" when telling the reader that Trump fired Comey with a dismissal letter referring to recommendations. Then we explain how these recommendations came about and that Trump also had Russia in mind. It's very simple and straightforward, really; I don't understand what disturbs you in the current prose. — JFG talk 02:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- Some people liked your version, some people didn't. I think we have collectively done "even better" already; care to comment on the present version specifically, which I just quoted for your convenience? — JFG talk 01:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- The settled issue is that editors on this page in the thread above preferred my suggestion to yours. So I'm sure one of them will place it in the article unless you can do even better. SPECIFICO talk 01:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- The "problems" you pointed out are unfounded: you said I changed the meaning when I only changed the sequence to clarify, you said the Rosenstein and Sessions memos were not recommendations whereas that's what it says on the tin and RS call them the same. Besides, you blissfully ignore everything that has been discussed and agreed earlier. Several people offered comments, there was one last sentence to build in order to introduce the "contradictory explanations" properly. Please look at the latest version of the middle sentences in this paragraph, resulting from efforts by VM, Anything and myself:
- Let's try again. You proposed some text. I pointed out the problem with it and proposed text that resolves that problem and is also better-written English. Editors in the tread above are saying they prefer my alternative suggestion. You ignore this, you go ahead and put your own text into the article and say "per talk" -- If that's correct, you shouldn't have done that, so please undo it and see whether you can either endorse what appears to be my shorter better consensus version or see whether you can do even better. SPECIFICO talk 00:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- I keep working constructively towards article improvement; you keep complaining about anything that is not your own "excellent" point of view, that's enough of an update. — JFG talk 23:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- Bring me up to date, JFG. Been out fishing. Did you shortcircuit talk page discussion and put your rejected version with all the POV problems into the article (erroneously claiming it was endorsed on talk) while the above thread was ongoing but converging to endorse my excellent short version alternative? Or am I just confused again, missed something, etc. ? SPECIFICO talk 22:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
This edit summary makes no sense. It complains about absence of the word "contradict" which was not absent, and makes a bunch of other edits that disrupt chronological order. There was no public report about any contradiction until after the dismissal letter. Even then, the reported contradiction was often about a difference between comments by Trump versus those of his staff, and never about any disagreement by Trump with any of Rosenstein's rationale; often the reported contradiction between Trump's own statements was based on the inference that the dismissal letter entirely blamed the dismissal on Rosenstein and Sessions. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Marek vs JFG versions
@Volunteer Marek: You just reverted to your version and wrote "you can't weasel out of having the "contradictory" in there." Have you read before reverting??? I'm not weaseling out of anything; the text you erased says it clear and loud: He then gave contradictory explanations for the dismissal.
so that your edit summary is in bad faith. Everything your version says, my version says it too, only the ordering is a little different, as mine follows events whereas yours follows what? Let's compare line by line:
# | JFG | |
---|---|---|
1 | Trump gave contradictory reasons for the dismissal. | He then gave contradictory explanations for the dismissal. (2) |
2 | Initially, in his termination letter to Comey, Trump cited a memo from Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. | Trump dismissed Comey by way of a termination letter citing recommendations from Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. (1) |
3 | However it was later reported that Trump had solicited this memo the day before, and Trump stated that he had already decided to fire him. | Trump publicly stated that he had already decided to fire Comey, and it emerged that he had solicited the Rosenstein memo the day before citing it. (3) |
4 | Trump later said that his dismissal of Comey would relieve pressure from the Russia probe, which he called a "witch hunt". | He believed that dismissing Comey would relieve pressure from the Russia probe, which he called a "witch hunt". (4) |
I don't see what's the big deal here: we are saying exactly the same thing, just a few words differ, and the order of events (points 1 and 2 are swapped). Can we finally close this debate? — JFG talk 02:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- "My version" is the one that several editors have agreed with (indeed, it's not even the version I proposed - someone else did). Anything's version has no support. You - you said you were done with this article (in fact it appears that you said that in frustration at Anythingyouwant inserting his own preferred version into the article). Likewise, if you think "it's not a big deal" then, rationally, you should be indifferent (so stop making it a big deal) and you should be fine with the version that other editors support.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- It's not "my version", but rather the version immediately preceding your strange edit/edit summary in which you falsely claimed that "contradictory" wasn't in the lead. I don't like the lead how it is now for the reasons I've already explained above. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- Well, no, it is your version, rather than the version others supported (which would be the short version). As to the "contradictory" - you're right, I missed that it was later on in the para. But that's sort of the point. Your version tries very very hard to bury the nature of these explanations. Because I presented a ton of sources to show that the contradictory nature of the explanation was indeed a major part of the story you guys can no longer argue in good faith that it should not be in here. Rather, you switched tactics to try and bury it where many readers will miss it. That is why the short version is better - it states right at the outset what the information is suppose to convey. This point has been made several times and never actually addressed by you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- FYI, here's the difference between my version and the present version. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- Well, no, it is your version, rather than the version others supported (which would be the short version). As to the "contradictory" - you're right, I missed that it was later on in the para. But that's sort of the point. Your version tries very very hard to bury the nature of these explanations. Because I presented a ton of sources to show that the contradictory nature of the explanation was indeed a major part of the story you guys can no longer argue in good faith that it should not be in here. Rather, you switched tactics to try and bury it where many readers will miss it. That is why the short version is better - it states right at the outset what the information is suppose to convey. This point has been made several times and never actually addressed by you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- It's not "my version", but rather the version immediately preceding your strange edit/edit summary in which you falsely claimed that "contradictory" wasn't in the lead. I don't like the lead how it is now for the reasons I've already explained above. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yesterday, after my initial edit and Anything's revert, several people made changes in turn: VM, Anything, JFG, MPants at work, VM again, and reverted by Anything. Then an IP block evader came crashing the party and was reverted by TheTimes. I think everybody is trying to improve the wording and we are actually very close to consensus. I compared the latest Marek and JFG/MPants versions above, showing that they convey exactly the same information to readers, so we should not quibble further on that. The only differences are the turn of prose and the order of sentences (1) and (2). Marek thinks that the paragraph should start by noting Trump's contradictions, whereas I think that it should start with the first event, i.e. the termination letter. I don't think that is "burying" the information about contradictions, and there is no "tactic" behind this, simply we are improving the paragraph step by step, and I'm the one who introduced wording for "contradictions" after VM insisted in a prior thread. Oh, and I also never said I was "done with this article", I just had had enough for the day, and yes frustrated that my edits were attacked from both VM and Anything after I had tried my best to reconcile their antagonistic views.
