Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:11, 30 July 2017

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the James Comey article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Barack Obama (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Barack Obama, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Barack ObamaWikipedia:WikiProject Barack ObamaTemplate:WikiProject Barack ObamaBarack Obama Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Chicago Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: FBI This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject FBI.

Template:Friendly search suggestions

Article on Comey's replacement started.. come help out

Article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Christopher_A._Wray

Alleged memos

During the hearing of Comey, he stated that he had written the memos and orchestrated their leaks. Is it wise to keep language such as "allegedly written by Comey" in the article? Supertanno (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Comey is otherwise not suitable for Donalt Trump crash. He is al to male. Mr President has it been "swallowed". (How that could watch them all, yes) Against President Trrump "our" should use someone like Monika Levinski. On the other hand. Mr President the confidence to can the population against win. By, - of big power Russia, publicly to distance from Diplomate-terroriste. The i! st first. And. The insurgents (anti Moskva / anti-SHWGK / anti-GRU / anti-FSB-SWR) Misplaced Pages - Uwer's to support it via small donation to Misplaced Pages Proect. So for all the interested parties become clear-not is the same of the Government in Washington and the Government in Moscow.Tatarsfann (talk) 11:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree, should be removed. It could also be clarified that Trump did not give him a direct order regarding the investigation. According to Comey's testimony, Trump said "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go." 79.30.94.105 (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

The Letter/Wiener's Laptop

This sentence is a bit troubling from my standpoint: "His decisions have been regarded by a number of analysts, including Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight, to have likely cost Clinton the election." The "number of analysts" is actually three avowed liberal blogs sympathetic to Hillary Clinton: 538 (mentioned), Vox (which cites 538), and Vanity Fair. As has been established, it's acceptable to use biased sources, but not to sway the tone of the article with these biased sources. It's important that the reader is not given the impression that the "analysts" are in any way independent or disinterested. SInce I see no reason to single out Nate Silver from the trio, I removed his specific reference from a few rephrasing suggestions I came up with:

• a) "...regarded by several liberal blogs to have likely cost Clinton the election."
• b) "...regarded by several liberal blogs to have likely cost Clinton the election. Others are skeptical of this notion and dispute that the letter had any discernible effect."
• c) "His handling of the discovery on Wiener's laptop was met with bipartisan criticism."

Another option that actually may be my preferred choice is to remove this tidbit altogether, as one letter a man wrote probably does not belong in the opening paragraphs of a biography of that man's life. Thoughts? Hidden Tempo (talk) 03:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Literally none of the sources you describe as "liberal blogs" are, in actuality, liberal blogs. Vanity Fair is a well-respected dead-tree magazine. Same with 538; it's an analysis site written by Nate Silver and others (and hence we cite it as an analyst) published by a mainstream media organization. I'm not aware of any significant description of 538 as "liberal" among reliable sources. Vox is a news and analysis site, and it's the only one of the three which could be fairly described as "liberal" in terms of any significant editorial slant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I mean we could go back and forth all day about what qualifies a magazine/blog for the "liberal" or "conservative" label. I don't know if you can find a single story published by Vanity Fair or Vox (or Nate Silver, for that matter) that reflects favorably or reports positive information related to Republicans and/or the president, but I couldn't. Anyway, as I stated, the third option is my personal preference anyhow. I rewrote the lead in a new section below this one if you want to take a look. I'm open to keeping the final two sentences, but I stand by my assertion that the reporting of one New York Times reporter relying on an anonymous alleged "letter" is undue, POV, and unnecessarily detailed for the lead.Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The statement, as written, is well referenced. Nate Silver is an analytic journalist whose analysis has been reported by a large number a media outlets including the self described "fair and balanced" network Fox News which I doubt many would refer to as "liberal". The sources are provided so that the reader can reference the information directly. None of these sources are "avowed" (self described) "liberal blogs". To add "liberal" to the statement without reliable sources that verify such would be expressing an editor's point of view which an encyclopedia does not do.

What would be acceptable, if you feel it is necessary, would be a contrasting analysis backed up by reliable, independent sources with in depth coverage.

This is far from a "tidbit" - Comey's actions, of which this letter and it's possible influence on the election is part of, are currently being investigated by the FBI, the Inspector General’s office and Office of Government Ethics and is a major part of his professional career and should be part of the lead. CBS527 18:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Nate Silver (as far as I'm aware) has made no effort to hide his liberal leanings, but you're right, "avowed" wasn't the right word. I probably meant to say "devout." And I'm in no way insinuating that liberalism is a bad thing or that liberal blogs are automatically discredited, but if you're going to use the word "analysts" to describe 3-4 liberal writers/bloggers, I think the word "liberal" is a highly relevant descriptor. If we absolute must put the opinion of these liberal writers/bloggers that Comey's letter is why Clinton lost, then yes, I do think it's necessary to add something to the effect of: "Others believe that the letter had no effect on the outcome of the election, and have referred to suggestions to the contrary as 'a groundless liberal myth.'" That link is just something I dug up, there are much better sources I'm sure that use other descriptors. What source are you using for what you just said about the FBI and IG investigating the Comey letter? Also, what do you think about my revised lead below? (putting this particular piece aside, for now) Thanks. Hidden Tempo (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The guidlines Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources, WP:BIASED, WP:QUESTIONABLE, WP:UGC explain far better than I could the problems with adding liberal to the sentence and sourcing.

Quite a number of news organizations have reported that the FBI have initiated an investigation of Comey's actions and that the OGE has been asked to investigated Comey's possible violation of the Hatch Act. "Justice Department watchdog says it will investigate FBI director's decision to speak about Clinton investigation". Los Angeles Times. January 12, 2017.. "Trump-Loving Fox News Host Blasts FBI Head James Comey for 'Disgraceful' Meddling in Election". alternet.org., "On Clinton Emails, Did the F.B.I. Director Abuse His Power?". New York Times. October 30, 2016..

I have commented on your revised lead in that section below. CBS527 18:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Revising the lead

Upon taking another look at the lead, I think it's probably time for an overhaul/cleanup of the whole thing. We have summaries of his early life, education, and career in the lead instead of in the appropriate sections, and some POV stuff that's covered in great detail in Dismissal of James Comey. Here's a revision draft, with new material in italics:

James Brien Comey Jr. (born December 14, 1960) is an American lawyer who served as the seventh Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) from September 4, 2013 until May 9, 2017.

As the director of the FBI, he was responsible for overseeing the FBI's investigation of the Hillary Clinton email controversy. His role in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, particularly with regard to his public communications, was highly controversial. Comey's July 5 press conference regarding the controversy, as well as his letter to congress related to the discovery of new Clinton emails, was met with bipartisan criticism.

Comey was dismissed by President Donald Trump on May 9, 2017. A statement released by the White House said that removing Comey will help bring the Russia investigation to a conclusion. Later that day, Trump stated that he fired Comey because he "was not doing a good job."http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/10/trump-why-i-fired-james-comey-238212 In an interview on May 11 with NBC's Lester Holt, Trump criticized Comey for being a "showboat" and added that he was thinking of "this Russia thing with Trump and Russia" when he decided to dismiss Comey, referring to his frustration with the ongoing investigation into Russian intereference in the 2016 election. The New York Times published a report that in a private conversation with the Russian government, Trump stated that he "faced great pressure on the Russian investigation. That's taken off". The Times also reported that Trump stated that he fired Comey to "ease" the Russian investigation against him, calling him a "nut job". According to a personal memo allegedly written by Comey, Trump asked him to personally end the investigation into General Michael Flynn.

Those last two sentences contain highly POV language due to the fiercely contested and ambiguous nature of the conversations, however it's probably too much detail for the lead anyway and can also be moved to main "Dismissal" page). Again, the deleted information was removed from this lead draft for the sake of conciseness and for organization, as these sections can clearly be moved to the subsections. No references need to be added or removed save for the Politico article. Anybody have any objections or suggestions for this version? Normally I'd just be BOLD, but this is somewhat long-standing material and want to invite collaboration.Hidden Tempo (talk) 02:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Those last two sentence are neither too detailed nor POV. They're a huge part of this story.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

MrX, did you read my edits or did you just take a quick skim and revert the whole thing? I added the citation for the "cn" tag in the second sentence of the article (now reverted), deleted his duplicate "private sector" time as it's already in the "Private Sector" section (biographical detail is still there), and removed highly POV editorializing ("Trump then sensationally admitted that the true reason for the dismissal was that"). I also added the findings of experts (not Vanity Fair "analysts") on the Comey letter, required per WP:V when reliable sources disagree. As I'm sure you'll acknowledge, NPR, Bloomberg, and the New York Times are reliable. So. Of this material, what do you specifically object to? Hidden Tempo (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because the vast majority of it was bad. For example, you removed the third paragraph which contained a summary of his career. Information about his political affiliation should not be in the lead since he did not hold a political office. The American Association for Public Opinion Research material should be attributed to them (not 'scientists'). Also, the lead is supposed to summarize the article. This material is not even in the article. The NYT attribution that you added in two places is unnecessary. Trump's dubious rebuttals don't belong in the lead. - MrX 15:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

MrX - I'm curious as to what policy, guideline or consensus you based your removal of Comey's political affiliation from the lead on. Some FBI Director's bio contain info in the lead about their political affliation, some do not.

