Objective3000 (talk | contribs) DS Violation |
→Unreliable source: Reply to DS violation. Block needed. Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
Line 89: | Line 89: | ||
That whole paragraph needs to go, so I'm removing it. -- [[User:BullRangifer|BullRangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) <u><small>'''''PingMe'''''</small></u> |
That whole paragraph needs to go, so I'm removing it. -- [[User:BullRangifer|BullRangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) <u><small>'''''PingMe'''''</small></u> |
||
{{sources-talk}} |
|||
:The Washington Times confirmed the statement from Mueller's office[https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/16/robert-mueller-many-news-stories-trump-russia-prob/], and Business Insider confirmed it as well[http://www.businessinsider.com/robert-mueller-warns-many-stories-on-trump-investigation-not-true-2018-4]. IJR picked it up[https://ijr.com/2018/04/1086094-mueller-spokesman-many-media-inaccurate/], as did other agencies. Daily Caller is part of the same fact-checking network relied on by Google and Facebook.[http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/15/poynter-accepts-daily-caller-check-your-fact-international-fact-checking-network/] Can that detritus called "Daily Kos" that you used say the same? You don't get to unilaterally decide if a source is good enough or not. [[User:Jerry the Bellybutton Elf|Jerry the Bellybutton Elf]] ([[User talk:Jerry the Bellybutton Elf|talk]]) 13:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC) |
:The Washington Times confirmed the statement from Mueller's office[https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/16/robert-mueller-many-news-stories-trump-russia-prob/], and Business Insider confirmed it as well[http://www.businessinsider.com/robert-mueller-warns-many-stories-on-trump-investigation-not-true-2018-4]. IJR picked it up[https://ijr.com/2018/04/1086094-mueller-spokesman-many-media-inaccurate/], as did other agencies. Daily Caller is part of the same fact-checking network relied on by Google and Facebook.[http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/15/poynter-accepts-daily-caller-check-your-fact-international-fact-checking-network/] Can that detritus called "Daily Kos" that you used say the same? You don't get to unilaterally decide if a source is good enough or not. [[User:Jerry the Bellybutton Elf|Jerry the Bellybutton Elf]] ([[User talk:Jerry the Bellybutton Elf|talk]]) 13:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC) |
||
::If this is true, why can't we find reliable sources? Also, restoration of this text was a violation of the consensus required restriction, as per the notice at the top of this page. [[User:Objective3000|O3000]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 13:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC) |
::If this is true, why can't we find reliable sources? Also, restoration of this text was a violation of the consensus required restriction, as per the notice at the top of this page. [[User:Objective3000|O3000]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 13:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC) |
||
::: Jerry, you can get blocked for restoring content challenged by deletion on this DS article, so self-revert and then stick to discussion here until there is a consensus version. |
|||
::: The Washington Times isn't the WaPost, which ''is'' considered a RS here. |
|||
::: No one is questioning the Mueller statement. It is the connection made by TDC that's improper, and where its extreme right-wing bias is showing. |
|||
::: I did not, and would not, include Daily Kos. I also deleted it. It too is too extreme for general use here, even though usually accurate. -- [[User:BullRangifer|BullRangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) <u><small>'''''PingMe'''''</small></u> 15:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:24, 28 June 2018
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Open RFCs and Surveys
Talk:Mueller special counsel investigation/Current consensus
Another case of Wikipedia bias
Ah, another wonderful case of Wikipedia bias. Keep draging Wikipedia throught the mud and chasing anyone who complains."eventually peddling a "deep state" conspiracy theory". "were almost immediately debunked including (Long list of supposed debunked cases in an ongoing case that doesn't belong to an intro". Using partial sources like The Washington Post, CNN, New York Times.
You have effectively chased away anyone that isn't as ideological as you and destroyed any semblancy of impartiality in the Wikipedia. Congratulations.
- Rather than complain on a Talk page, perhaps your solution is to provide edits that are supported by reliable sources and see if they withstand scrutiny. soibangla (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Jeffrey Yohai
Regarding Paul Manafort's former son-in-law's plea deal-- would we want to include that information? Seeing as the indictment has not been publicly released, it is difficult to determine the full scope if its relation to the Mueller probe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avilan01 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- No, not on our own WP:OR unfounded speculations, or even outsiders speculating about maybes. Wait and see if something actually happens that relates to the article. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 21:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Secrecy
I don't know how to phrase this but the article should accommodate the notion that virtually all of the Special Counsel's work in being conducted in secrecy. And therefore we and everybody else don't have much to say.
I know we're not supposed to make predictions but, unless something goes wrong in a major way and just between us chickens, we're not going to have much until Mueller delivers his report to Rosenstein and/or charges a majority of the ones he wants to indict. What we'd be saying is that the readers, right now and to a large extent, are wasting their time until the report or major indictments come out. It would be an admission by WP that we just don't have enough reliable sources to say anything useful right now, except what will become trivial matters (like criminal charges against Manafort, Flynn and others) when the report is released.
In my opinion, this should be in the lead, perhaps in the second or third sentence in the first paragraph. We can certainly get a lot of citations; an hour doesn't go by without a cable news anchorman or a major newspaper reporter or editor saying (usually as a side issue) that they're only reporting on the fringes of the investigation. How would we phrase our admission? Do you think it's really necessary? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 00:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think anything like you're suggesting needs to be added. Mueller is running a tight ship without leaks. That is as it should be. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't see how charges against Manafort, Flynn and others would ever be considered "trivial matters". They are of fairly historic proportion. bd2412 T 01:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- LOL I skimmed over that part. "Trivial" to have criminal convictions in a criminal investigation? Whether Mueller gets DJT or not, this investigation has borne fruit. If anything, once the investigation is concluded, any notes on the "secrecy" of the investigation will be trivial. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't see how charges against Manafort, Flynn and others would ever be considered "trivial matters". They are of fairly historic proportion. bd2412 T 01:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: I think you've got me backwards. What I meant was that the fact that Mueller didn't have any leaks should be emphasized, something like:
- Like all federal prosecutors, Mueller's team cannot reveal their findings to a continuing criminal investigation, except for ongoing indictments and his final report to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.[1]
References
- ^ Tillman, Zoe (February 22, 2018). "Robert Mueller Knows How To Keep A Secret". BuzzFeed. Retrieved May 29, 2018.