- Now, please, let's get to the only remaining disagreement: must we start with the termination letter or with the contradictions? I say dismissal first makes more sense, and the next three sentences are dedicated to explaining all the statements that Trump has been criticized for, in the order they happened. I think that's fair and balanced. What say you? — JFG talk 17:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
As is clear from this page, the version you are fighting to suppress is not VM's, but rather my excellent short version. And in addition to dealing with English literacy issues, it removed the POV problem that the other version insinuates "recommendation" in WP's voice when RS tell us Trump solicited this documentation to support a decision he'd already made. Nothing's going to be resolved with illustrations, tables and whatnot if they don't' address the central flaw of your many versions and the simple improvements that my version and others have crafted so that we can move on to other improvements in this article. SPECIFICO talk 18:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- Good, sorry for attributing to VM a version that you had written. The arguments remain the same: both your version and mine say the same thing, notably they explain that Trump solicited the Rosenstein memo after he already had made his decision. I won't comment on whose English prose is "excellent", we can leave this choice to uninvolved editors. The only point remaining in debate is how to start the paragraph: dismissal then contradiction, or contradiction then dismissal. — JFG talk 09:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- No, VM's and mine are not the same thing. Frankly, if you really think it's all the same then no worries. Please what? WP:OWN. Address the central point, to wit: No POV pushing Trump's deprecated talking points into WP. Details above. Several times 'round. Or, in the alternative, drop it on this one and move on to other improvemsnts. SPECIFICO talk 11:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- 1/ "VM's and mine are not the same thing"? You just wrote above "the version you are fighting to suppress is not VM's, but rather my excellent short version". So is it VM's or yours??? Following your comment, I gave you attribution over VM, should I revert to giving attribution back to VM? As I see it, VM inserted in the article the exact text you had suggested on Talk, so I have no idea what you are complaining about here.
- 2/ I am addressing the central point. The only difference we have is about mentioning the contradictions before the termination letter, or the termination letter before the contradictions. You think it's POV to just state the facts of how Comey was terminated? Well, I think it's POV to make it all about the contradictions and to claim that the DAG and AG recommendations were, as you say, "a series of fabrications and misrepresentations". — JFG talk 22:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Your POV is bright and shiny and it is fine indeed, but RS do not portray the Justice Dept. memos as "recommendations" after the first 24 hours or so i.e. when Pres. Trump told the TV interviewer + Lavrov the true sequence of events and motivations behind his actions. So basically if "it's all the same" to you, let's go with the me-and-VM, better-written short text without the mushy "by way of" etc. so that we can accurately represent the thrust of RS accounts. SPECIFICO talk 01:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- No, VM's and mine are not the same thing. Frankly, if you really think it's all the same then no worries. Please what? WP:OWN. Address the central point, to wit: No POV pushing Trump's deprecated talking points into WP. Details above. Several times 'round. Or, in the alternative, drop it on this one and move on to other improvemsnts. SPECIFICO talk 11:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
RfC open below to let the community pick the most appropriate wording: #RfC: Summary of reasons for dismissal. — JFG talk 09:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- I took my name off that table because I don't think I should be listed as an author of that version. All I did was add a single source. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Lead wording
Would someone who hasn't reverted in the past 24 care to deal with this nonsensical edit, please? It's from a blocked sock and I'm at 1rr for the day. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
RfC: Summary of reasons for dismissal
How should we summarize the reasons for Comey's dismissal in the lede section? — JFG talk 09:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
In a previous thread, various editors have worked to improve the lede section. The second paragraph of the lede attempts to summarize the reasons offered by Trump and others to dismiss Comey from the FBI directorship, and we have reached a blocking point in the discussion where two versions are on the table with no agreement between two sets of editors about which one is more neutral. This RfC aims to gather input from a wider audience and pick the most appropriate wording. Note that both versions refer to the same sources, most of which are already cited in the article body.
Version A –
Trump dismissed Comey by way of a termination letter citing recommendations from Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.[1][2] He then gave contradictory explanations for the dismissal.[3][4] Trump publicly stated that he had already decided to fire Comey,[5] and it emerged that he had solicited the Rosenstein memo the day before citing it.[6] He believed that dismissing Comey would relieve pressure from the Russia probe,[7] which he called a "witch hunt".[8] Trump was reportedly "enormously frustrated" that Comey would not publicly confirm that the president was not personally under investigation.[9]
Version B –
Trump gave contradictory reasons for the dismissal.[3] Initially, in his termination letter to Comey, Trump cited a memo from Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.[1][2] However it was later reported that Trump had solicited this memo the day before,[6] and Trump stated that he had already decided to fire him.[5] Trump later said that his dismissal of Comey would relieve pressure from the Russia probe,[7] which he called a "witch hunt".[8] Trump was reportedly "enormously frustrated" that Comey would not publicly confirm that the president was not personally under investigation.[9]
Sources
|
---|
|
Survey
Please select Version A or Version B with a short rationale. Longer arguments go to the #Discussion section below.
- Version A - as the means of dismissal should be started first and clearly. While I don't think the two versions are significantly different, I am bothered by B referring to the termination letter wording as stating an actual motivation (a termination letter will, obviously, mention some cause however such letters are crafted for legal compliance / relationship mgmt and are not, typically, an actual rationale - they are often sugercoated and/or padded with legal compliance).Icewhiz (talk) 10:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Version A It reads a little smoother, by starting with a description of the firing and working forward from there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Version A per MjolnirPants. It reads and flows a lot smoother, and the phrasing and order of the sentences (corresponding with the order of the events) is also much better. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 02:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Greetings, SPA. Per your comment, could you clarify what you believe "by way of" means in this version. Could you give a synonymous phrase or paraphrase of those words? SPECIFICO talk 02:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- "Via" or "through", meaning "Trump dismissed Comey [insert one of the previous words mentioned] a termination letter..." NoMoreHeroes (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- I understand that's the ordinary language of "by way of" but how does via or through relate to the dismissal? Did the letter effect the dismissal, did it inform Comey of the dismissal, did it provide a public explanation of the dismissal, did it provide a required legal basis for the dismissal? The sense of "via" does not explain anything essential to the facts. Please compare this version A with the version at Comey's own article here: [17] -- Isn't that a much more informative and better-written, encyclopedic statement of the facts? SPECIFICO talk 16:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- It informed Comey of the dismissal (it's a termination letter, after all). To me, that is quite clear in the lede suggested, but feel free to suggest a change to it if you think there is a more straightforward way to word it. For the record, yes I think the version on Comey's article is more clear, so maybe we could adapt that here. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I think option B is more clear. Remember this sentence comes in the lede where the fact that Comey was terminated has already been stated directly above. So really, the first sentence of B could be removed and it would still be clearer than A. After all, we don't know via how Truman fired McArthur, Nixon fired Cox, or thousands of other dismissals. So the "by way of a termination letter" is only noteworthy for the fact, revealed a few days hence, that the termination letter was false or misleading. SPECIFICO talk 17:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- It informed Comey of the dismissal (it's a termination letter, after all). To me, that is quite clear in the lede suggested, but feel free to suggest a change to it if you think there is a more straightforward way to word it. For the record, yes I think the version on Comey's article is more clear, so maybe we could adapt that here. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- I understand that's the ordinary language of "by way of" but how does via or through relate to the dismissal? Did the letter effect the dismissal, did it inform Comey of the dismissal, did it provide a public explanation of the dismissal, did it provide a required legal basis for the dismissal? The sense of "via" does not explain anything essential to the facts. Please compare this version A with the version at Comey's own article here: [17] -- Isn't that a much more informative and better-written, encyclopedic statement of the facts? SPECIFICO talk 16:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- "Via" or "through", meaning "Trump dismissed Comey [insert one of the previous words mentioned] a termination letter..." NoMoreHeroes (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Greetings, SPA. Per your comment, could you clarify what you believe "by way of" means in this version. Could you give a synonymous phrase or paraphrase of those words? SPECIFICO talk 02:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Neither, because the existence of this article is itself absurd, and a classic example of WP:RECENTISM. The content in question should be covered at the main pages for the topic, ie Trump's administration/white house and James Comey. Vanamonde (talk) 05:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- <slow clap> I concur. But I'm aware that an AfD on this article would almost certainly result in a keep or no consensus close. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed. Ultimately this article will be trimmed down to the essentials and merged into the James Comey bio, just like the infamous Comey memos were merged here. Events are still a bit too recent and controversial to suggest this now. Let's see in a year or two. — JFG talk 19:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Version A because it's more chronological. Talk about contradictions did not start until after the dismissal letter was followed by other news about the dismissal. I also point out yet again that the quote in footnote 3 refers to Trump contradicting his staff, not contradicting himself, so that either needs to be clarified in versions A & B, or else a better quote needs to be included in footnote 3. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Version A - it's just better written. There's something vaguely awkward about the wording of Version B. Cjhard (talk) 03:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Version A because it flows better. However, I am unhappy that both versions have eliminated the OTHER reasons Trump gave. These proposals say he gave "contradictory reasons" (plural) but then cite only one other reason. What happened to "he wasn't doing a good job" and "the FBI was in disarray and poorly led"? Note that this is a side comment and does not affect my preference for Version A out of these two versions. --MelanieN (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- MelanieN, are you comfortable calling the Rosenstein memo a "recommendation"? Do you think this reflects the current weight of RS. SPECIFICO talk 20:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I am comfortable with the word "recommendation" - relating to the Justice Department letters, not the Rosenstein memo specifically - because the Sessions letter says in so many words, "Therefore, I must recommend that you remove Director James B. Comey, Jr." --MelanieN (talk) 23:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- Well, but the proposed A cites Rosenstein, so that seems to be inconsistent with your analysis. If you don't mind, have a look at the NPOV version I linked from the James Comey article in the discussion bin below. It's hard to understand why a POV version would be preferable in this article. SPECIFICO talk 23:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I am comfortable with the word "recommendation" - relating to the Justice Department letters, not the Rosenstein memo specifically - because the Sessions letter says in so many words, "Therefore, I must recommend that you remove Director James B. Comey, Jr." --MelanieN (talk) 23:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- MelanieN, are you comfortable calling the Rosenstein memo a "recommendation"? Do you think this reflects the current weight of RS. SPECIFICO talk 20:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- Version A- First of all I'd like to congratulate everyone who worked on this article for their great success on creating the monstrosity that is this article! I also concur with Vanamonde93 and MPants that the article should be deleted and only remain a section in James Comey! Alas, who amongst us has the power to slay such a beast, I know not. As for the rfc, I don't see much difference in these two choices, but I too agree that version A reads a little better. Ultimately, don't care either way(which would make me one of the best to decide, ironically.) both conveys pretty much the same information.Darwinian Ape talk 07:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Discussion
Debate goes here. Please read #"Shifting and contradictory accounts", #What was purportedly contradictory and #Marek vs JFG versions before commenting.
See here for an NPOV version without the defects of JFG's proposal A above. SPECIFICO talk 16:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- @SPECIFICO: Are you contending that "...by way of a termination letter citing recommendations..." is less neutral because it doesn't indicate that the recommendation was solicited by Trump? I'm just trying to understand your position, here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hello MP.
- There are two problems with "...by way of a termination letter citing recommendations...". First, "by way of" is weaselly language that signifies nothing in particular. Each reader will interpret it differently. Does it mean that the letter was how he informed Comey to vacate his role? Does it mean that the substance of the letter was a legal justification for the firing? Does it mean that this letter communicated the meaning and significance of the firing to the public? Or is it one of many other possible interpretations that readers may bring to this undefined "by way of"? It's at best subpar writing for an encyclopedia. Do we have "by way of" language either in the press, in historical narratives or in WP to describe the dismissals of other officials? Or for that matter are any other human actions accurately and unambiguously described as "by way of" this or that? Second, this sentence uses WP's voice to call the memorandum a "recommendation" when it became clear shortly after the event that the memo had been solicited by Pres. Trump only as a pretext that he could call a "recommendation" after his mind had already been made up. And this is not interpretation, or speculation about Trump's intention -- this is what he told a TV interviewer and what his administration's official account states he confided in hsi Russian visitors within days of the event.
- Finally, JFG has repeatedly claimed that "his" version has been decided upon at the talk thread above and he has insinuated that others, including yourself MP are co-owners of his POV version. Then finally he claimed that both versions are the same, while nevertheless apparently feeling so strongly about his that he mounted this RfC in the hopes of salvaging the longer weaselly and POV version which supports Trump's deprecated initial talking points. Anyway, I linked to the treatment of the same event at the James Comey article here to show that nothing like JFG's version was used by the different group of editors at that article, where their text raises none of the weasel POV concerns. SPECIFICO talk 19:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response.
- I don't really agree that "by way of" is weasely, as I see it just as synonymous with "through" or "via". However, if one of those (or some other synonym) would ease your concerns, I'd be quite happy with such a change.
- I also disagree that this is using wikivoice to indicate that the recommendation was legit. Instead, I look at the events: Trump fired Comey claiming it was due to a recommendation that actually did exist in the GA/AGA letter. It later came to light that Trump solicited this recommendation. Now, reading the termination letter, I can see that Trump actually referred to the recommendation in the letter. I can see where you're coming from, but I just believe that the POV problem you're seeing in that is an artifact of the English language. I would, however, be okay with putting "recommendation" in scare quotes, or rearranging the next sentence in JFG's version to mention that Trump solicited the memo before mentioning that he contradicted himself.