User:Volunteer Marek has re added this information. Since Comey's decision to publicly release information about the bureau's investigation into Hillary Clinton's handling of classified material is currently under investigation by the FBI ("Justice Department watchdog says it will investigate FBI director's decision to speak about Clinton investigation". Los Angeles Times. January 12, 2017.), IMO his political affiliation is important enough to put in he lead. CBS527 19:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Cbs527, I didn't actually remove Comey's changed political affiliation, but I do think it should be removed from the lead based on WP:DUEWEIGHT. It seems to be nothing more than a minor point mentioned in the source.- MrX 19:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

MrX - My sincere apology! I misread your previous comment. Regards. CBS527 22:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your opinion that my edit was bad, although I of course disagree. Your response here is extremely confusing.

• I removed the third paragraph (his early 2000's career, not a "summary") since (as I just stated) it a duplicate paragraph from the "Private Sector" section. There's no reason to copy-paste the "Private Sector" section into the lead. It makes the lead needlessly long.
• I didn't put the information about his political affiliation in the lead, only added the citation (fulfilling MelanieN's cn tag. But even if you felt that it shouldn't be the lead, you left it in anyway! So you see the confusion here lol. You never answered my question. Did you read the edit or just skim it?
• The AAPOR material is attributed to them because...they did the study. Take it up with NPR, The New York Times, and Bloomberg if you feel they cited the wrong study. If writers from a fashion mag are "analysts," scientists from AAPOR cited by are unquestionably scientists. Nate Silver is given undue weight in my opinion, but the least we can do is balance his opinion out with that of actual science. Agreed? Misplaced Pages:Verifiability says if reliable sources disagree, they must both be represented. See for yourself.
• Your opinion that Trump's reasons for firing Comey are "dubious" is not relevant to Misplaced Pages. Excluding Trump's response because MrX feels that it's "dubious" is textbook POV. Again, I think the only dismissal-related information that belongs in the lead is the first exceedingly neutral sentence "On May 9th, Trump dismissed Comey," but if we must get into the weeds as to the reasons and background of the dismissal right in the lead, then we need to include Trump's response, not just what the New York Times claims what an anonymous source claims. That's called "cherry picking." As disinterested editors, we don't get to pick and choose which dismissal reasons we include and which ones we don't. The first reason the POTUS gave for the firing was that he "wasn't doing a good job," and that needs to go into the lead.
• You didn't respond to your implied opinion that you think the language "Trump then sensationally admitted that the true reason for the dismissal was that" is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Any comment on that? Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hidden Tempo Wholesale changes to the lead are usually reverted, I wouldn't change the whole lead unless you have a clear consensus. Also, I would suggest removing the word "alleged" from the last sentence as Comey has acknowledged writing the memo and the FBI has refused to release any of Comey's memos because of an ongoing or future investigation."FBI refuses to release Comey memos while investigation ongoing". thehill.com.

With that being said, I have no objection and support changing:

"His decisions have been regarded by a number of analysts, including Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight, to have likely cost Clinton the election."

with what you have written above

"Comey's July 5 press conference regarding the controversy, as well as his letter to congress related to the discovery of new Clinton emails, was met with bipartisan criticism."

My reason for that is, IMHO, it is more concise and on point and, secondly, Comey’s controversial decision to publicly discuss the case is currently under investigation. per WP:BLP. CBS527 18:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, that makes sense @cbs527. I'm fine with taking out "alleged" in regards to the memos. I can also live with your replacement, as this tidbit seems undue in the lead, and there doesn't seem to be any discernible reason to single out Nate Silver as some sort of authority on voting patterns. Any comment on massively trimming the dismissal summary in the last paragraph? Or adding Trump's publicly stated reasoning (rather than relying solely on the reasons allegedly given to the New York Times by an anonymous source)? Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

For the purpose of clarity my comments are in regard to the lead as it currently appears in the article.

1. I agree the lead is way too long. See WP:LEAD. Of all the info contained in the lead, the 3rd paragraph is the least important in regard to Comey's legacy and could be removed.

2. The fifth (last paragraph): Is unnecessarily to long as Trump and the White House have given so many different reasons for Comey's firing (beginning with Rosenstein's letter that stated "it was wrong of Comey to say that the investigation into Clinton's private email server should be closed and that no charges should be issued."). The reasons for the firing should be contained in the dismissal section as it is not necessary to discuss that in the lead. See WP:LEAD. If the reasons for the dismissal are removed, the Comey's memo section could also be removed as this info is already contained in the "Russian election interference investigation". The first sentence in the paragraph, with the sources listed, should be sufficient for the lead.

Other's may have some other suggestions to bring the lead more concise version as per

Thanks for the comments, and I agree with all of your remarks. It seems unnecessary to do a RfC for each of these changes, but what do you think would be the best course of action at this point to help trim it down and make it a bit more neutral? Maybe just wait a bit and give some editors a chance to agree with the modifications? Hidden Tempo (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we should wait a few more days to allow others to share their suggestions/opinions. Usually a week is sufficient time for a discussion at which time there maybe a clear direction to proceed or more discussion may be needed. Since anything or anyone related with the 2016 election seems to cause quite a bit of controversy it is best for editors to bear in mind our policies, guidelines and previous practice and try to come up with some sort of compromise in the instances where there is a difference of opinion. CBS527 20:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

"Convoluted" and "Not neutral"/"POV" content discussion

Bbb23, as you can see, we have a discussion open regarding the revised lead. You stated that "some" of the material is "convoluted" and "most" is "not neutral," yet you reverted all content. Could you come to the talk page and explain your reasoning behind that, as well as what you believe is "convoluted"? The dismissal content is taken directly from Dismissal of James Comey, so I'm a bit puzzled by your characterizations. Also, I note that in your capacity as an administrator, you have had several prior interactions with the original reverting user, including personally letting him go from at least one of his numerous ANI edit-warring complaints and obliging to at least a few of his requests for you to block other editors. Not sure if an uninvolved admin could/should weigh in here, but this history seems like it could potentially pose some sort of conflict. Anyway, I look forward to your joining the discussion and hearing your logic behind your revert. Thanks. Hidden Tempo (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC) )



Volunteer, you seem to keep forgetting the "D" part in the WP:BRD cycle. If you think something's convoluted, come to the talk page and say why. What, exactly, in your opinion is convoluted? That Comey's decisions "were met with bipartisan criticism"? That Comey testified that Trump did not tell him to shut down the Russia investigation? Both edits are backed by an ocean of RS. You can't just come to a page that has something you don't like, revert, and then wait 24 hours to come do it again. Come join us and collaborate! I promise we won't bite haha. Let's get rid of this NPOV stuff together. Hidden Tempo (talk) 05:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC) To help distill this content to the simplest terms, here are the allegedly "convoluted" and "POV" edits in question:

current: "His decisions have been regarded by a number of analysts, including Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight, to have likely cost Clinton the election."

revised: "Comey's July 5 press conference regarding the controversy, as well as his letter to congress related to the discovery of new Clinton emails, was met with bipartisan criticism."

and

current: "According to a personal memo allegedly written by Comey, Trump asked him to personally end the investigation into General Michael Flynn."

revised: "According to a personal memo allegedly written by Comey, Trump asked him to personally end the investigation into General Michael Flynn. However, in his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Comey stated that neither the president nor his staff had asked him to stop the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 elections."

