Talk:Peter Strzok/Archive 2

Editor confuses Comey speech with Comey letter

This edit[1] confuses the Comey speech on the conclusion of the Clinton investigation with the Comey letter announcing the re-opening the investigation. The editor should self-revert. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't know which speech you are referring to. Are you hearing voices?

As I noted in my edit summary: the source says "cowrote" and his role is already covered in the section where you added this content. "He led a team of a dozen investigators to examine Hillary Clinton's emails, including reviewing emails discovered just a few days before Election Day, and helped to draft public statements about it." We don't write articles to try to score points or make arguments. Synth is inappropriate. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Here's your edit. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

These things are different: (1) The speech Comey gave in the Summer of 2016 when concluding the Clinton emails investigation where he described Clinton as "extremely careless" (2) The letter Comey sent to Congress a few days before the November 2016 election announcing the re-opening of the Clinton emails investigation. The Wikipedia page mentions Strzok's role in #1 but not in #2, because you deleted it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, is everyone seriously going to let this editor abuse DS policy like this? Are you asleep? This whole Wikipedia page (a BLP page nonetheless) essentially only exists because of faux controversies and baseless conspiracy theories about the subject, and the editor who created the page is now removing RS content that pops holes in the rightwing conspiracy theories about the subject. This is completely unacceptable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Please remain calm. ;) Reading the above, the objection for FloridaArmy appears to be that the newly-discovered-emails issue was already included in the article content (just a little higher in the text), plus there's a SYNTH concern, while for Snooganssnoogans the concern is suppression of the new February 2018 reporting about Strzok supporting the re-opening of the investigation (which isn't covered presently). In a few minutes, I will make an edit to incorporate the relevant content using quotations if possible and sticking closely to the source, but in such a way that the article doesn't "repeat" itself about the newly-discovered-emails issue. Let me know if I've addressed everyone's concerns when I'm finished. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Done, see edit here. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Lisa Page has resigned

http://dailycaller.com/2018/05/04/lisa-page-resign-fbi/

Xerton (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Devlin Barrett reference and allegation of romantic affair.

In light of the complete undo on my change regarding the Devlin Barrett reference: Firstly simply undoing the change I made is no longer the best solution. It simply ignores the issues I raised, We need to find a better solution.

The fact is Devlin Barrett was the media contact McCabe, Page and Strzok used to shape favourable narratives in the media. Barrett was the journalist this group had chosen as the most favourable to reporting their preferred narrative. With Page demonstrably talking to Barrett several times as seen within the Strzok/Page messages, the assumption is that she is talking to Barrett for her Boss Deputy Director McCabe in an authorized and procedurally correct manner.

However, regardless of whether authorized or procedurally correct, Barrett cannot be considered an objective source. At best reading he has been reporting in a manner that aligns with how the FBI and specifically McCabe, Strzok, Page would wish their activities to be reported. At worst Barrett is just a mouthpiece for the views of McCabe, Strzok and Page. Either way Barrett is not a credible or objective source when writing about Strzok, Page, McCabe. But it gets worse, much worse.

The FBI has strict guidelines and procedures about talking or dissemanting to the media. The Inspector General of the DOJ "A Report of Investigation of Certain Allegations Relating to Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe" concluded that McCabe engaged in leaking to the media in a self serving manner. His objectives being to promote narratives that were of personal benefit. The Report concluded McCabe had violated FBI codes in his leaks to the media, specifically Devlin Barrett. The leaks will be considered as unauthorized and improper leaks at any subsequent indictment hearings.

I vote that the whole sentence simply be deleted as an unreliable source and because it is ultimately irrelevant. I believe the romantic affair narrative is unverified and may even be disinfo given out by the parties or the FBI to shape the narrative. There is no evidence to support a romantic affair in any of the texts, Strzok and Page sent each other.

The most simple answer may well be Strzok and Page are possibly just chatterboxes who cannot stop Messenging with each other while engaged in sensitive if not classified investigations. Unrestrained chatterboxes blabbing classified details to each other is a bad look for the FBI. While still bad, if they were having 'a secret affair' their chatterbox behaviour could be at least understood on some level. However Barrett being the first to report the romantic affair leads me to disbelieve it as Barrett has a provable relationship with all the parties. Barrett has worked with Page many times to shape narratives more favourable to the FBI or self serving and more favourable to themselves.