- As to the nature of the dispute thus far, I think we're more or less in agreement. I think if this really was no big deal, JFG might have simply resigned themselves to your version. I'd say this applies to you, as well, but you haven't been claiming that it's a non-issue. As for my own involvement, I described it above: I have absolutely nothing to do with JFG's version of this paragraph beyond adding a single source to better support the "Trump contradicted himself" claim. A claim which, it is notable, appears in both versions. I feel that attributing any more support than a "meh"-level of personal preference for the prose to JFG's version from me is disingenuous. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- Well, the alternatives, via, through, or others also relate to physical travel and at best imply some sort of analogy or image which is needlessly and confusingly WP:VAGUE. I don't say the two are identical and then go on and on (and on) disputing the consensus for a version that I say is identical, just that somebody else wrote it. Actually, of course it's always good if somebody else writes the best version. Less work for momma. Anyway thanks for the note, I think this little bit is a big deal because it reflects a recurring issue on these American Politics articles. There's no reason to accept fake news or POV language in politics edits or to establish a false equivalence between fact and fake news. If we just apply site policy and the accumulated wisdom of the community we can curtail these time-sump ring-around-the-rosie discussions. I think the good NPOV treatment in Comey's own article shows that there's no excuse for anything less. SPECIFICO talk 22:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- Finally, JFG has repeatedly claimed that "his" version has been decided upon at the talk thread above and he has insinuated that others, including yourself MP are co-owners of his POV version. Then finally he claimed that both versions are the same, while nevertheless apparently feeling so strongly about his that he mounted this RfC in the hopes of salvaging the longer weaselly and POV version which supports Trump's deprecated initial talking points. Anyway, I linked to the treatment of the same event at the James Comey article here to show that nothing like JFG's version was used by the different group of editors at that article, where their text raises none of the weasel POV concerns. SPECIFICO talk 19:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- I don't have strong feelings either way, but I do object to the "Trump was reportedly 'enormously frustrated'" language, for two reasons. First, the word "reportedly" should be removed; if it was reliably reported, then we should state it outright without the qualifier. Second, we either need to make clear who said said "enormously frustrated," or we need to remove the quotation. (I favor the latter.) (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
This should change some people's minds. Probably won't, but should.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Volunteer Marek, sometimes it can be fascinating to see how two different people can read the same source and latch onto completely different parts of it depending on their personal biases. When I read "Mueller Has Early Draft of Trump Letter Giving Reasons for Firing Comey," I saw it as conclusively disproving SPECIFICO's unsupported assertions that Sessions and Rosenstein had not truly "recommended" that Trump fire Comey or that Trump had provided them with a ready-made rationale. To the contrary, Trump drafted his own termination letter that was completely open and forthright about his motivation for the dismissal, but this more transparent approach was overruled by White House Counsel Don McGahn:
"Mr. McGahn met again that same day with Mr. Trump and told him that if he fired Mr. Comey, the Russia investigation would not go away. Mr. Trump told him, according to senior administration officials, that he understood that firing the F.B.I. director might extend the Russia investigation, but that he wanted to do it anyway. Mr. McGahn arranged for the president to meet in the Oval Office that day with Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Mr. Rosenstein, who he knew had been pursuing separate efforts to fire Mr. Comey. The two men were particularly angry about testimony Mr. Comey had given to the Senate Judiciary Committee the previous week, when he said 'it makes me mildly nauseous' to think his handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation might have had an impact on the 2016 election. Mr. Comey's conduct during the hearing added to concerns of Mr. Sessions and Mr. Rosenstein that the F.B.I. director had botched the rollout of the Clinton investigation and had overstepped the boundaries of his job. Shortly after that hearing, Mr. Rosenstein expressed his concerns about Mr. Comey to a White House lawyer, who relayed details of the conversation to his bosses at the White House."
Note that Comey's May 3rd testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee included the allegation"that Hillary Clinton's deputy chief of staff at the State Department, Huma Abedin, 'forwarded hundreds and thousands of emails, some of which contain classified information' to her husband Anthony Weiner's laptop for him to print out"
—a whopper that prompted the FBI to issue a formal correction and that, by all accounts, raised very serious questions about Comey's competence. Therefore, it seems to me that The New York Times corroborates the accuracy of Anythingyouwant's analysis, and definitively debunks SPECIFICO's false claims. What parts of the article, specifically, do you think"should change some people's minds,"
and why?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
RfC of interest
There's an RfC at WT:NOT that would change that policy, and I think would have wide implications for all articles relating to recent events, including this one, which has come up in the discussion. See [18] Coretheapple (talk) 12:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Merging Comey memos
Reading this article and Comey memos in parallel, I noticed that almost everything that is written in the memos article is also written here. Two solutions: trim this article down or merge the other article here. Given that the Comey memos are just an element of the Comey dismissal saga and its consequences, I would advise a merge. Asking for community sentiment before doing the work. — JFG talk 17:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support - I have thought the same for a long time. I see that the Memos article has never been subject to a deletion discussion or merge discussion (unlike many of these Trump spinoff articles), so there is no previous consensus against it. I agree that the Comey memos are merely a sidebar to his dismissal, although they might in the future become evidence in some other matter. But that's WP:CRYSTAL thinking; something like that could be dealt with when and if it happens. I think a section here containing what we know about the memos, and a redirect from the Memos title, would be an improvement. I do agree that we need a discussion (I would say at least a week) and a consensus before actually carrying out the merge. --MelanieN (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support - Having two articles with duplicate content is a sure sign the articles should be merged. Octoberwoodland (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support - Same as above. --M.W.B.A.B. 20:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support I actually think this article should be merged into James Comey as well now that the dust has settled, but I suspect that would probably be met with resistance. Until then, strong support for the merge of Comey memos into this one. Hidden Tempo (talk) 22:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment JFG, it looks as if you have started merging material already? That doesn't hurt anything, but this discussion should not be closed, or the memos article made into a redirect, until a decent comment period has passed. --MelanieN (talk) 02:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Done – Fully merged. Hey, I'm quick sometimes, sorry MelanieN… Looked like a SNOW case anyway. — JFG talk 02:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- You are too damn quick. This discussion hadn't even gone on for 48 hours. I said at the beginning, and I said again just now, allow a week for discussion. It's true you have done this kind of thing before - decide after 12 or 24 hours to just go ahead and implement something. You need to stop that. It wouldn't have hurt anything to wait a few days. Sometimes WP:Process is important. Sorry, but that was way out of line. --MelanieN (talk) 04:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hey, this was not a formal process, I figured we got enough of a pulse to go ahead. I could have done a bold merge in the first place but as I said in my first comment here, I was "asking for community sentiment before doing the work". Now look on the bright side: I've given some structure to the "Comey memos" section, so that a new reader can actually make sense of it all instead of being carried haphazardly through accumulated day-by-day reports. The rest of the article needs some kind of the same treatment, but I'm not volunteering this week: it's time-consuming work! However, on a personal note, I'm sorry I overlooked your recommendation to hold on for a week; will pay more attention to your wise words next time. — JFG talk 10:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- You are too damn quick. This discussion hadn't even gone on for 48 hours. I said at the beginning, and I said again just now, allow a week for discussion. It's true you have done this kind of thing before - decide after 12 or 24 hours to just go ahead and implement something. You need to stop that. It wouldn't have hurt anything to wait a few days. Sometimes WP:Process is important. Sorry, but that was way out of line. --MelanieN (talk) 04:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose You need to have a discussion that is longer then 48 hours. These memes, in and of themselves, are likely important enough pieces of evidence that need an article. Undoing based on lack of notification to page created (myself) and lack of a longer discussion. Casprings (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support. The repetitiveness is unnecessary, and having it all in this article seems apt, especially since leaking one of the memos to the presss was done by Comey in direct response to being fired, and designed to prompt appointment of a special counsel. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - Comey memos is independently notable as evidenced by 43 references and 1891 words of prose. This (target) article should mainly discuss the firing and aftermath. I'm stunned to see that some of the same people supporting this were recently complaining about this article being too long, including who added this to the top of the page:. This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: Excessively long, no organization. Please help improve this article if you can. I also see that some important material (coincidentally unfavorable toward Donald Trump) has been removed from this article under false pretenses. Sad.- MrX 11:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- @MrX: Which material do you contend has been "removed from this article under false pretenses"? — JFG talk 21:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- Source citations; portions of source citations; massive portions of the lead; material verifiable in sources but critical of Trump; etc.- MrX 15:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- @MrX: You'll need to be more specific and actually quote things that were removed and would deserve restoring without being redundant; only then can we have a healthy editorial debate about such content. I performed the merge very carefully, I gave structure to a messy hodge-podge of content and I gave no preference to positive or negative views of the facts. I'm really curious about your bad-faith assumption of "false pretenses": please clarify what you mean or strike the aspersions. — JFG talk 13:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Source citations; portions of source citations; massive portions of the lead; material verifiable in sources but critical of Trump; etc.- MrX 15:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- @MrX: Which material do you contend has been "removed from this article under false pretenses"? — JFG talk 21:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I would strongly suggest that this is re-listed and allowed to run for the full amount of time.Casprings (talk) 12:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Reality Whatever the outcome, the merge mustn't be used as a pretext for insinuating twists of language, juxtaposition, and emphasis. A heavily involved editor should not do the merge. #NPOV SPECIFICO talk 14:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- @SPECIFICO: Was there an issue you saw with the text that was in the article for the past few weeks? PackMecEng (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- As a matter of fact, I wasn't aware it had been done, but the principle remains the same. Uninvolved merger is a good first approximation. If it's ultimately decided I will read whatever text is proposed. SPECIFICO talk 23:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- Fair enough, sounds like a good plan. PackMecEng (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- As a matter of fact, I wasn't aware it had been done, but the principle remains the same. Uninvolved merger is a good first approximation. If it's ultimately decided I will read whatever text is proposed. SPECIFICO talk 23:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- @SPECIFICO: Was there an issue you saw with the text that was in the article for the past few weeks? PackMecEng (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support merge - the merge discussion should have been open longer, but I support the merge. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support but give time for people who oppose the move to have their say. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment It looks as if this discussion was reopened August 26. Thus IMO it should remain open until Sept. 2, and then someone other than JFG should close it. It doesn't have to be someone completely uninvolved in the discussion, just someone else - since it was JFG who made the first, too-quick decision to proceed with the merge. No offense intended to you, JFG, just wanting to ensure a non-controversial outcome this time. --MelanieN (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- I disagree with the timing. As per WP:Merge, the normal time period is 30 days. This was closed 48 hours after it opened. It should be allowed to run for 30 full days and closed on September 26th, if there is consensus.Casprings (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, WP:Merging says the opposite: "There is no required 30-day discussion period. If a consensus in favor of the merger is formed in less than 30 days, then anyone may perform the merger whenever they want." I tend to favor a week as a minimum discussion time, because not everyone is online every day, and in fact some people only log on to Wikipedia on weekends. A week has been recommended to me by more experienced editors as a good way to make sure everyone interested has had a chance to comment, without dragging things out forever. --MelanieN (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I should have waited a week before performing the merge instead of relying on the unanimous support received in the early comments. 30 days is overkill, this was not an RfC. Waiting 3 weeks for somebody to contest the merge and revive the WP:CFORK is not optimal either. — JFG talk 23:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment See relevant discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Comey memos. --MelanieN (talk) 19:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per MrX - DN (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm inclined to think that a merge would promote the POV that there's "nothing to see there" in the memos by minimizing them and to promote Trump's false narratives concerning the dismissal. The memos are a separate subject and either one of the memos or the dismissal could have occurred independently, without the other. SPECIFICO talk 18:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Note that SPECIFICO's argument is logically inconsistent—she says both that the memos and the dismissal are entirely
"separate subjects"
and that not having an article on the former would tend"to promote Trump's false narratives concerning the"
latter. Moreover, SPECIFICO does not affirmatively state that readers are well-served by the existence of Comey memos or that a merge would not be feasible or even (in the long-term) desirable: Her primary concern is only that, given current political considerations,"a merge would promote the POV that there's 'nothing to see there' in the memos by minimizing them."
Several editors, both here and at AFD, have espoused variations of SPECIFICO's insinuation that merge proponents are not acting in good faith, but rather simply dislike the content of the article in question, but none have refuted JFG's central point that"Almost all content was duplicated, and everything was WP:PRESERVED during the [previous] merge."
Instead, we have seen aspersions cast absent any evidence—see MrX's unsupported aspersions, and his failure to respond when challenged by JFG, as well as SPECIFICO's unsupported aspersions. SPECIFICO alleged that JFG had used the merge"as a pretext for insinuating twists of language, juxtaposition, and emphasis,"
but when asked"Was there an issue you saw with the text that was in the article for the past few weeks?"
she replied:"As a matter of fact, I wasn't aware it [the merge] had been done, but the principle remains the same."
Casual personal attacks of this kind make collaboration more difficult, but there is a more fundamental problem with ad hominem reasoning: Even if merge proponents are motivated by WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, merge opponents still need a better rationale for retaining Comey memos than WP:IJUSTLIKEIT.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Note that SPECIFICO's argument is logically inconsistent—she says both that the memos and the dismissal are entirely
- Merge per my more detailed statements at the relevant AFD.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- All I see there is disparagement of our colleague, @MrX: for his good faith analysis. SPECIFICO talk 20:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- The equation of the Nixon White House tapes with the alleged Comey memos in terms of established, long-term historical significance and independent notability is, indeed, ludicrous—obviously so to anyone familiar with the former topic—but I do not see how explaining that constitutes
"disparagement"
of any kind. If you have a response to my substantive arguments, please post it at the relevant AFD.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)- "obvious" and "ludicrous" and "I don't see..." are not policy-based refutations of the points articulated by comrade X. Please review WP:TPNO. SPECIFICO talk 22:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO, you really need to stop trolling.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)@TheTimesAreAChanging: You're entitled to your opinion, but I think it lacks perspective. Although this scandal is unprecedented in US History, there are striking similarities to Watergate, especially in in the obstruction of justice aspect. This is not the time to be removing, burying, or significantly condensing content just as the scandal in its many forms is unfolding. - MrX 22:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Asserting that "Trump-Russia"—whatever that may be—constitutes the biggest scandal in American history does not actually establish a policy-based rationale for a dedicated article on a minor detail like Comey memos.
"This is not the time"
? See WP:RECENTISM.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Asserting that "Trump-Russia"—whatever that may be—constitutes the biggest scandal in American history does not actually establish a policy-based rationale for a dedicated article on a minor detail like Comey memos.