Prosecutors are bound by confidentiality and ethics rules not to disclose information about pending criminal investigations
- In the meantime, I've added the single word "ongoing" to the article's first sentence. Which may be enough. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, I see. Still, Mueller is doing his job as he should. Is that something that we need to specifically call out? I do believe I've seen some commentary discussing the lack of leaks, so it is out there in RS's. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- But the average reader may not even know who Mueller is, to say nothing about some investigation he's running. Most people won't even finish the lead and certainly won't bother tracking down sources. If you were an average reader approaching the subject for the first time, might you not get the impression that the investigation is basically concluded? Or in the very last steps of being concluded? How do we indicate to this reader (who doesn't know much about current US politics) that we are waiting for Mueller to hand down the bulk of his indictments and generate his report? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry if I seem to be butting in, I have limited time, so I'm not able to be here much... I do think it's fine to emphasize that the investigation is still currently ongoing, but I think it isn't necessary to say Mueller's team doesn't have leaks. As far as being an average WP reader, if I didn't know who Mueller is, then I would just click on the WP article about him and find out. Persistent Corvid (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- I think Persistent Corvid is quite correct. Moreover, I believe we note that Director Mueller's investigation is ongoing; see the title, "2017 [to] present". If that doesn't perfectly convey the meaning that the investigation continues, well, I'm not sure what would. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!) 14:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- But the average reader may not even know who Mueller is, to say nothing about some investigation he's running. Most people won't even finish the lead and certainly won't bother tracking down sources. If you were an average reader approaching the subject for the first time, might you not get the impression that the investigation is basically concluded? Or in the very last steps of being concluded? How do we indicate to this reader (who doesn't know much about current US politics) that we are waiting for Mueller to hand down the bulk of his indictments and generate his report? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, I see. Still, Mueller is doing his job as he should. Is that something that we need to specifically call out? I do believe I've seen some commentary discussing the lack of leaks, so it is out there in RS's. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Is Emmet Flood part of the White House Counsel's staff? In other words, does he officially report to Don McGahn?
If not then how does he represent the office of the presidency? I assume he's either paid by the federal government as an employee or his firm provides services to the federal government as a vendor. Or do I have it all wrong; does Flood get paid out of Trump's own pocket? In which case, how does he officially represent the office of the presidency? If you drew up an organization chart of the White House, where would Flood (and formerly Cobb) be slotted in? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Huh. I don't know that I know the answers to any of these questions. But a bit of speculation is warranted. White House Special Counsels generally are appointed for specific reasons, insofar as investigations of the President are concerned (see, for instance, Jane C. Sherburne). Ah, I found a link to a guide to the President's lawyers: a bit outdated now, but still good enough (if you accept Slate as an RS, of course). Something from Axios, too, which I hate using as a source, but is probably useful in this case. In short, I assume Mr. Flood will be slipping into Mr. Cobb's former role: that is, he is employed as a member of the White House Counsel's staff, is paid from the White House's pocket (so, yes, federal dollars), and (like Mr. Cobb) reports to Mr. McGahn. (On an org chart, Mr. McGahn would be in charge of the White House Counsel, and Mssrs. Cobb and Flood would be below his name, but just barely. I presume, at least.) But Mr. Flood's sole responsibility, so far as I'm aware, is the Special Counsel's investigation; and from what I hear, Mr. Flood is a fighter. Feel free to correct me, fellow editors, if I have erred. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 21:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Unreliable source
Why are we quoting The Daily Caller as it makes a conspiracy theory synthesis of two events with no proven connection? It's not a RS and should not be used at all at Wikipedia:
- After McClatchy reported that Michael Cohen had traveled to Prague to meet aides of Vladimir Putin in 2016, The Daily Caller, a conservative news website, quoted an unnamed Mueller spokesperson as saying, "Be very cautious about any source that claims to have knowledge about our investigation and dig deep into what they claim before reporting on it. If another outlet reports something, don’t run with it unless you have your own sourcing to back it up.”[1] The McClatchy report was not confirmed by another media organization.[2]
That whole paragraph needs to go, so I'm removing it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe
Sources
|
---|
- The Washington Times confirmed the statement from Mueller's office[1], and Business Insider confirmed it as well[2]. IJR picked it up[3], as did other agencies. Daily Caller is part of the same fact-checking network relied on by Google and Facebook.[4] Can that detritus called "Daily Kos" that you used say the same? You don't get to unilaterally decide if a source is good enough or not. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- If this is true, why can't we find reliable sources? Also, restoration of this text was a violation of the consensus required restriction, as per the notice at the top of this page. O3000 (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- Jerry, you can get blocked for restoring content challenged by deletion on this DS article, so self-revert and then stick to discussion here until there is a consensus version.
- The Washington Times isn't the WaPost, which is considered a RS here.
- No one is questioning the Mueller statement. It is the connection made by TDC that's improper, and where its extreme right-wing bias is showing.
- I did not, and would not, include Daily Kos. I also deleted it. It too is too extreme for general use here, even though usually accurate. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- If this is true, why can't we find reliable sources? Also, restoration of this text was a violation of the consensus required restriction, as per the notice at the top of this page. O3000 (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)