Note that Random House defines "convoluted" as "complicated; intricately involved." It is has been suggested that the revised edits are convoluted, and POV, and thereby it is implied that the current material is NPOV and simple. Is this material, as Bbb23 and Volunteer Marek contend, convoluted and POV? Or does it restore neutrality and provide necessary context in encyclopedic language according to RS? All input is welcome. Hidden Tempo (talk) 05:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

In his Congressional testimony, Comey drew a clear distinction between Trump's request for leniency for Michael Flynn and the broader Russia counter-intelligence probe: "I had understood the President to be requesting that we drop any investigation of Flynn in connection with false statements about his conversations with the Russian ambassador in December. I did not understand the President to be talking about the broader investigation into Russia or possible links to his campaign. I could be wrong, but I took him to be focusing on what had just happened with Flynn's departure and the controversy around his account of his phone calls," further noting that on March 30 "The President went on to say that if there were some 'satellite' associates of his who did something wrong, it would be good to find that out, but that he hadn't done anything wrong and hoped I would find a way to get it out that we weren't investigating him." (See Comey, pp. 5-7.) Despite their undoubted best efforts to strive for factual accuracy, a number of Misplaced Pages editors seem to have to conflated these very distinct topics, culminating in Casprings's creation of an entire article (since deleted) devoted to "Donald Trump's Russian investigation interference," which was essentially a false premise because all of Casprings's own sources—Coats, Rogers, and Comey—have quite unequivocally denied that Trump ever interfered with the "Russian investigation" proper (unless one accepts as axiomatic that Comey's firing was intended to derail it). Hidden Tempo is right to try to clarify these admittedly complex facts. That said, I have no particular objection to the attributed Silver et al. criticism that Hidden Tempo attempted to delete—in fact, I think Silver's claim is very highly notable, if not indisputable.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey TTAC, thanks for coming here to help sort this out. I've also noticed this the tendency (not just on WP) to take the Michael Flynn situation and the Russia interference deal and just kind of lump 'em together as the same issue, when they're not. Maybe you could reinstate that section since my edits keep getting reverted by watchers of the page with no attempt to discuss first. So for the other chunk, why is it that this particular blogger Nate Silver deserves such special recognition in the lead? What's so special about Nate Silver that he requires a "including Nate Silver" note? Furthermore, why are we referring to writers of a fashion magazine (Vanity Fair) and a strongly left-leaning political magazine/blog (Vox) as "analysts"? I guess my main issue here is that the paragraph seems to only push the point of view of some folks that the Comey letter "cost Clinton the election," when numerous other RS and scientists strongly disagree with this assertion. Per WP:V, if RS disagree, then there must be representation of both perspectives. Right now wikivoice is being used to tell the reader: "Oh and by the way, it's Comey's fault that Clinton lost." This seems like an attempt to legitimize this view with the "analysts" descriptor, and also excluding actual scientists and other journalists who do not buy into this excuse. Do you see the point I'm trying to make, here? Do you not agree that "Comey's decisions were met with bipartisan criticism" is not a much more neutral and encyclopedic phrase than "Comey's letter likely cost Clinton the election"? The revision also takes the highly criticized July 5 presser into account, whereas the current version ignores it. When the RS have exit polls that say the letter didn't sway Trump voters away from Clinton, and her pre-letter poll numbers were statistically unchanged by election day, I really don't see how the current material can reasonably be characterized as NPOV and/or DUE. Pinging Cbs527 as we were discussing this earlier as well. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Also just for the record, I don't know if you saw the earlier discussion about revising the lead, but I'm still of the view that the entire last paragraph of the lead should read "On May 9, President Trump dismissed James Comey." The dismissal is covered in great detail later in the article, and even has its own fork. But if we must get into the nitty gritty details of the dismissal in the lead, we should at least keep it NPOV and add Trump's reasons, not just the reactions of the Washington Post and the New York Times. Hidden Tempo (talk)

Ok. The POV parts are:

• Removing "cost Clinton the election" from lede
• Adding "reportedly" and "reported" where it's neither necessary nor appropriate.
• Repeating, with an added POV "however" in there, the factoid about Comey saying Trump didn't ask him to stop the investigation

A few of these, in particular the first and third one, are also "convoluted".Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Actually, that phrase is the POV part (the opinion of 3-4 bloggers/writers). "His decisions were met with bipartisan criticism" is about as neutral as you can get." You really believe the phrase "bipartisan criticism" is "convoluted"(complicated and intricately involved)?
• Ordinarily I'd agree with you, but if there is only one source for an allegation, it's appropriate here. As far as I know, no other news organization was able to independently verify the New York Times stories in question. This is why we see sources use similar language to make clear that The New York Times is reporting the "nut job" allegation, rather than making a statement of fact: CNN and NPR, for example. It's a report from one source written based on an anonymous source's anonymous letter. It's necessary to make clear that this is a New York Times report, not a fact.
• I have no problem deleting the word "however." But your characterization of the fact that Comey confirmed Trump never told him to stop the Russia investigation was a bombshell, not a "factoid." I don't think anyone will stand with you on that sentiment. Hidden Tempo (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Comey's testimony that Trump asked for leniency on Flynn, but never interfered with the broader Russia probe, obviously belongs in the article; I think Silver does as well. That said, I am agnostic as to whether either bit is lead-worthy.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks again TTAC. VM, since it seems TTAC is pretty much in agreement with me here (although he didn't address the second problem you had with the word "reportedly"), would you care to answer my response above? If we can't reach an agreement, and it seems you aren't interested in compromise due to your repeated wholesale removal of the material, I'm inclined to seek some form of dispute resolution here. TTAC essentially served as the third opinion, and it doesn't seem Bbb23 really has any interest in explaining or defending his revert. This page isn't active enough for an RfC. Let me know what your thoughts are, and I'll notify you if a DR case is opened. Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

My two cents on the events, now with some hindsight:

• Nobody can say what cost Clinton the election. RS make all kinds of hypotheses, certainly it can't be inferred from Comey's actions alone. After all, every media analyst (left, right or center) was confidently predicting that Trump would be crushed, up to November 8th evening, mere minutes before the delegate count showed him ahead of 270.
• Much ink and many electrons have been consumed disserting about the Comey/Trump saga: love/hate messages, private meetings, dismissal, memos, "queasiness", "tapes", utter mistrust both ways, "loyalty", "obstruction", "grandstanding", etc. What's left of all this? Comey testified cautiously, Trump tweeted in boisterous style, but both men essentially said the same things: Clinton was careless but didn't endanger the country, DNC and Podesta got hacked because they weren't taking any basic security measures, stolen documents were leaked but nobody knows who exactly did it, exposed documents were damaging to Clinton's campaign but were largely forgotten or discredited by election day, Russians poked the election systems but didn't upset anything, Flynn failed to disclose a few things but was "a good guy", the Trump campaign was suspected of collusion with Russia but nothing serious emerged to back this claim, the FBI followed Russian footprints and put campaign staff under scrutiny but Trump himself was never under investigation. Comey and Trump agree on all this!

Now that we are past the breathless "breaking news" stage, and another saga has invaded the headlines, hopefully this article can be edited in a dispassionate way. Enjoy, — JFG 20:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Haha well said, @JFG! Any opinion on the above in regard to adding "reportedly" to the New York Times story that was unverified by any other media outlet, and trimming the dismissal section in the lead to one sentence: "On May 9, Trump dismissed Comey."? Thanks for putting in your two cents. Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

(responding to ping from Hidden Tempo) I think it is important to remember that we are dealing with a BLP and that the policy applies to any living individual whether or not they are the subject of the article. Our BLP policy is much more strict about what we can put in the article. As I noted previously, some of these issues are under investigation by the FBI and/or the Office of the Special Counsel to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. We should be cautious of what we add to this article until these investigations are completed.

With regard to Change #1 above: -

• "His role in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, particularly with regard to his public communications, was highly controversial."

This is the sentence that is currently in the article and seems fine. It is similar to what Hidden Tempo suggested but covers all of Comey's actions.

• "His decisions have been regarded by a number of analysts, including Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight, to have likely cost Clinton the election."

This sentence should not be in the lead - It's too speculative. If the FBI investigation determines that Comey's actions were improper I would have no problem with that being added. If someone wants to elaborate on Nate Silver's analysis, the Letters to Congress section seems the appropriate area.

With regard to Change #2 above: -

The fifth paragraph does seem a bit convoluted. The lead is a summary. A simple statement that Comey was fired and the reason given to Comey should suffice.

• Comey was dismissed by President Donald Trump on May 9, 2017. In his termination letter to Comey, Trump stated his decision was based on the recommendation of United States Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

The rest of the paragraph doesn't need to be in the lead and is already in the Dismissal section. CBS527 14:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I also have no objection to the dismissal section being trimmed to the one line suggested by HT instead of the 2 lines I suggested above. CBS527 15:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the input - I amended the Nate Silver (perhaps a bit boldy, but it seems there's at least mild consensus) bit and clarified that the NYT was the sole source of the material regarding the "nut job" allegation. I left the dismissal section in the lead alone for now, but that really stands out as a needlessly lengthy and very POV section. I don't know the best way to approach that since I'm not sure an RfC would receive that much attention, and a POV tag seems a bit severe for one paragraph. Any suggestions? Maybe the best course of action would be to simply implement the edit and wait for an objection? I don't want to keep annoying folks with endless pings but it'd be great if any involved editors could take a minute to weigh-in if they get a chance. Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The fact that Comey's announcement had an influence on the election outcome is crucial and obviously belongs in the lede (though I think it's fine to skip the names of the actual commentators like Silver).