- "obvious" and "ludicrous" and "I don't see..." are not policy-based refutations of the points articulated by comrade X. Please review WP:TPNO. SPECIFICO talk 22:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- The equation of the Nixon White House tapes with the alleged Comey memos in terms of established, long-term historical significance and independent notability is, indeed, ludicrous—obviously so to anyone familiar with the former topic—but I do not see how explaining that constitutes
- All I see there is disparagement of our colleague, @MrX: for his good faith analysis. SPECIFICO talk 20:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support Merge Only notable in relation to dismissal of James Comey. If it ends up being a white water situation then it should have its own article. Until then its nothing but WP:CRYSTAL. PackMecEng (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - seems like these are independently notable. This is an extremely important event in historical context. I may revisit following the special prosecutor's report, but see no reason for a hasty merge. Neutralitytalk 00:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- This is a key point. We should not be in any rush to conclude that these two events are collinear. That would unnecessarily limit WP's content for our users and it's a clear POV tilt toward what RS describe as the Trump Administration's self-serving spin on the subject. SPECIFICO talk 00:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- From a policy perspective, you've got things exactly backwards. No secondary sources so far have even seen, much less analyzed, Comey's alleged memos. Therefore, we should not create an article entirely devoted to these alleged memos on the theory that they may ultimately turn out to be hugely historically significant and independently notable in their own right. It's not about
"minimizing"
the possibility of Comey memos contributing to future earth-shattering developments; there is no"rush to conclude"
anything. Editors should merely wait until sources have made that determination.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- From a policy perspective, you've got things exactly backwards. No secondary sources so far have even seen, much less analyzed, Comey's alleged memos. Therefore, we should not create an article entirely devoted to these alleged memos on the theory that they may ultimately turn out to be hugely historically significant and independently notable in their own right. It's not about
- This is a key point. We should not be in any rush to conclude that these two events are collinear. That would unnecessarily limit WP's content for our users and it's a clear POV tilt toward what RS describe as the Trump Administration's self-serving spin on the subject. SPECIFICO talk 00:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - independently notable. The memos are part of this story but also a part of a different story.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - as per User:Neutrality. --Chris Howard (talk) 03:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment – Several opposing editors insist that the memos are "independently notable" from the dismissal of James Comey. Even if that were the case (it's mostly speculation at this point), that doesn't automatically grant them a separate article. Duplicate content is not good for the encyclopedia. — JFG talk 05:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- You're welcome to propose an AfD for the other article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Admin note: I've closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comey memos with a result of redirect to this article. I have to leave it up to editors how to reconcile this result with this still-open discussion. Sandstein 10:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you, Sandstein. I would say that settles it. That discussion was done at AfD which is a more general venue than an article's talk page. And looking at the current discussion, which now has been open for a week, we have 10 in favor of merging and 7 opposed. Based on that result plus the AfD closure, I am going to close this discussion as "merge". I believe relevant material has already been merged here so it is only necessary to do the redirect, which I will do. Anyone who believes additional relevant material should have been merged is welcome to bring it here from the redirected article's history. Be sure to attribute it to that article if you copy it directly. --MelanieN (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- P.S. I was about to close and archive this discussion but decided not to just yet, as people may want to make additional comments. --MelanieN (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- And I see that Sandstein already carried out the redirect when he closed the AfD. --MelanieN (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- "That discussion was done at AfD which is a more general venue" - except far more editors participated here than at AfD. Many editors who participated here were not aware of the AfD. Hell, I *suggested* that JFG start an AfD unaware that he had already done so. And how do you explain JFG carrying on over here while at the same time pursuing AfD and not even bothering to mention it here. Multiple users who opposed the merge here did not participate in the AfD. This appears like a particularly WP:GAMEy instance of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Volunteer Marek 23:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Re "not even mentioning": See my Comment from August 27, above. Five of the seven "oppose" !votes commented AFTER that was posted here. --MelanieN (talk) 23:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Here are multiple further wikilinks at this talk page to the afd from August 28. WTF, VM? Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Re "not even mentioning": See my Comment from August 27, above. Five of the seven "oppose" !votes commented AFTER that was posted here. --MelanieN (talk) 23:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- "That discussion was done at AfD which is a more general venue" - except far more editors participated here than at AfD. Many editors who participated here were not aware of the AfD. Hell, I *suggested* that JFG start an AfD unaware that he had already done so. And how do you explain JFG carrying on over here while at the same time pursuing AfD and not even bothering to mention it here. Multiple users who opposed the merge here did not participate in the AfD. This appears like a particularly WP:GAMEy instance of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Volunteer Marek 23:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Second paragraph of lead
There's new reporting that Trump's initial draft of the termination letter did not rely almost exclusively on Sessions and Rosenstein, but that the White House Counsel insisted otherwise (which led to the final letter). Moreover, the same NYT report says Trump was aware the firing might lengthen the Russia investigation and he was willing to fire Comey anyway. I am not sure which of this new stuff is leadworthy. Anyway, the second paragraph of the lead now starts like this:
“ | Trump sent Comey a termination letter that cited documents and recommendations prepared by Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.[4][5] Trump subsequently gave various explanations for the dismissal, in which he contradicted the termination letter's implication that the recommendations from Sessions and Rosenstein had influenced his decision.[6][7] | ” |
This seems accurate. Thoughts? Should "implication" be "intimation"? Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- It should be "claim" or "statement" and it's not "documents and recommendations" it's documents. Just because Sessions, himself a possible target of the criminal investigation, used the word "recommendation" doesn't mean any RS is still calling it that. And Rosie didn't even pretend it was a recommendation, just a lot of weaseled up gopher balls about unnamed former employees and other mystery meat. SPECIFICO talk 18:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO, as I just got through explaining to you, RS such as The New York Times state that not only did Sessions and Rosenstein "recommend" Comey's dismissal, the two men had also been pushing for it long before Trump independently reached the same conclusion, largely due to their concerns about Comey's handling of the Clinton email investigation. That you would continue to make blanket false assertions like those above, while refusing to engage with the arguments against your position or to provide any sources that could substantiate your unsupported claims, is unhelpful to constructive discourse: You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own alternative facts. Also, I realize that the RfC on the second paragraph isn't going your way, but that's no excuse for you to unilaterally inject yet more WP:WEASEL language into the lead. Your contention that the recommendation is merely our collective hallucination has gotten no support from anyone here, including from editors that may be more sympathetic to you than I am, such as MelanieN ([20]), so please do not turn the newest lead dispute into an edit war—let the RfC run its course.
- To reiterate, because this is important: Anythingyouwant, JFG, and myself have all provided numerous sources that use the word "recommendation" and make clear that Sessions and Rosenstein had been planning to oust Comey literally months in advance. You, SPECIFICO, have ignored several requests to back up any of your comments with any sources at all. Until you are able to do that, you are simply derailing the conversation.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- " the two men had also been pushing for it long before Trump independently reached the same conclusion, largely due to their concerns about Comey's handling of the Clinton email investigation" -- Times, read the source again. That's not why they "independently reached the same conclusion". Rather they were pissed about Comey's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee the week before. And there's no "long before" in the source either. And the overall point - that Trump had one reason for firing Comey but gave another - remains, and is reinforced by the existence of the Miller memo.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- No, Volunteer Marek, you're going to have to read the source (and my comment) again. Comey's May 3rd testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee was devoted to his handling of the Clinton email investigation, and was not a distinct topic:
"The two men were particularly angry about testimony Mr. Comey had given to the Senate Judiciary Committee the previous week, when he said 'it makes me mildly nauseous' to think his handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation might have had an impact on the 2016 election. Mr. Comey's conduct during the hearing added to concerns of Mr. Sessions and Mr. Rosenstein that the F.B.I. director had botched the rollout of the Clinton investigation and had overstepped the boundaries of his job."
