This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Please mark
Please mark this for deletion. It is a supplementation to the dismissal of Comey. Also the section Comey memo is right under Comey's dismissal page. Thanks. --Smghz (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)smghz
Can someone explain how this topic is notable and encyclopedic, and necessary on its own in light of the many many other articles we have documenting the latest news cycle events in the Trump presidency? Mr Ernie (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Notability is indicated by extensive international coverage in sources. Please read and understand WP:Notability. WP:PURPOSE is also worth reading. The historical significance of recent Trump presidency events makes it extremely likely that these subjects will have enduring value. Numerous sources have compared this to the Watergate scandal.- MrX 13:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Sure I'm familiar with those policies. It's impossible to determine historical significance of something like this while it is breaking (that's why we have NOTNEWS). We don't know if this issue will be a big deal or nothing. It doesn't need its own article at this point. This topic seems better suited in the Dismissal of Comey article. I don't see this as a standalone issue. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
We don't know if this will be historically significant, but reasonable people could arrive at that conclusion, and have. There's far too much information available, and likely to be available soon, to cover such an extensive subject in the dismissal article.- MrX 14:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
On “breaking news”, I usually suggest a delay in any mention until we see if the story has legs or quickly drops off the radar. It was immediately obvious that this story would survive the ever-churning news cycle. If we’re wrong, the article can be AfDed at a later date. Objective3000 (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly.- MrX 14:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Appointment of Special Counsel to Investigate Russian Interference with the 2016 Presidential Election and Related Matters
One day after the existence of the memo was reported by The New York Times, the Justice Department appointed former FBI director Robert Mueller as special counsel, charged with overseeing the FBI's ongoing counterintelligence investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, inclduing "possible collusion between Trump campaign associates and Russia during the presidential campaign."[1][2]
This is notable. The topic is notable. The article is notable. The appointment of Special counsel came one day after the reporting by The New York Times about the existence of the Comey memos. Sagecandor (talk) 23:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Balance
The article is starting to sound unbalanced. Although, I haven't the faintest idea how to cure that. Objective3000 (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Can you suggest a source to use? Sagecandor (talk) 00:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
The publication of this article, full of innuendo and unsubstantiated allegations stated as fact, shows that Wikipedia can used to promote political agenda. No memo shown to be written by Comey that would support the allegations of any influence in the Flynn investigation from Trump has to date been presented as evidence. Comey has not testified to any such influence from Trump. This article is plain and simple a political hit piece. It's inclusion in it's current from shames Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.102.10.191 (talk) 11:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
We are not an investigative body. We use reliable secondary sources. If you have any particular text in mind, you will have to talk to that. Simply calling the article a "hit piece" is not productive and will be ignored. WP:RSObjective3000 (talk) 11:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Comey, in his recent testimony to congress under oath, said that he had never known of a instance where influence to abort an FBI investigation was brought to bear by any administration (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JbeJpKgyV4). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.102.10.191 (talk) 12:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
1.) YouTube is not a reliable source. 2.) No, he said that he knew of no instance where the Attorney General or DOJ asked to halt an investigation. Objective3000 (talk) 13:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with @Objective3000:). That article lacks balance of views. I mean it increasingly leans toward a one sided view. In turn, including little or no opposing views, this article risk to come across to Wikipedia readers as a politicized article :( It could benefit from additional view(s) to add to this article Neutral Point of View (NPOV). I strongly believe that diversity of views is a strength. Not a weakness. All views are valuable to me. Even if I disagree with some views ;) I'm really ok with any views to be included in the article. Assuming that all views are notable and comply with all Wikipedia agreements. Then that is good enough to me.
I suggest the following two drafts. With notable sources. All are welcome to join the discussion :) Anyone interested to contribute adding view(s)? @190.102.10.191, MrX, Neutrality, and Sagecandor:?
With infinite Wikipedia love ♥ Francewhoa (talk) 04:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Francewhoa Both of your proposals are unacceptable for the reasons that I've detailed below. Some of these are egregiously so - i.e., citing Sean Hannity and Sebastian Gorka (an actual Trump staffer), contrasting it to an actual news piece, then passing it off as "some interpret X, some interpret Y" - this violates a lot of principles, not the least of which Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Weasel words, Wikipedia:Undue weight (an aspect of NPOV), and more. You know this is contentious and nobody else has expressed a view. As I said below, you should immediately self-revert these additions until more editors have weighed in.Neutralitytalk 04:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
FrancewhoaI agree with @Objective3000. Well, no you don't. I believe the article is OK now. And, I certainly would not support the references that you added. Objective3000 (talk) 10:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Francewhoa, Neutrality is correct on all points. The CNBC article even highlights that Comey was referring to "the attorney general or senior officials at the Department of Justice" when he answered the question. No reliable source that I'm aware of says that Comey's answers contradict the reported contents of the memo.- MrX 11:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. This would not "balance" the article. NPOV does not mean a neutered presentation of all views, with an even balance of views from each political POV. NPOV refers to editorial conduct and how editors present biased information from RS. They must preserve the source's existing bias. If an article shows a bias in one direction, it should be that way because that is the dominant bias in RS. That bias must not be changed. Not all opinions are equal, and facts do tend to favor one POV. The article should give more weight to that POV.