The rest of your edit HT, just involves the word "reportedly" where it's not necessary or appropriate.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

VM, I know you probably mean well, but I find it somewhat irritating that you don't feel the need to participate in the discussion until you decide that you want to revert someone's work. This pattern of returning to the page just to revert stuff without attempting to reach consensus isn't all that helpful. So far, you haven't gotten any support for your opinion that the opinion of Silver and Vanity Fair writers belongs in the lead, so I'm not sure you have any basis for that. Regarding referring to the New York Times report as a New York Times report, as I stated above, if only a single source can be found for material (as every other citation merely links back to the NYT report), it is necessary to show the source of that report. That's what CNN did, that's what The Hill did, and in fact that's what every single other media outlet did that reported the "nut job" and "that's taken off now" reports by the NYT. Since we've basically obtained consensus for removing the section regarding the point of view that Comey is to blame for Hillary's loss, I'd like you to self-revert until we come to an agreement. Otherwise, it's probably time to seek out another means of dispute resolution since it doesn't look like you're willing to budge on this. Hidden Tempo (talk) 01:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Just because my statements are succinct and to the point and don't veer off topic into thinly veiled personal attacks, does not mean I'm not participating. I am obviously participating.

One more time - I'm not talking about "Silver and Vanity Fair"'s "opinion" but rather the much discussed - in reliable sources - fact that Comey's timing may have cost Clinton the election. Pretty central, no?

Second, when you say "the New York Times reported" or "such and such reportedly", when it's referring to pretty straight forward facts, that's a straight up case of WP:WEASEL. You claim it's because "only a single source can be found for material" but that of course is rubbish. A single source is sufficient because we don't want to overcite, but the material can easily be cited to multiple sources. For example, it's not under any dispute that " Trump stated that he "faced great pressure on the Russian investigation. That's taken off"". We don't need a "reportedly" in there and your insertion of it in there appears to be intended to throw doubt on the claim and POV the text.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the length of your statements, rather your habit of drive-by reverts, but yes let's stay on the content (although nobody's personally attacking you). Anyway, no, it's not a fact. If it was a fact, we wouldn't need to say "his decisions were regarded by many analysts." We could just say "Clinton lost the election because of James Comey." and be done with it. It's the view of Nate Silver and Vanity Fair, which is widely disputed by scientists, and many other RS. When I included the opposing views of other RS, you reverted those too because you think the phrase "bipartisan criticism" is convoluted.

Next, the NYT isn't reporting "straight forward facts." They're reporting what an anonymous source's anonymous letter (read to them over the phone) said. No other news organization has been able to verify these stories. The fact that the NYT is the only source for the two reports is highly significant, and so "reportedly" is not a weasel word in this instance, although it may seem like it at first glance. The New York Times is respected by many people in the country - if anything, clarifying that the NYT is the source of the story should lend credence to the story, not "throw doubt on the claim"! Agreed? Hidden Tempo (talk) 01:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

The fact is that it is a widely discussed and/or believed view, not that it happened. I'm not saying we should say it in Misplaced Pages voice (and we don't), but since it's a very notable narrative it needs to be in there. And, uh, if you think this view "is widely disputed by scientists"... let's see the sources. Not saying there aren't people out there who dispute it, but "disputing" this view is much less common than "holding" this view.

No, it's still WP:WEASEL in most of these instances. The fact that he said what it says he said is not in dispute. Otherwise, show sources to contrary.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's been discussed. It's also been discussed that Netflix, the DNC, and Macedonian hackers are to be blamed for Clinton's loss. Just because someone says it doesn't mean it goes in the lead. RS disagree, and per WP:V, they either need to be included, or the NPOV and neutral "bipartisan criticism" phrase that gained consensus on the talk page should be used. I'd now like to see your source that say that your belief is "much less common" than the opposite belief.

It doesn't matter whether or not the "nut job" and "that's taken off" claims by the NYT are in dispute. If every other media outlet was unable to verify the claim, it's important to note the source of the story. But if you're going to hold fast on this one, we'll tuck it away for the dispute board until we resolve your assertion that the view of Nate Silver and a few fashion journalists goes in the lead, while all other views are to be ignored (against consensus, I might add). Hidden Tempo (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

References

1. Kurtzleben, Danielle. "Pollsters Find 'At Best Mixed Evidence' Comey Letter Swayed Election". NPR.
2. Cohn, Nate. "A 2016 Review: There's Reason to Be Skeptical of a Comey Effect". The New York Times. Retrieved 8 July 2017.
3. "An Evaluation of 2016 Election Polls in the U.S." AAPOR.
4. McCormick, John. "Polling Audit Challenges Clinton's Claim That Comey Cost Her the Election". Bloomberg. Retrieved 8 July 2017.

So... you CAN'T actually provide any sources? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Ummm, HiddenTempo PLEASE DON'T ALTER YOUR COMMENTS after they've been replied too. You are making it seem like I am replying to something I was not replying to. This is dishonest.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer, what are you talking about? No diffs to support your claim whilst casting aspersions about honesty? You know better than that, come on. I provided the sources, and you did not. Full stop. Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

You asked for sources of scientists and analysts disputing Nate Silver's claims. See above. There's also three (and that's just a sample) extra RS that dispute Silver's claims, which need to be included per WP:V IF you can't bring yourself to let that whole sentence go. Any luck finding sources that support your claim that Silver's opinion is "much more common" than the findings of AAPOR's scientific study? Hidden Tempo (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I see no reason to name-drop Nate Silver in the lede. Beyond that, we have "His decisions have been regarded by a number of analysts to have likely cost Clinton the election.". I would rather it say "His decisions are viewed by some analysts as having cost Clinton the election." or something like that. If the sources don't support a statement that definitive, I would leave it out of the lede entirely. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with that wording.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Although I am of the opinion that it doesn't need to be in the lead (too speculative), I would be okay with Power~enwiki's statement if the word "possibly" was added ("having possibly cost Clinton the election") which seems more in line with what the sources convey. Thoughts? CBS527 11:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Same here, Cbs527. It's UNDUE and POV to include a few cherry-picked speculative remarks about why Clinton lost. There's plenty of room for that in Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. Power~enwiki, I agree. There's too many analysts, scientists, and journalists that disagree with that opinion. In addition, the use of the word "analysts" to refer to three fashion journalists and a writer at Vox is more than a little bit of a stretch. Per WP:V, I suggested "Comey's July 5 press conference regarding the controversy, as well as his letter to congress related to the discovery of new Clinton emails, was met with bipartisan criticism," although VM considers the sentence to be too complex and intricate and thus continues to revert. What do you think? Also, could you weigh in on the "nut job" and "that is taken off now" allegations being attributed to the New York Times? VM fears that using "reportedly" in front of the allegation, as the NYT is the sole source of both reports, will somehow cast doubt on the validity (despite the fact that NYT has won the respect of many Americans and would probably have the opposite effect). Hidden Tempo (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with adding the "possibly" in there if it gets HT to drop the matter.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not enough (unfortunately). If there's a scientific study and multiple RS that say it's NOT possible that Clinton can blame Comey for her loss, the line is POV and undue. Come participate at the NPOV noticeboard POV noticeboard, as having two discussions going on separate pages is beyond messy. Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Seems to be enough agreement on this point so I went ahead and changed the sentence to "His decisions are viewed by some analysts as having possibly cost Clinton the election." CBS527 17:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I think Hidden Tempo has been a bit too quick to claim that a consensus for his edits exists. My own comments were principally directed at only one of Hidden Tempo's proposed changes; namely, drawing a clear distinction between Trump's request for leniency for Michael Flynn and the broader Russia counter-intelligence probe. Rather than making sweeping changes, it might be easier to address these points one at a time. With that said, if there are no objections, then I will restore something similar to Hidden Tempo's "However, in his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Comey stated that neither the president nor his staff had asked him to stop the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 elections" when I have the time, although not necessarily in the lead. Thoughts?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