All of this means that the following is not a reliable reference and may well be another shaping of the narrative attempt by Page or Strzok or McCabe. Besides it now seems out of context with the sentences around it. I vote it be deleted in it's entirety.

Devlin Barrett from The Washington Post alleged Strzok and Page had been using the backdrop of discussing the Clinton investigation as a cover for their personal communications during an affair.[45] Barrett, Devlin (December 15, 2017). "FBI officials' text message about Hillary Clinton said to be a cover story for romantic affair". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved December 16, 2017.

Chepup63 (talk) 10:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC) https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2018/o20180413.pdf

User:Neilen (a single-purpose account) adds inaccurate language to article

User:Neilen made some changes that distorted the language of a cited source, I reverted the user, and then user then violated the editing guidelines for this article by starting to edit-war with me. Strzok wanted to establish "a special counsel" investigation led by Fitzgerald.[2] He did not want Fitzgerald to lead a pre-existing FBI investigation (which Neilen suggests happened). I'm not sure what the intent of the edit is except to obscure what Strzok wanted. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

In relation to this, it should be noted that for all intents and purposes the current Mueller special counsel investigation is indeed a continuation of an existing FBI counter Intelligence Investigation. This is evident in Assistant Attorney General Rosensteins document appointing the special counsel and describing the boundaries of the special counsels investigation. see https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download

(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20th 2017...

P.S. Language is vitally important there is a difference between Special Counsellor and Special Prosecutor. Chepup63 (talk) 13:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

An edit war with you? You have made only two edits on this article. Neither was reverted by Neilen (who is now blocked). Something is not adding up here. Have you previously edited using a different account? Lard Almighty (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

For Lard Almighty: You might be getting Chepup63 and Snooganssnoogans confused, as Chepup63 did not indent their comment above following Snooganssnoogans posting of 2 May 2018. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Break out "Strzok Page text messages" as new seperate wikipedia page

Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum for original research or partisan political attacks.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I propose consideration be given to the creation of a seperate wikipedia page devoted to the phenomonen of the Strzok Page text messages. Here are a small fraction of the reasons for this; 1. The Strzok Page messages provide insight during unprecedented events involving the FBI and DOJ in 2016. Strzok and Page are in the centre of these actions. The release of the voluminous text messages between a DOJ counsel to the Deputy Director of the FBI and an FBI Special Agent in the Counter Intelligence Unit was controversial and unprecedented. However they have proven to be crucial to those citizens and journalists investigating the events surrounding the 2016 US elections between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton and the activities of the FBI, Obama Administration and the US intelligence community. With multiple overlapping historical and political events, investigations and controversies occurring in 2016, some surrounding the election and many subject to classified redaction, citizens and journalists have found it challenging, if not practically impossible to create timelines and determine who knew what and when they knew it. The protangonists Strzok and Page are placed at the very centre of historical events surrounding Clintons email investigation and the controversial ending of it by FBI Director Comey, it's re-opening on the eve of the election and closing again. As revelations continue to emerge of an investigation and surveillance of candidate Trump and his campaign Strzok and Page are both right at the centre of matters or close to people involved. As well, with new information dropping daily about the continued investigation and surveillance of President elect and then President Trump by a small group within the FBI, incredibly Strzok and Page are found to be part of the group. Finally with the ongoing Mueller Special Counsel investigation, once more Strzok and Page are part of Muellers team for the first month until he is alerted about their indiscrete messages. 2. Events involving and surrounding Strzok and Page are historic events that challenge the Consitution and the foundations of the Republic While this story continues to unfold and is a highly political and dividing issue, one thing everyone can agree on, the events herein are historic, hit at the fundaments of the US constitution and the freedoms that form the foundations of the Republic. The Strzok Page texts are contemporaneous records of fact, gossipy opinion, crucial time stamps of known events and pointers to who knew what and when they knew it. They also give insight into the character and psychology of the protagionists themselves, their colleagues, the FBI and DOJ at a historically crucial time. 3. The Strzok Page text messages have enabled an accurate event timeline to be constructed. Strzok and Page while both working within the FBI and both involved in some cases were also seperated in function and department to the point that their communications form a nexus that eventually catch almost all senior managemenmt within the FBI. As well Page being a DOJ secondment to the FBI has connections in the DOJ that exceed those of any normal FBI employee. Many events not connected to them are casually mentioned in passing or checked in their messages. Crucially, where fragmented or redacted official documents offer part of the recorded events, additional facts become obvious when the message time line is overlayed. 4. Granular details reveal previously unconnected events. The gossipy informal nature of the text messages and the fact they are recording the immediate present of Strzok and Page have allowed for verification and timestamping of events they themselves are only peripherally involved with. There are many instances where it's noted that a particular person chatted with them, was seen at a particular location, was calling them, had called them, was scheduled, had cancelled etc etc. Once again allowing hitherto unknown details about other persons associated to the FBI/DOJ. Crucially, with all the activity taking place around the FBI and DOJ this has proved invaluable to events far removed from Strzok and Pages activities. 5. Strzok Page texts are an important and oft referred resource by citizens and journalists investigating multiple events from 2016/2017. Faced with classified documents and redactions, citizens and journalists investigating the events of 2016 and 2017 have found the Strzok Page texts to be an invaluable and often quoted resource. Until unredacted, complete or unclassified documents are released by the DOJ and FBI, the Strzok Page texts will remain a central unchallenged resource and reference. Increasingly without full Government disclosure the texts will be the only roadmap/timeline citizens and journalists can use to check new claims, court testimony or participant confessions. It should be noted that all indications point to June 2018 being the commencement of widespread indictments and arrests for crimes that were politically hushed or dropped by the Obama administration (all the evidence of these are on hand, waiting only on the removal of roadblocking judiciary (judges). 6. The Strzok Page texts show a mindset that leads to involvement in a conspiracy to damage a Presidential candidate then remove a legally elected President The Strok Page texts have come to represent far more than the lame attempts to suggest they are salacious lovers messages. In fact there is no evidence within the texts of any romantic involvement at all. They chronicle two hard working professionals at the FBI conducting normal friendly gossipy, at times venting chat via text. What makes them noteworthy is their political overtones and the fact that both Strzok and Page gravitate to be part of a small group assisting in the surveillance of a Presidential candidates campaign by the Government of the candidates political adversery. Page and Strzok believe they are protecting democracy when pause and reflection should have had them conclude they were interfering in Democracy. This conclusion will be borne out by impending release of the Inspector Generals report, Muellers Investigation and Hubers prosections. There are plenty of reasons to make this a seperate page. In my mind the historical aspect of the events surrounding Strzok and Page and their commentary from ground zero is researchers gold. The fact that the Strzok Page texts are currently a highly valued research resouce is noteworthy. see https://theconservativetreehouse.com/ for typical use of the texts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chepup63 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC) Oppose – Looks like a WP:POVFORK. Also, I don't think the cited political blog is a reliable source, especially for a WP:BLP. FallingGravity 00:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

This sentence is vague and misleading

"A February 2018 comprehensive review by The Wall Street Journal of Strzok's messages showed that "texts critical of Mr. Trump represent a fraction of the roughly 7,000 messages, which stretch across 384 pages and show no evidence of a conspiracy against Mr. Trump".[13]". The word "showed" should be changed to "claimed". NPOV problem. Also, "represent a fraction of the..." is rather meaningless: What "fraction"? 1 message would be a "fraction". 6,999 messages would also be a "fraction". "Fraction" merely means that not every message was critical of Trump. If that's the case, why not just say that? Also, it's amazing that it claims "...show no evidence of a conspiracy". That conclusion is so intertwined with the POV of the person who wrote the WSJ article. Would that author have admitted the opposite: That it did 'show evidence of a conspiracy'? 71.8.171.3 (talk) 04:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Nope. We don't use "claim" - it's explicitly a word to avoid, see WP:CLAIM. Your ridiculous parsing of the common meaning of the word "fraction" is similarly not helpful here. The statement is presented as a factual review, and in the absence of any reliable source arguing that the WSJ (a reliable source for news reporting) analysis is wrong, we have no reason to present it as wrong. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