The problem here is that reading unreliable sources twists one's thinking, and then we end up here, where the twisted view affects editing, giving unreliable sources more weight than reliable ones in a manner which actually promotes falsehood. IP 190 and Francewhoa should stop reading unreliable sources. Editors who read unreliable sources without extremely good BS filters cause problems here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
To add to this article Neutral Point of View (NPOV), I suggest to include the following statement from Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe. Which is related to the alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. If you're not familiar with him he is currently the highest FBI ranking. In his statement his "to date" choice of words is interesting, as it implies including when Comey was FBI director. Also before Comey was fire, McCabe was number 2 at the FBI. Thus I'm assuming within Comey's inner circle high up. Here is a draft and reputable sources.
On May 11, 2017 acting FBI director Andrew McCabe, stated to the press that "there has been no effort to impede our investigation to date." In reply to a question about an alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.[1][2]
I've reverted. TownHall.com is not a reliable source. As to Time, the article does not discuss the memos at all, and in fact pre-dates the public reporting on the memos (Time article was May 11 - Comey memos were first publicly reported on May 16.) And, moreover, the summary of the Time article is misleading, because it omits a key component: "'I cannot comment on any conversations that the Director may have had with the president,' McCabe said."Neutralitytalk 01:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi @Neutrality:) Thanks for your message. Your wrote "I've reverted. TownHall.com is not a reliable source." Could you please expend on that? It that your personal opinion or a Wikipedia agreement? If it's a Wikipedia agreement could you please support it with a link to the Wikipedia agreement? TownHall do have a Wikipedia page. So they are notable. Are you interested to suggest another source you feel would be more reliable? With infinite Wikipedia love ♥ Francewhoa (talk) 02:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
You are confusing "notability" with "reliability." Plenty of notable publications are not reliable. As for this particular work, opinion pieces are almost never reliable for statements of fact. This is such a piece (it's Guy Benson, writing in his blog on an opinion website.) Neutralitytalk 02:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
@Neutrality:) Thanks for clarifying. So if I understand correctly you're saying, yes TownHall is a good source. But that specific TownHall's work is not a good source because it's an blog opinion work? The article author presents his article as an "analysis" and "tipsheet", not an "opinion" neither a personal "blog". He added his sources to the facts he is presenting in his analysis. Among the facts Benson is presenting, is there any you object to? By the way Guy Benson is Townhall.com's Political Editor. I feel his knowledgeable "analysis" seem valuable for that Wikipedia article view. It would further add to the article NPOV. I agree the Time magazine article source is a better match for a Wikipedia source in this context though. --Unsigned comment by Francewhoa
No - TownHall is an opinion website (and one that promotes fringe conspiracy theories, I note), and Benson is an opinion commentator. So no, it's not usable.
As I explained above, the Time cite is not usable either because it doesn't mention the Comey articles. As I wrote above, that piece makes no mention of the Comey memos and in fact was written before the memos were publicly reported on. Classic WP:SYNTH. Neutralitytalk 03:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Neutrality. The first source fails reliable sources. The second source is tangential in this particular case. Sagecandor (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Comey May 3, 2017 controversial statement
To further add to this article Neutral Point of View (NPOV), I suggest to include the following statement from just-fired Comey himself. Which is related to the alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. I tried to include both views. Suggestion are always welcome :) I was about to include as a source that analysis by Townhall, but after reconsidering I agree with Neutrality that that specific analysis by Benson is not a good match for this Wikipedia article. Here is the draft with notable sources.
On May 3, 2017 during a video recorded Senate hearing, just-fired FBI Director James Comey stated under oath that he has never been asked by higher-ups to back off an investigation for political reasons. Find the full exchange transcript below. His statement was controversial as some interpret the question as not including Trump specifically. While others interpret Comey's answer as helpful to Trump defenders.[1][2][3]
Hirono: So, if the attorney general or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?
Comey: In theory, yes.
Hirono: Has it happened?
Comey: Not in my experience. Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something without appropriate purpose. Often times they give us opinions that we don't see a case there, and so you ought to stop investing resources in it, but I'm talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason. That would be a very big deal. It's not happened in my experience.
No, we're not going to cite Sean Hannity and Sebastian Gorka -- a member of Trump's own staff! -- nor Mark Levin. These are talk radio hosts (and deeply partisan ones), not reliable sources, and we should not weight the article down with them. By the way, I'd say the exact same thing if someone tried to bring in commentators on the left like Keith Olbermann or The Young Turks -- no, just no. Plus "some interpret... while others" is a blatant WEASEL wording that obscures the identity of the speaker (i.e., pundits, including one, Gorka, who obviously has a direct self-interest in the matter).
It's improper to equate these opinion pieces with a reported news piece (CNBC) that directly contradicts the opinion pieces' talking points and states that they are based on a misinterpretation.