It's tough to keep track of where editors stand when we carry on the discussion on two different pages. Why not come to the NPOV noticeboard discussion and help settle it there? I left a notice for both you and Cbs527 on your talk pages. Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion at NPOV is now down to just two people, and has probably stopped. Makes more sense to continue any discussion here, if there is any further discussion. Objective3000 (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think Masem would be very sorry to hear that you are depriving him of personhood. All kidding aside though, all involved editors are welcome to contribute there. Everyone here has been templated, so let's not try to disrupt the dispute process. Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

In absolutely no manner have I attempted to disrupt the dispute process; and your constant attacks against editors grows tiresome. Objective3000 (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Glad to hear that you support the continuation of the noticeboard discussion. And where did I "attack" anyone? These bizarre false claims and fabricated policy violations are what's getting tiresome, for me at least. Let's just stop complaining about editors rather than content, and focus on the material. Hidden Tempo (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

so let's not try to disrupt the dispute process is clearly a false aspersion. And your claims that you tire about complaints against other editors instead of content is ironic considering your edits. There is nothing bizarre about my edit. I simply made the suggestion that discussion is more likely to be useful here, as SPECIFICO suggested below. You regularly use some polite words and then, sotto voce, add a slight or misstatement of another editor’s words or actions. You are repeating your old ways. Objective3000 (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, keep your edits on the material, not the editor. I'm a patient man, but these constant false accusations without diffs are disruptive. Drop the stick and focus on the three disputes at play, here. Hidden Tempo (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I made a direct response to your suggestion that editor(s) are attempting to disrupt the process. I have no stick. As far as the three disputes, they appear to have been settled. If you have anything else to add, add it. Objective3000 (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

They appear to be settled to who, exactly? #3 (NYT-exclusive reports should be referenced as such) is pretty much wrapped up, but the bit about Comey "possibly" costing Hillary the election is still very much in dispute, as is the efforts to reduce the dismissal paragraph in the lead to one sentence. I'm inclined to start a WP:BRD cycle on both of those to get the ball rolling. In a bit, though. I'd also direct any input regarding the material itself to the ongoing NPOV noticeboard discussion. Hidden Tempo (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there should a clear distinction between Trump's request for leniency for Michael Flynn and the broader Russia counter-intelligence probe. I am fine with the statement being placed in the "Russian election interference investigation" section but not in the lead for the reasons I stated earlier. CBS527 11:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

There's no consensus here. Nobody should be saying +/- "a and b agree with me, so I think I'll mosey over to m'keyboard and put m'POV back in the article." There's no deadline here. Edits without consensus are pointless. They're going to end up being removed and the only result of premature insertion is a big waste of everyone's time and corrosive meta-discussions about which editor is being disruptive. SPECIFICO talk 14:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Specifico. This is a bit awkward, but there is already a discussion regarding these issues with all involved editors over at the NPOV noticeboard. If you want to mosey on over to your keyboard and weigh in over there, you're more than welcome to do so, although I believe all but one issue (the opinion of the bloggers as to why Clinton lost) has been pretty much resolved. Thanks. Hidden Tempo (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I've seen that. The preemtive declarations of "consensus" don't help. The NPOV thread is so tangled I can't even figure out how it could lead to resolution. Thanks for the pointer, however. SPECIFICO talk 15:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I’m fine with "having possibly cost Clinton the election". Objective3000 (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Still POV. Clinton herself has said that Netflix and Macedonian hackers are to blame - that doesn't mean we include "Netflix possibly cost Clinton the election." in the lead of Netflix just because someone thinks so. Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

At this point your responses don't even make sense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

That's because you weren't involved in this discussion that took place yesterday, Volunteer. If you have a statement, all discussion regarding this topic should be taking place at the DRN posting per the template on your talk page. Although I believe we are encouraged to hold off discussion until the volunteers arrive. Thanks. Hidden Tempo (talk) 03:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

No, that's not the actual reason. The actual reason is ... your responses don't make sense (Netflix?!?) Anyway, as I said at the NPOV page, you don't get to arbitrarily decide to waste my and others' time. And since this is pretty much you vs. the world, there's no point in DR/N. At some point you just need to accept that consensus is against you and drop the stick.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

But it is true. Crazy but true, the Secretary blamed Netflix and "content farms in Macedonia" for her loss. Thanks for your advice, but this dispute is now at the DRN board. You are welcome to participate (per the template on your talk page), but we wouldn't want to "waste your time." Hidden Tempo (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Are you trying to be funny? It's sort of hard to tell and that's the most charitable interpretation I can give to you arguing for this with a straight face and a ridiculous link.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I have to admit, I do find it more than a bit amusing that she thought that the DNC, the New York Times, and Netflix was the reason she lost the election. But no, my remark was strictly factual. The reason you were confused and my analogy didn't make sense to you is because you weren't involved in yesterday's discussion, and you apparently didn't hear about the Netflix/Macedonian content farm blame fest. Again, this will all be covered at the DRN board I'm sure. Hidden Tempo (talk) 03:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with a variety of editors here against User:Hidden Tempo. It's clear that Comey was all over the news the week before Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election, and that's relevant enough to be discussed in the lede. If some reliable sources suggest there was a causal relation between those, we can report that they say that, as long as we don't endorse that position. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Ongoing Content Disputes

I made additions per this talk page and the ongoing NPOV noticeboard discussion regarding the "Comey cost Clinton the election" line and specified the source of the "nut job" and " is taken off now" allegations. I haven't done anything to the dismissal section, but seems like most of us agree it should be one sentence. If not, Comey's testimony that Trump never asked him to drop the Russia investigation needs to go in there, as the current version hints at some sort of impropriety and/or nefarious goings-on that never took place. This is simply a notification - please voice issues related to the content at the NPOV noticeboard discussion. Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

LEDE: Role in 2016 Election

Current: "His role in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, particularly with regard to his public communications, was highly controversial. His decisions are viewed by some analysts as having possibly cost Clinton the election."

I feel this current version is fine as a stop-gap, but not as a permanent version.

With regards to new versions: Some reference to the fact that most major US newspapers/TV channels spent most of the week before the 2016 election talking about Comey's statement regarding Anthony Weiner and "emails" is necessary. We definitely can't just delete the entire thing. I don't have any specific wording proposals. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion regarding specific proposals

Other discussion

Sounds like OR. We state what RS state. We don't try to connect the dots. Objective3000 (talk) 01:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

What sounds like OR? I don't feel like I made a proposal. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't making any accusation or trying to be offensive. I'm saying your suggestion didn't include any cites. It "sounds" like you were suggesting a connection. Objective3000 (talk) 01:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The fact that "it sounds like there is a connection" is exactly what is discussed in the three existing sources. The temporal connection between the two events (the large amount of press coverage about James Comey and his actions, which is clearly relevant information on the page James Comey; and the 2016 US Presidential election) is a fact. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not following. We are just following RS. If you think we are not doing this adequately, please explain. There is always room for improvement. Objective3000 (talk) 01:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I was hoping that people would make proposals for what the paragraph should read, rather than making blind accusations of Original Research. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I made no blind accusation, or any accusation whatever. Objective3000 (talk) 01:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Why did you attempt to hide my responses? I am trying to understand what you want here. How is this unreasonable? Objective3000 (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: Please don't hat comments from experienced editors who are obviously discussing improvements to the article.- MrX 02:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

What is original research? Power~enwiki (talk) 02:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• Just a note. I do not wish to weigh in at this time, but I request that I be pinged if there is any RfC or other dispute resolution (not ordinary discussion) regarding how we address the Comey letter's role in the 2016 election. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

LEDE: Dismissal in 2017

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Current: "Comey was dismissed by President Donald Trump on May 9, 2017. A statement released by the White House said that removing Comey will help bring the Russia investigation to a conclusion. Later that day, Trump stated that he was thinking of "this Russia thing with Trump and Russia" when he decided to dismiss Comey. In a private conversation with the Russian government, Trump stated that he "faced great pressure on the Russian investigation. That's taken off". Trump stated that he fired Comey to "ease" the Russian investigation against him—calling him a "nut job". According to a personal memo allegedly written by Comey, Trump asked him to personally end the investigation into General Michael Flynn. Comey's experience as FBI Director under President Trump, his termination, and his public comments since leaving office are part of ongoing controversies surrounding the Trump administration and are part of a widening investigation by U.S. special counsel Robert Mueller into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and possible connections between the Trump Campaign and the Government of Russia."