As I explained previously, Comey also falsely testified"that Hillary Clinton's deputy chief of staff at the State Department, Huma Abedin, 'forwarded hundreds and thousands of emails, some of which contain classified information' to her husband Anthony Weiner's laptop for him to print out"
—a whopper that prompted the FBI to issue a formal correction and that, by all accounts, raised very serious questions about whether Comey was competent enough to retain his position. Finally, I provided a separate source for the"long before"
claim, but you skimmed right past it: "Sessions and Rosenstein discussed firing Comey last winter," Politico, May 19, 2017:"Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and then-Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) first discussed removing James Comey as FBI director last winter, even before Sessions was confirmed as attorney general, Rosenstein told lawmakers Friday."
Let me know when you realize your error.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)- I have no idea what Huma Aberdin has to do with any of this. You appear to be just throwing her into the mix for good measure. Is this related to the letter Mueller has in his possession? Is it relevant to Rosenstein's memo? No? Rosenstein's name does not even appear in your source? Well, why bring it up then?
- As to the Politico article and "last winter" Politico makes it very clear that 1) the possibility of firing Comey being discussed last winter is a *claim* made by Rosenstein (and this was published right after the firing, as Rosenstein came under intense criticism and Trump got called out on his shifting and contradictory explanations) and 2) the reasons which might have been discussed "last spring" - and sure, Sessions might very well have wanted to have Comey fired - were likely NOT THE SAME REASONS as those that were provided by Rosenstein prior to the dismissal. Indeed, the source goes out of its way to emphasize how these reasons were ... EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what Rosenstein's memo claimed. This is a blatant contradiction and a gaping hole in this "oh but we've always wanted to fire him" narrative that is being spun. Volunteer Marek 23:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- (*still* being spun. I thought people gave up on it cuz it's so ridiculous but apparently not). Do you really think Trump and Sessions wanted to fire Comey because he was unfair to Clinton??? Volunteer Marek 23:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Again, Volunteer Marek, you have inaccurately parsed the Politico source. Rosenstein confirmed that he and Sessions discussed firing Comey months in advance for precisely the same reasons that the two men outlined in their recommendation letters:
"Among the concerns that I recall were to restore the credibility of the FBI, respect the established authority of the Department of Justice, limit public statements and eliminate leaks."
What Politico notes is that this contradicted Sessions's campaign rhetoric. Of course, Trump had his own reasons for accepting the Justice Department's recommendation and dismissing Comey long after these concerns were initially raised—the most important being that Comey had refused to confirm that Trump was not personally under FBI investigation, and had failed to push back against The New York Times's inaccurate reporting in "Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence"—but that doesn't negate the fact that Sessions and Rosenstein had been advocating the same course of action far earlier, on their own initiative and in good faith. More broadly, Wikipedia follows the sources, and the sources do not WP:WEASEL their way around the inconvenient fact that Sessions and Rosenstein really did "recommend" Comey's ouster.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)- A heady brew of OR, denial, V-fails and personal disparagement. I'd say less than a dozen living humans now believe that Trump fired Comey acting on a recommendation from Rosenstein. The fact that half of the 12 are here active on this talk page doesn't make it worth anything. Fake news with fringe fries. SPECIFICO talk 02:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO, snarky replies like the one above are really not helpful to collaborative discussion. Trump drafted his own letter citing his own rationale for firing Comey, but McGahn suggested that the official justification for the dismissal should be Sessions's and Rosenstein's long-standing concerns about Comey's handling of the Clinton email investigation. Those are the facts, as reported by The New York Times et al., and they have not been disputed by any reliable source. Let's not conflate the facts with opinion, analysis, or moral judgement. Once we agree on the facts, we can debate how best to convey the relevant information to readers. You should have retracted your unsupported assertion that
"Plenty of RS say [Rosenstein] was instructed to cite that [rationale], none say he was motivated by it"
long ago.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)- SPECIFICO, please quit changing the subject. Nobody here thinks that Trump actually fired Comey because of the Justice Department recommendations, so please stop pretending we do. What we do know is that Trump initially SAID it was because of the DOJ recommendations. We also know that was a pretext, and that he soon abandoned the claim. But it is what he said, and that's what our article reports: what he said initially, and what other reasons he gave later, and (we now know) what he said and thought BEFORE firing Comey. I would appreciate it if you would quit these phony arguments that it wasn't a recommendation (it was) and that it wasn't the real reason (of course it wasn't, we all know that). --MelanieN (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- MelanieN, it's not "changing the subject" to insist that WP reflect RS reporting. 1) Rosenstein pointedly did not say he was making a "recommendation" - RS report that he was deeply troubled by his role in the whole affair, and that was too much for him to swallow. Sessions went along but Sessions is himself tainted in the entire Russian interference matter. 2) Since RS tell us the Sessions/Comey documents were created to provide a pretext, a rationale, or a legally or politically conforming "cause" for a decision President Trump had already reached and documented in a problematic way, WP should not call them "recommendations" when they were not recommendations, they were pretexts, rationales, or legally or politically conforming "causes" for Trump's action. I've stated that clearly many times here but the dogged opposition, which you appear now to have endorsed, has repeatedly declined to "address the central point", choosing instead to attack me personally. There's nothing phony about my expecting that the article not state in WP's voice that these documents were "recommendations". If you think recent RS, after more and more of the story is now revealed, are predominantly calling these documents recommendations, you could resolve the matter by showing us all the many RS accounts, since the latest revelation on Friday, that call the Justice Dept. documents "recommendations. Wouldn't that be a simpler resolution than biting me and disparaging my thoughtful "arguments" as "phony"? SPECIFICO talk 16:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
SPECIFICO: If I do, will you drop it? I'm not inclined to do the work of finding half a dozen sources if it's not going to change anything. BTW since you ask for sources from just the last three days I will see what I can find, but IMO that kind of time requirement is unreasonable. RS have been calling it a "recommendation" all along, and RS are RS; they don't expire like last week's carton of milk. And your apparent insistence that the Sept. 1 revelation changed everything is new; you have been arguing against "recommendation" (and rejecting any RS people showed you) long before that --MelanieN (talk) 17:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)- "Carton of milk?" Is that really the tone of discourse you wish to exemplify here? RS accounts expire? Straw man. RS accounts reflect current knowledge, and current knowledge does expire. It's fresh every day. And so, if we look at the very first accounts, the Administration's spin was more or less reported straightfaced. And over time, as information as increasingly become available from President's own words, from the words of other principals, and from investigative reporting, the RS narrative has changed. So yes, it expires. In fact, the use of stale sources is one of the most widespread devices of POV-pushing and non-policy compliant editing on Wikipedia. Because it's possible to choose dated accounts that are written in the authoritative style of an RS based on what was known as of the fresh date but which has been superseded by more recent facts and developments. Not all editors form a coherent view at the same pace. Very often some will understand an issue before others. I cited Sept. 1 because it provided overwhelming fresh details that I reasonably expect will clarify the issue for some of the editors who may previously have thought I was splitting hairs. So in this case, those of us who saw this earlier may have been ahead of the curve, but additional RS evidence is offered to be helpful, not as you appear to suggest, to change the tune. SPECIFICO talk 17:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) SPECIFICO is moving the goalpost again: Virtually all RS do use the term "recommendation," and she has been provided many such sources, but they've all been invalidated