So the opinion pieces are just not encyclopedic, not well-sourced, and not helpful to the reader. It's speculative exactly what Comey was referring to on May 3, and as recognized it may not even be relevant to the ultimate point. We're going to know more after Memorial Day, after Director Comey testifies. Until then there is absolutely no reason for us to load the article up with non-expert, non-journalist commentary on a minor point. Neutralitytalk 04:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Francewhoa: Please self-revert your most recent edit. As you know, it's highly contentious for the reasons that I've laid out. Please wait for other editors to weigh in. Thanks --Neutralitytalk 04:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
@Neutrality:) It sounds like we both agree that those views are controversy? I agree that some of those views might feel "contentious" to some. That's why I suggested to add that item under "Controversy" section title. While at the same time, speaking for myself, I strongly believe that diversity of views is a strength. Not a weakness. All views are valuable to me. Even if I disagree with some views ;) Are you interested to suggest another wording for those views? Or are you interested to suggestion additional source(s)? Francewhoa (talk) 04:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
@Francewhoa:: As I indicated above, I think the whole section is speculation and undue weight. If you are asking for a proposal from me, then I would accept the following one-sentence summary of the CNBC article, since it is the only straight-news piece and the rest are opinion columns:
In May 2017 testimony to a Senate committee, Comey testified that the attorney general or Department of Justice senior officials had not asked him to halt an investigation for political reasons, but made no comment about Trump.
But again, I am asking you to self-revert given the ongoing discussion here, the lack of any consensus, my expressed objection, and the fact that no other editor has had the opportunity to respond. Neutralitytalk 04:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I guess I should have checked here first, but I just removed that section with this edit summary: (1) We try to avoid controversy sections; (2) Those are extremely partisan and unreliable sources. Avoid reading them.. Yes, that basically covers it. Townhall, Fox News, Hannity, Mark Levin, and such like, are extremely unreliable. Their sole purpose is to spin any well-established facts which reflect negatively on Trump into an unfair conspiracy against him. That's not the proper way to deal with reliable and factual information, and Wikipedia doesn't get involved in their type of spin. We just stick with RS and save ourselves such grief. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Neutrality. CNBC is the only RS here. Just start over again using only RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome. I should add a third point: (3) These types of websites and commentators specialize in creating false controversies which keep their fans occupied, while real RS discuss what's really happening. That's why their fans are so ignorant of what's really happening and believe such weird things.
At Wikipedia we do document real controversies all the time, but we try to avoid getting caught up in these false controversies, because they originate with unreliable sources. If RS get seriously involved and comment on a controversy, we will document it, but we do it by using RS. We don't give undue weight to a false controversy; we debunk it by showing what RS say about the matter. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I do have a question about the CNBC article. The term "traders" is used. What is meant here? The only word I can make fit so it makes sense is the word "traitors", but I doubt CNBC would be so honest, and frankly, most of Trump's followers are not traitors at all. So, what does it mean? -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
CNBC is referring to the financial markets - Trader (finance). Look at the end of the article: "The dollar spiked and stocks rose to their session highs Thursday after the video circulated on trading floors." Neutralitytalk 06:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Duh! Of course. Thanks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Agree here with BullRangifer and Neutrality. The 1st and 3rd sources fail reliable sources. The 2nd source is tangentially related at best. Sagecandor (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that would be very relevant. Sagecandor (talk) 13:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Relevant part:
"Trump’s conversation with Rogers was documented contemporaneously in an internal memo written by a senior NSA official, according to the officials. It is unclear if a similar memo was prepared by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to document Trump’s conversation with Coats. Officials said such memos could be made available to both the special counsel now overseeing the Russia investigation and congressional investigators, who might explore whether Trump sought to impede the FBI’s work."
Can't we do better with the "media reaction" section? It's not even about the media reaction; it's about the reaction of the Republicans to media queries. In great detail, much more than warranted IMO. I'm inclined to delete the whole section, unless we can replace this "Republicans won't talk about it!" stuff with actual reporting on how the media reacted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelanieN (talk • contribs)
Agree with MelanieN. Delete the whole section. Focus on just the facts, maam. Sagecandor (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I have deleted it. Open to further discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what section or what material you are referring to at Dismissal. That should be discussed at that article's talk page anyhow. --MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Although I think I may have added some of it, I'm fine with omitting media reaction altogether.- MrX 16:29, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't actually see much media reaction at this article. What are you referring to? --MelanieN (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
@MelanieN:This that you removed. Bret Baier's and Charles Krauthammer's reaction, albeit somewhat oblique.- MrX 19:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
OIC. The media description of the Republican reaction. You say you are OK with it being gone? --MelanieN (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I've been trying to untangle the article's use of "memos" vs. "memo". Only one memo, the February 14 one, has been leaked to the press or described in public. The article often talks about what is in the "memos," as if we have seen the others or know what they say, which is incorrect. As you edit this article, please be alert to whether it is talking about "the memos" or the one particular memo which has been described to the public. --MelanieN (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
You're right. We should really say "released" or "given". I guess we say "leaked" because that is the usual term when something (a document for example) is given to the press anonymously or through third parties. But we don't say "leaked" every time some government official talks to a reporter anonymously. So we really shouldn't here. --MelanieN (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