This is far too long for the lede. I'm not sure what the state of discussion on WP:NPOV/N regarding this paragraph is. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Most people involved have agreed it should be one or two sentences, as the body goes into great detail and even has its own fork regarding the dismissal. Just FYI I am in the process of posting to the DRN board, in case you want to participate there before going any further here. Hidden Tempo (talk) 01:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not too long, let alone "far too long". Trump's reason for firing Comey is a central point. There is consensus among reliable sources that Trump fired Comey because of the Russia investigation.- MrX 02:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

No, Power~enwiki is right. It's far too long. And I don't know what "consensus" you're referring to, but James Comey disagrees with this claim: . At any rate, per the template on your talkpage, the DRN is available in case you would like to make a statement. Part of the DRN process is that involved editors are asked to keep their discussion on the material on that noticeboard. Thanks. Hidden Tempo (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Why is power-enwiki hiding my edits?

About the length of the lede

I'm sorry to see these discussions descend into personalities and accusations. Please let's try to keep our minds on the actual editing of the article. As for the suggestion of DRN, you can try that (I see that you have) but I think it is unlikely to be helpful. You are disputing over too many issues and the various people's "sides" are not clear cut. Let's just see if we can isolate the different issues and discuss them calmly and respectfully here. I'd like to take a shot at the question of shortening the lede.

Here is the current last paragraph of the lede. (Keep in mind, this is a biography.)

Comey was dismissed by President Donald Trump on May 9, 2017. A statement released by the White House said that removing Comey will help bring the Russia investigation to a conclusion. Later that day, Trump stated that he was thinking of "this Russia thing with Trump and Russia" when he decided to dismiss Comey. In a private conversation with the Russian government, Trump stated that he "faced great pressure on the Russian investigation. That's taken off".Trump stated that he fired Comey to "ease" the Russian investigation against him—calling him a "nut job". According to a personal memo allegedly written by Comey, Trump asked him to personally end the investigation into General Michael Flynn. Comey's experience as FBI Director under President Trump, his termination, and his public comments since leaving office are part of ongoing controversies surrounding the Trump administration and are part of a widening investigation by U.S. special counsel Robert Mueller into Russian interference in the 2016 United States electionsand possible connections between the Trump Campaign and the Government of Russia.

I think that is way TMI; these details and exact quotes are all in the article text where they belong, they are not needed in the lede. I proposed to summarize, condense, and eliminate the repetition, possibly along these lines:

Comey was dismissed by President Donald Trump on May 9, 2017. Statements from Trump and the White House suggested that he had been dismissed to ease the "pressure" Trump was under due to the Russia investigation. On May 16 Comey made public a personal memo he had written after a February 14 private meeting with the president. It said Trump had asked him to end the FBI's investigation into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. (need a reference here) The dismissal, the memo, and Comey's subsequent Congressional testimony were interpreted by some commentators as evidence of obstruction of justice and became part of a widening investigation by U.S. special counsel Robert Mueller.

What do others think? Is this a valid way of shrinking the paragraph without all the excessive quoting and repetition? --MelanieN (talk) 03:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey, MelanieN. Thanks for helping sort this out. Yeah, I'm hoping that DR/N will help sort it out although someone has already made a few ad hominem attacks there so that's disheartening. Regarding the lead, I like your version of the dismissal paragraph, but would add one more sentence: "In his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Comey stated that Trump never asked him to drop the investigation into Russian interference." What do you think about all that copy-pasted stuff about his early life and career? I tried to remove all that stuff since it's repeated just a few paragraphs down, but was met with vehement protest. Hidden Tempo (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

We might be able to come up with a sentence that incorporates "he suggested I drop it" and "he never asked me to drop it". I'll think about that. BTW I know there has been a lot of discussion about this already, some of it very heated. I have found that the more a discussion gets into whys-and-wherefores, neutral-vs.-POV, theoretical type arguments, the harder it is to reach agreement. Whereas if we simply focus on the actual wording of the article, it is often possible to reach consensus even among people who were bitterly disagreeing a few minutes earlier. --MelanieN (talk) 03:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN, everyone already knows that Trump asked Comey to drop the Flynn investigation; it really doesn't matter if it was an "order" or merely a "suggestion." But Comey repeatedly clarified in his written and oral testimony that Trump never interfered in the broader Russia counterintelligence probe (unless you assume Comey's firing was an attempt to interfere)—let alone told him to drop it outright. We're not talking about semantics, here: To be blunt, this is a matter of basic fact, and there's no reason why so many otherwise knowledge editors should be suffering from such profound misunderstanding on this point. Did none of you actually read/watch Comey's testimony when it came out? "I had understood the President to be requesting that we drop any investigation of Flynn in connection with false statements about his conversations with the Russian ambassador in December. I did not understand the President to be talking about the broader investigation into Russia or possible links to his campaign. I could be wrong, but I took him to be focusing on what had just happened with Flynn's departure and the controversy around his account of his phone calls" (Comey, p. 5); Richard Burr: "Did the President at any time ask you to stop the FBI investigation into Russian involvement in the 2016 U.S. election?" Comey: "Not to my understanding, no." Burr: "Did any individual working for this administration including the Justice Department ask you to stop the Russian investigation?" Comey: "No." (Comey, at 21:50 to 22:12). There! I've done it for you all!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, no. The paragraph is not too long. I have commented on this in at least two other sections on this page and at a notice board, and now it's been raised at yet another venue. The only thing I support removing is nut job. Let's not try to obscure the reason why Trump fired Comey.- MrX 04:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I support MelanieN's proposal. The facts all appear to be maintained with clearer wording. Mentioning the word "Russia" 8 times in a single paragraph in the lede is unnecessary repetition. Dismissal of James Comey has all these quotes, and they are discussed in the article as well. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Just a tally update, that's MelanieN, TTAC, Power~enwiki, and myself (with the qualification added that Trump never told Comey to drop Russia investigation should be included) for Melanie's proposal. MrX is currently the only outlier, so that's 4-1 right now. Hidden Tempo (talk) 04:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't state an opinion above, but, having looked it over, I do support MelanieN's proposal over the current lead.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that, TTAC. I misinterpreted your edit apparently. Btw, the DRN case was closed as the NPOV noticeboard post is still open. If we can't find a resolution by tomorrow (at least for this piece), I'll have the discussion transferred to formal mediation or open a new case there. Hopefully we can take care of it here, though. Thanks! Hidden Tempo (talk) 05:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

FYI: this isn't a vote. Counting votes out loud is generally more distracting than useful. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

How about

Comey was dismissed by President Donald Trump on May 9, 2017. A statement released by the White House said that removing Comey will help bring the Russia investigation to a conclusion. In a private conversation with the Russian government, Trump stated that he "faced great pressure on the Russian investigation. That's taken off".Trump stated that he fired Comey to "ease" the Russian investigation against him, calling him a "nut job". According to a personal memo written by Comey, Trump asked him to personally end the investigation into General Michael Flynn. Comey's experience as FBI Director under President Trump, his termination, and his public comments since leaving office are part of ongoing controversies surrounding the Trump administration and are part of a widening investigation by U.S. special counsel Robert Mueller into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and possible connections between the Trump Campaign and the Government of Russia.

That's about as long as MelanieN's proposal but it keeps in all the important info and context.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

And I also tend to agree that the length of the lede is fine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

No, that's not going to work. It includes the "nut job" stuff, which MelanieN, myself, TTAC, MrX, and Power~enwiki don't feel is necessary. It also leaves out the testimony Comey gave where he stated that Trump never asked him to drop the Russia investigation, which is a vital piece of information. That version also doesn't properly attribute the NYT-only story to the NYT. And can we refrain from actively editing the lead while it's under discussion? Nothing is that urgent in the lead that it has to be modified immediately. Hidden Tempo (talk) 06:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think the nutjob thing should stay but if others indeed feel it should be removed I'm fine with it. This "attribution" to NY Times isn't an attribution just another attempt to weasel stuff. You've tried to do this before and got no consensus. MelanieN's proposal doesn't contain the "never asked him to drop the Russia investigation" part either... maybe because it's not as important as you think it is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

No, that's not what the attribution is for. It's for context. And yeah, far more editors agreed with me on this one than agreed with you. I think you got what, two users to side with you on that one? Hidden Tempo (talk) 06:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

"No, that's not what the attribution is for. It's for context" What does that even mean? It's important to the context that it was the New York Times which broke the story? How? And keep telling yourself your fantasies. There was no consensus for your repeated insertions of "reported" to weasel the text and you know it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