How about "stated" instead of "showed". The WSJ article did actually state something; whether they actually found something is subject to dispute. These words are placed to be in the voice of WP. POV is important: WP should not vouch, explicitly or implicitly, for the accuracy of media references. You failed to address the issue of fraction: My analysis is correct: That statement is hopelessly ambiguous as written. It invites confirmation bias: It can be interpreted dramatically differently by people of different opinions. 71.8.171.3 (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm confused why this is even included, why does this stat have any significance. Is it really surprising that he texted about other things more than this one single thing? I can't even imagine how it could be a majority unless the he was literally insane. --Thesowismine (talk) 05:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Need to add a section about his pledge to stop Trump

From the IG report:

Horowitz cited this exchange in particular:

• Page: [Mr. Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!"
• Strzok: No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.

Strzok later stated that his text was sent to reassure Page, rather than stop Trump from being elected President. Strzok's attorney stated that he "was never influenced by political views.”

A section? No, not for something which never happened. Talk is cheap. He also wanted to investigate Clinton more aggressively, which shows he wasn't exactly a fan of hers. His skepticism of Trump was the only proper reaction, considering his knowledge of how Trump was compromised by Putin and how the Trump campaign was so closely tied to Russian attempts to help Trump win the election. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

considering his knowledge of how Trump was compromised by Putin- what are you talking about? --Thesowismine (talk) 05:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

what a horribly biased article.

This page is incredibly biased. And I cant fix it up because its protected.

Please allow editing so we can fix.

2600:1008:B06E:115B:4C6C:B618:701:5263 (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to make suggestions for improvement on talk. Also see WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Why does the intro say he "...led the FBI's investigation into Russian interference..."" when the citations for that sentence only say he was "tapped to help lead". He was certainly not the overall leader of the investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.118.222.116 (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is horrible, it should be presenting facts, and not Democrat spin on the facts. How is "No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it." spinned as Republican and conservative "accusation". Guy said he plans to do something to stop Trump. And he was working on investigation of Trump's opponent. You do not need to be a flat earther to think he may have done something to help Hillary/ hurt Trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.217.4.119 (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

In Affirmation of Perceived Personal Bias in Favor of Subject

New to editing articles, I believe the minor submission I made today has been correctly done in terms of form, citation, etc. I'm noticing a potential bias in this article (in which bias itself is an issue of primary importance) which appears to be corroborated by previous editors.

On that issue I would qualify myself a fan of Wikipedia as a quick and efficient way to get 'up to speed' on nearly any topic. In believing I'm not alone in relying on this source before further research on any given subject is undertaken, it concerns me that an undue influence appears to have slanted this article in favor of the subject rather than remaining neutral. It would almost appear that someone within the agency this subject has been affiliated with has taken an undue interest in cleaning up some of the seamier aspects of this article. There is no mention that I could find, for example, regarding the extramarital affair the subject had been involved in, a central point in the majority of reporting contributing to this article.

With an acknowledgement that the FBI has taken multiple hits due to the salacious verbiage used, the stark bias revealed in subject's text messages, and apparent attempts to cover up the worst of these messages, it should be reminded to those expressing an undue interest in editing out what they would rather not see that the credibility of Wikipedia should not be tampered with despite our personal preferences.

Appreciatively, J.P.H. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.127.6.252 (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Fired?

I think he was just **Fired**! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.118.244.226 (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Apparently he wasn't fired, but he was put on notice. "The move put Strzok on notice that the bureau intends to fire him, though he has rights to appeal that are likely to delay that action." [3] ^Falling_Gravity 05:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Reference 14 is inaccessible to anyone not subscribed to the WSJ

The solitary reference to a Wall Street Journal study is unverifiable lacking a paid subscription or at least additional corroborating evidence. This is dangerous as users will be incapable of verifying the reported information. Include an open reference to the study performed in the article, otherwise this page is putting a price on historical evidence and it is likely to face dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis Tho (talk • contribs) 05:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. There is no requirement that reliable sources be easily available to anyone for free - see WP:RSC. It would be helpful if a version of the source was available for free, but if not, there are no grounds for removing the source and doing so on that basis would be considered disruptive. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Another possibility is to search for a more widely available reliable source that verifies the assertion in question, and add that as a reference. Otherwise, the WSJ reference should be kept, unless there is evidence that the reference does not support the content. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Please by all means do not remove the current source. That doesn't help at all. This is a critical and highly challenged point in the article and would very well benefit if it were coupled with more accessible sources. Dennis Tho (talk) 06:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Then try to find accessible sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Another case of Wikipedia bias