"since the latest revelation on Friday"
(i.e., three days ago), so we need"many RS accounts"
from just the past three days to satisfy her.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- MelanieN, it's not "changing the subject" to insist that WP reflect RS reporting. 1) Rosenstein pointedly did not say he was making a "recommendation" - RS report that he was deeply troubled by his role in the whole affair, and that was too much for him to swallow. Sessions went along but Sessions is himself tainted in the entire Russian interference matter. 2) Since RS tell us the Sessions/Comey documents were created to provide a pretext, a rationale, or a legally or politically conforming "cause" for a decision President Trump had already reached and documented in a problematic way, WP should not call them "recommendations" when they were not recommendations, they were pretexts, rationales, or legally or politically conforming "causes" for Trump's action. I've stated that clearly many times here but the dogged opposition, which you appear now to have endorsed, has repeatedly declined to "address the central point", choosing instead to attack me personally. There's nothing phony about my expecting that the article not state in WP's voice that these documents were "recommendations". If you think recent RS, after more and more of the story is now revealed, are predominantly calling these documents recommendations, you could resolve the matter by showing us all the many RS accounts, since the latest revelation on Friday, that call the Justice Dept. documents "recommendations. Wouldn't that be a simpler resolution than biting me and disparaging my thoughtful "arguments" as "phony"? SPECIFICO talk 16:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO, please quit changing the subject. Nobody here thinks that Trump actually fired Comey because of the Justice Department recommendations, so please stop pretending we do. What we do know is that Trump initially SAID it was because of the DOJ recommendations. We also know that was a pretext, and that he soon abandoned the claim. But it is what he said, and that's what our article reports: what he said initially, and what other reasons he gave later, and (we now know) what he said and thought BEFORE firing Comey. I would appreciate it if you would quit these phony arguments that it wasn't a recommendation (it was) and that it wasn't the real reason (of course it wasn't, we all know that). --MelanieN (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO, snarky replies like the one above are really not helpful to collaborative discussion. Trump drafted his own letter citing his own rationale for firing Comey, but McGahn suggested that the official justification for the dismissal should be Sessions's and Rosenstein's long-standing concerns about Comey's handling of the Clinton email investigation. Those are the facts, as reported by The New York Times et al., and they have not been disputed by any reliable source. Let's not conflate the facts with opinion, analysis, or moral judgement. Once we agree on the facts, we can debate how best to convey the relevant information to readers. You should have retracted your unsupported assertion that
- A heady brew of OR, denial, V-fails and personal disparagement. I'd say less than a dozen living humans now believe that Trump fired Comey acting on a recommendation from Rosenstein. The fact that half of the 12 are here active on this talk page doesn't make it worth anything. Fake news with fringe fries. SPECIFICO talk 02:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Again, Volunteer Marek, you have inaccurately parsed the Politico source. Rosenstein confirmed that he and Sessions discussed firing Comey months in advance for precisely the same reasons that the two men outlined in their recommendation letters:
- No, Volunteer Marek, you're going to have to read the source (and my comment) again. Comey's May 3rd testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee was devoted to his handling of the Clinton email investigation, and was not a distinct topic:
- " the two men had also been pushing for it long before Trump independently reached the same conclusion, largely due to their concerns about Comey's handling of the Clinton email investigation" -- Times, read the source again. That's not why they "independently reached the same conclusion". Rather they were pissed about Comey's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee the week before. And there's no "long before" in the source either. And the overall point - that Trump had one reason for firing Comey but gave another - remains, and is reinforced by the existence of the Miller memo.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- To reiterate, because this is important: Anythingyouwant, JFG, and myself have all provided numerous sources that use the word "recommendation" and make clear that Sessions and Rosenstein had been planning to oust Comey literally months in advance. You, SPECIFICO, have ignored several requests to back up any of your comments with any sources at all. Until you are able to do that, you are simply derailing the conversation.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Look, SPECIFICO, let's cut to the chase. We are supposed to talk about what the article should actually SAY. Here's what the article lede currently says: Trump dismissed Comey by way of a termination letter citing recommendations from Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein
. That is unequivocally true; his letter did cite the two memos as "recommending your dismissal" and said "I have accepted their recommendation." We would be false to the source if we removed "recommendations" from our sentence.
In the body of the text we say Sessions, in his letter to Trump, cited Rosenstein's memo as the reason for his own recommendation that Comey be dismissed. In the dismissal letter, Trump cited the recommendations by Sessions and Rosenstein as the reason for Comey's dismissal.[4][44]Immediately after Trump's termination announcement. Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Sessions and other administration associates stated that Trump fired Comey solely on the recommendations of Sessions and Rosenstein.[45]
That again is entirely and unequivocally true; that's what they said. We are reporting what they said.
So what exactly are you recommending (there's that word again) that we should say instead? --MelanieN (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- TTAAC, I haven't seen any evidence that McGahn was the one who actually proposed using the Clinton emails as the main reason, much less that he told Rosenstein to use that as the basis of his rationale. He just didn't like the reasons Trump had given in his draft (we don't know what those were) and he definitely did not like the tone of the draft. In fact, as a good civil servant McGahn didn't TELL them anything; Trump was the one who told them to come up with a written justification. I don't think he or Trump cared what it was, as long as it was somewhat credible and politically acceptable. (They apparently actually believed that firing him on that basis would be uncontroversial, since Democrats had been vocally unhappy with Comey's handling of the matter.) I'm just responding to your comment here; our article doesn't say, and shouldn't say, that McGahn suggested that rationale. --MelanieN (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Snarky or not, in this instance SPECIFICO is right - TTAAC is trying to push their own interpretation of events which don't quite match up with the sources. Sessions wanted Comey fired because he was pissed Comey didn't persecute Clinton. At some point Rosenstein and Sessions had a talk about firing Comey. Then Rosenstein wrote a memo which claimed that Comey should be fired because Comey was too unfair to Clinton. ... You can't square this circle Times. You can put in stuff up about "restore the credibility of the FBI, respect the established authority of the Department of Justice, limit public statements and eliminate leaks" but all of that is basically like when a politician resigns for "health reasons" or "to focus on their personal life". It doesn't mean anything. Whenever somebody gets fired anywhere the person doing the firing says stuff like that. It's boiler plate. It has nothing to do with the actual reasons for the dismissals - and that's what sources say. Volunteer Marek 15:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)
"Sessions wanted Comey fired because he was pissed Comey didn't persecute (sic) Clinton."
Respectfully, Volunteer Marek, you have provided no sources that state this was Sessions's motivation, and your claim is contradicted by other reporting on the matter, including the aforementioned Politico report on Rosenstein's testimony. I suspect this is merely a case of confirmation bias causing you to assume facts not in evidence, but if you can substantiate your assertion, by all means do so. If you really didn't know,"respect the established authority of the Department of Justice"
and"limit public statements"
means that the FBI director should not go around the attorney general to release derogatory information related to the subject of an FBI investigation, even if the FBI director thinks that the attorney general has a conflict of interest.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)