No, you misunderstood. It's not important to contextualize that the New York Time broke the story, it's important to contextualize that the New York Times is the sole outlet that reported the story, and no other media outlet was able to verify the claims of the New York Times. Instead of droning on and on about who has consensus and who doesn't, keep your edits on the content, and abide my MelanieN's sage advice below. Thanks. Hidden Tempo (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Hidden Tempo: please stop speaking for me in this thread. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: There is the separate Dismissal of James Comey page, we don't need every detail in the lede here. Specifically, the page Donald_Trump's_disclosure_of_classified_information_to_Russia doesn't mention Comey at all, I'm not sure what the reason is to include that sentence here. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The nutjob sentence? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I would keep "Trump stated that he fired Comey to "ease" the Russian investigation against him, calling him a "nut job"." and get rid of "In a private conversation with the Russian government, Trump stated that he "faced great pressure on the Russian investigation. That's taken off"." Power~enwiki (talk) 06:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your input all, and thanks for (mostly) keeping the discussion focused on what we should say, rather than on what other editors are saying and doing. That's progress. I do agree with Power~enwiki that we should not be tallying "votes" for and against a particular proposal, especially early in the process. This is not a vote, it is a discussion, where we can hopefully work together until we have something resembling consensus. Responding to the suggestions here, my main point in trimming the paragraph was to get rid of ALL the direct quotes in the lede about why Trump fired him. IMO the lede should simply summarize, and let the article go into the detail of who said what when. (As for "nut job", IMO that is about the LEAST important thing Trump said and should not be in the lede no matter what.) I would agree with modifying the sentence about what Comey said Trump did, if only to avoid the quibbles which don't belong in the lede. I'll work on that. Let's all keep in mind that this is Comey's biography, and that all the political and legal ramifications of these issues are spelled out in other articles. --MelanieN (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Where do we stand?

This discussion seems to have died out. Do I have agreement/permission to replace the overly large/overly detailed last paragraph of the lede with the following - omitting all the direct quotes?

Comey was dismissed by President Donald Trump on May 9, 2017. Statements from Trump and the White House suggested that he had been dismissed to ease the "pressure" Trump was under due to the Russia investigation. On May 16 Comey made public a personal memo he had written after a February 14 private meeting with the president. It said Trump had asked him to end the FBI's investigation into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. The dismissal, the memo, and Comey's subsequent Congressional testimony were interpreted by some commentators as evidence of obstruction of justice and became part of a widening investigation by U.S. special counsel Robert Mueller.

TheTimes has asked that we insert a sentence saying that Trump never asked Comey to interfere with the Russia investigation. I don't see the point of that. We never say or imply he did ask Comey to do that, so why do we have to deny it? --MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all the revisions, MelanieN - it was desperately needed. Regarding this paragraph, I maintain that this is still too long, given the already lengthy lead burdened by summaries of his early life, early career, late private sector career, and speculation/theories from some bloggers regarding Comey's effect on the election. I really don't see the point in rattling off reasons (and there were many) given for the dismissal, given the existence of the dismissal section and its own enormous fork. But if it's absolutely necessary to do so, I think you would have to list the first reasons given first - he "wasn't doing a good job," he was a "showboat" and a "grandstander."

I agree with TTAC regarding the need to make explicitly clear that Trump didn't tell Comey to stop the Russia investigation. The above proposal (especially the second sentence and "obstruction of justice" claim) gives the impression to the reader that the Russia probes drove the dismissal, when Comey testified that Russia had nothing to do with it. Comey's reasons regarding the dismissal are much more relevant than speculation from "some commentators," since this was widely speculated in the media and among Democrats as part of the reasons for the dismissal, but later refuted by Comey under oath. But my preference would be to cut the lead dismissal section to one or two sentences, and slide Comey's testimony that Trump didn't tell him to drop the Russia investigation into the body. Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

when Comey testified that Russia had nothing to do with it. widely speculated in the media and among Democrats as part of the reasons for the dismissal, but later refuted by Comey under oath. Comey did not testify to any such thing. He did say that Trump did not ask him to end the Russia investigation. He never said (and probably doesn't believe) that his dismissal was unrelated to Russia. As for "wasn't doing a good job", "showboat", "grandstander", those were throwaway lines that Trump tossed out but never stuck with. The original reason he gave for the dismissal was "the DOJ told me to," but he later said that wasn't actually the reason. The only thing that seems to have been sincerely meant was that he thought firing Comey would relieve him of the "pressure" of the Russia investigation. My proposed edit trims the current four sentences connecting his dismissal to Russia down to one.

P.S. In fact Comey said, directly and under oath, that he thought his dismissal WAS because of the Russia investigation. From our "Dismissal" article, "In his live testimony, Comey was asked why he thought he was fired and he replied, "I take the president at his word that I was fired because of the Russia investigation." --MelanieN (talk) 00:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly clear that Comey was fired because he refused to comply with Trump's repeated requests to make public that the latter was not personally under investigation, particularly after various media outlets began falsely reporting that Trump was personally under investigation, thus casting a "cloud" over his Presidency. If "Russia had nothing to do with it," as Hidden Tempo asserts, then I'd love to know what the real reason was. At the same time, it is worth reiterating, as Comey did, that Trump's specific "ask" was only that Comey set the record straight—not that he somehow shut down the entire Russian counter-intelligence probe.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I am open to deleting the sentence about "cost Clinton the election". But that's another paragraph, let's stick to this one. --MelanieN (talk) 22:55, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

The dismissal of an FBI director is an historic event. I would not be too stingy with text on this subject. Objective3000 (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so if we can't agree to cut down the dismissal paragraph to one or two sentences, we could say something to the effect of "Comey testified that he believes he was terminated to relieve pressure that Trump's aides were feeling from the Russia investigation. He also stated that he was never asked to end the Russia investigation." I'm sure there's a way to combine these two facts into one sentence, so maybe someone could come up with an artful way to do this. I'd say both facts provide equal insight into Comey's take on his dismissal. Yes, the investigation obviously played a role - I should have been more specific. It played a role, but the role was requesting that Comey publicly refute reports that Trump was being investigated. The current version seems to imply some sort of illegality or impropriety taking place behind the scenes, in some sort of nefarious attempt at a coverup. Hidden Tempo (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I really don't understand why you are so obsessed about including this denial of something our article does not say and has never said. As for why he was dismissed, we have Trump's own word for it: to relieve the pressure that he (not his aides) was feeling because of the investigation. --MelanieN (talk) 01:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Lol I'm not obsessed, just very surprised that it's even a question whether what is probably the second biggest bombshell from the testimony to be included. Everyone was waiting on pins and needles. "This is a constitutional crisis! This IS Watergate! It's a massive coverup of collusion!" Maxine Waters was convinced that this would lead to impeachment. Adam Schiff, Chuck Schumer, and Bernie all went straight to "collusion." And then Comey testifies and just says, "Oh by the way, Trump never told me to drop the Russia investigation." (cue record scratch sound) I feel that if we're going to cherry pick Russia-related reasons and exclude the non-Russia related reasons and throw out the "obstruction of justice" bomb, it's more than a little relevant that Comey was never asked to ease, drop, or do anything else related to the Russia probes. But, it seems that I'm the only one who finds this relevant so I will drop the stick. Hidden Tempo (talk) 04:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that the dismissal section is 2 sentences - Comey was dismissed by President Donald Trump on May 9, 2017. Statements from Trump and the White House suggested that he had been dismissed to ease the "pressure" Trump was under due to the Russia investigation.

Hidden Tempo, with all due respect, your statement "Comey testified that he believes he was terminated to relieve pressure that Trump's aides were feeling from the Russia investigation. He also stated that he was never asked to end the Russia investigation." is misleading and factual incorrect. During his June 8th testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, in response to a question from Sen. Feinstein as to why he thought President Trump had fired him, Comey testified “I believe — I take the President at his word that I was fired because of the Russian investigation. Something about the way I was conducting it, the President felt created pressure on him that he wanted relieved.”. In Comey's opening statement at the same hearing Comey stated it was his understanding that Trump was referring to Flynn but that he could be wrong. (exact quote is in my comment below) Would you be a little more specific about what you feel in the current version "seems to imply some sort of illegality or impropriety taking place behind the scenes, in some sort of nefarious attempt at a coverup. " I'm not seeing that but I could be missing something. CBS527 04:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, edit conflict there. I replied to some of that in my reply to MelanieN. Which statement is factually incorrect? The first statement or the second? Both are sourced by The Independent. There's a subtle difference, although it does look like he's giving somewhat conflicting statements. Regardless, I will just reiterate that two sentences would be vastly superior than deciding which reasons to include and which to exclude. "Trump dismissed Comey on May 9th. Trump said that he wasn't doing a good job, and was acting on the recommendation from Rod Rosenstein, while Comey believed that he got the feeling it was somehow related to the Russia investigation." Not that exact wording of course, but something to that effect. I'm fine with whatever the consensus is, please don't view me as an obstruction to progress being made in the article or from establishing consensus! I feel I've made my case. I'm ready to move on to the "Comey letter cost Clinton the election" line, and trimming the rest of the lead. Thanks for all the discussion regarding this. Hidden Tempo (talk) 04:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough! Thanks for your reply. CBS527 12:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the last paragraph in the lede - I have no objection to replacing the last paragraph with MelanieN's suggestion. It summarizes the events concisely which is what the lede for. As far as inserting a sentence saying that Trump never asked Comey to interfere with the Russia investigation I fail to see why that is necessary in the lede. I am not reading anything in the revised paragraph to suggest Trump asked Comey to interfere with the Russian investigation as a whole. Trump has not said he asked Comey to interfere with the investigation and Comey said "did not understand the President to be talking about the broader investigation into Russia or possible links to his campaign. I could be wrong, but I took him to be focusing on what had just happened with Flynn's departure and the controversy around his account of his phone calls" so it seems like a moot point. CBS527 02:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I agree that there is no need for such a statement in the lead, and have not, in fact, argued otherwise. The lead needs to be trimmed, not expanded.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

See my longer response above, but overall I agree. One or two sentences is fine without selecting a few of the reasons and putting them in the lead. Fine with whatever MelanieN wants (including getting rid of the "some analysts believe the letter cost Clinton the election" line). Hidden Tempo (talk) 04:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

House Judiciary Committee

MelanieN - this will probably complicate things a bit, but this may be lead-worthy: . Congress is going to take a look into Comey's interactions with the Obama administration during the campaign, with a focus on the Lynch-WJC tarmac meeting and Lynch instructing Comey to publicly refer to Clinton's criminal investigation into her private email server as a "matter." But this would of course need to be included after the massive trimming, since right now it's comically long (longer than Trump's, I believe). Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality, did you want to chime in here? The material you reverted is relevant to this current discussion regarding the excessive length of the lead. Right now we have the bit from Vanity Fair and Vox ("analysts") who think that Comey's letter is possibly to blame for Clinton's loss in the lead. Are you of the belief that a special counsel possibly looking into to Comey's press conf, letter, and Lynch "matter vs. investigation" interactions is less due than than the speculation about why Clinton lost? For context, some of us were saying the dismissal paragraph should probably only be two sentences at a maximum. Thanks. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, the lede isn't "comically long" but it could use some trimming. I don't see this new investigation as being lede-worthy. I'll insert a sentence about it into the article. (I was going to express an opinion about this development but remembered NOTFORUM in time.) --MelanieN (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC) P.S. I see that you already put it into the lede, and Neutrality quite properly removed it. I'll put a sentence into the Hillary email section. --MelanieN (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I think they are separate discussions. A controversial decision that possibly had a pivotal impact on a historically close race is one thing (and this question has been robustly debated by reliable sources). A group of members of Congress writing a letter isn't. I think that "a special counsel possibly looking into ... Comey" is not an accurate way to characterize it. This is something that some Republican congresspeople have called for, not a proposal that has gained any further traction. Now, maybe we can add it to the body in some form. Neutrality 19:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm working on that. --MelanieN (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure, something in the body would be fine for now, and then if/when a special counsel is actually appointed to investigate Comey, then we can revisit putting it in the lead. Also, I don't remember if you participated in the discussion regarding the "possibly cost Clinton the election" material, but you noted that there has been robust debate in RS about whether or not this was the case. Per WP:V (as RS disagree), I felt we needed to add sources from NYT, Bloomberg, and a scientific study from AAPOR that found there is "mixed evidence at best" to suggest the letter had any impact. The discussion got derailed, but I would welcome your input on the dispute of whether the material should be balanced with RS that state the letter had nothing to do with Clinton's loss. Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Quite frankly this addition seems premature. If or when the Attorney General feels it's necessary to appoint a Special Counsel to investigate these issues, we can discuss if it belongs in the lead or not. I have no objection if this Republican request for a Special Counsel is added to the body. CBS527 20:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

(EC) User:Hidden Tempo, personally I would be OK with removing that sentence from the lede. It is sourced to opinions, and we do not know (and never will know) whether any of these things like the Russian activities or the Comey releases affected the outcome of the election. I will say that IMO the section in this article about the Clinton email investigation is way, way overblown. Way too much detail, who said what, etc. - this is a biography. I would be willing to trim it by about half if people agree. User:Cbs527, I completely agree that a partisan call for a special counsel is a a long, long way from significance. I did mention it in a sentence in the body of the article; IMO that's all it rates. --MelanieN (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN: Might an RfC be the best way to finally settle the dispute about the removal of that sentence? There is still the matter of the heavy trimming of the lead (especially the dismissal section), so perhaps that could be a separate RfC. Neutrality and yourself have much more experience with dispute resolution than I do, so I would defer to you on the best course of action here. Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I am still of the opinion mentioning the possible effect of Comey's decisions on the 2016 election does not belong in the lead because A. It's too speculative (I agree with MelanieN that we do not know and never will know of the effect), B. Comey's actions are currently under investigation by the FBI as to whether his actions were proper. If the FBI investigation determines that Comey's actions were improper I would have no problem with that being added. Since other's felt that the statement should remain, a number of editors tried to find some common ground in the wording. I did subsequently mention that I could live with the statement "His decisions are viewed by some analysts as having possibly cost Clinton the election." My reasoning was that this statement was more in line with what was contained in the first source. Silver made it quite clear in the beginning of the article "The letter isn’t the only reason that Clinton lost. It does not excuse every decision the Clinton campaign made. Other factors may have played a larger role in her defeat, and it’s up to Democrats to examine those as they choose their strategy for 2018 and 2020. But the effect of those factors — say, Clinton’s decision to give paid speeches to investment banks, or her messaging on pocket-book issues, or the role that her gender played in the campaign — is hard to measure. The impact of Comey’s letter is comparatively easy to quantify, by contrast." A RFC on this issue may generated more comments but it may not lead to a consensus. IMHO a simple RFC -Should the statement "His decisions are viewed by some analysts as having possibly cost Clinton the election." be in the lead? - would have the best chance of leading to a consensus. CBS527 01:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Comey's actions are currently under investigation by the FBI as to whether his actions were proper. Really? Do you have a source for that? AFIK the only investigations we have in the article are by the Justice Department's Inspector General and the House Intelligence Committee. --MelanieN (talk) 02:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks MelanieN, I meant to write the JD IG. (Long day yesterday) As I recall, Richard Painter filed a complaint against the F.B.I. with the Office of Special Counsel and with the Office of Government Ethics. He also a requested that the Office of Government Ethics ask the FBI to conduct an internal investigation of whether there has been misuse of an official position. I don't recall a confirmation from either the OGE or OSC that they were opening an investigation but it would not be unusual for them not to comment. I'll try to do some research on that this afternoon. CBS527 11:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Lots of people "file complaints with the FBI". (I wonder if anyone has filed a complaint about Ryan Zinke's attempted extortion to influence Lisa Murkowski's vote?) Just as lots of people call for a special prosecutor. It's up to the FBI, and Justice, if they actually do anything about it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Might make sense to soften the sentence in the lead from “His decisions are viewed by some analysts as having possibly cost Clinton the election” to “His decisions are viewed by some analysts as having influenced the election”. Removing “cost Clinton” makes this noncontroversial. It’s hard to argue that there wasn’t some influence given the wild gyrations in polls following his actions and the proximity to the election. I agree with Melanie that the Clinton email stuff is way overblown. This is a bio about Comey, not Clinton. Also agree that the call for a special counsel is premature as there is no sign as yet this will happen. Objective3000 (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the first is soft already, and neutral, uncontroversial etc. The second is so soft as to be meaningless, imo. Some analysts think sunspots influenced the election. SPECIFICO talk 00:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Trimming excess material from this biography article

As mentioned above, I'm going to do a major trim of the Hillary email section. Certainly that is an important event in his life and deserves major coverage. But our section contains way too much detail, including things that have little or nothing to do with him. I think I will be able to cut it about in half without loss of anything significant to this biography article. Another thought: we have a section about the hacking of the OMB computers. I don't see what that has to do with his biography and I would recommend nuking the whole section. --MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Hackings have become all too commonplace. IMO, only needed in the OPM article. Objective3000 (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class Chicago articles
• Mid-importance Chicago articles
• WikiProject Chicago articles
• C-Class law articles
• Low-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Unknown-importance
• C-Class FBI articles
• Unknown-importance FBI articles
• WikiProject FBI articles
• WikiProject United States articles