Ah, another wonderful case of Wikipedia bias. Keep draging Wikipedia throught the mud and chasing anyone who complains. The selection of "sources" in this article is interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.12.195.40 (talk) 16:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Footnotes 1 and 4

Footnote 1 is a reference to a home sale in the Washington Post. Presumably, that Peter Strzok is the same as this Peter Strzok, but I don't think that that cite is particularly good support for that this Peter Strzok is Peter Paul Strzok II. Footnote 4 is terrible support for what Peter Strzok's birthdate is. It seems to refer to his age at the time, but not at all to his birthday. Rnagel (talk) 03:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Strzok's upcoming hearing, explained

Good article for use here:

• Controversial FBI agent Peter Strzok’s upcoming hearing, explained

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Fox News Section seems oversized and overwrought

This whole section seems like some editor has a very personal axe to grind about Fox news. I know that it can be irritating to see news outlets that you feel are biased push story lines that you think are false, but lets get back to what this article is about: Peter Strzok. Having two long paragraphs about a single news outlet seems obsessive.

Factually I think Fox gets more of their news from Gateway Pundit and other web reporters than vice versa.

"Other news outlets covered Johnson's claims in the appropriate context," - this seems to summarize the POV of the author, but again, it's not really a neutral encyclopedia part of an bio.

ZeroXero (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Fox News' rhetoric regarding Strzok has received extensive RS coverage, and is thus perfectly legitimate for inclusion. The sole reason why Strzok is known at all (and why this Wikipedia article exists) is because Fox News and the Republican Party created a faux controversy over him. It makes perfect sense that now that the scandal around Strzok has settled down and shown to be a complete nothingburger that the focus is on those who created the faux controversy and used it to try to create a constitutional crisis. That's at least what RS coverage began to be about. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

just curious, but do you still think that its a "faux" controversy? Even if it ended up having no effect on the investigation, do you really think that it isn't controversial at all to have the person leading the investigation of both candidates in the presidential election to say that "we will stop him"...? --Thesowismine (talk) 05:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

"Appropriate context" reflects the language of the RS that's cited. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

That it's the "appropriate context" should be evident from the facts presented in the paragraph. We don't need to force feed this to our readers, we can let the reader decide. ^Falling_Gravity 17:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

2601:248:8300:3C30:11E2:3E40:A151:6AE0 (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC) This incredibly biased article is a perfect example of why Wikipedia is widely regarded a joke. Just page after page of left-wing garbage pretending (unsuccessfully) that it maintains a neutral POV.

I just checked it and the coverage is appropriate. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I also noticed the exact same claim was covered in a preceding paragraph. This could mean we were giving UNDUE coverage to an apparently false claim by repeating it (even if we do debunk it both times). I've tried to merge these two paragraphs. ^Falling_Gravity 17:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Good idea. A Solomonic solution. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The best part about the Fox News section is the rebuttal that goes something like "political scientists and experts reject... Fox News' claims" - quoted from a competing news source. Yomrlax1 (talk) 03:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2018

I had my edit reversed. This article is a puff piece for Peter Strzok and makes no mention of the fact that he had a relationship with attorney Lisa Page. Furthermore, it is a hit piece on Fox News. 172.249.178.198 (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The article already contained this sentence before you made your edit: "Allegedly, Strzok and Page had been using the backdrop of discussing the Clinton investigation as a cover for their personal communications during an affair." Perhaps you missed that? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Closed as  Not done: per above. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Since this article is biographical, it needs mention of Strzok's relationship with Lisa Page. Otherwise, it should be retitled to something like "Strzok-Page Political Text Messaging Scandal". Yomrlax1 (talk) 03:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Escorted off the FBI premise

Not sure if this information belongs in the article. --2001:8003:4023:D900:BC24:BBC4:C2CB:C84C (talk) 07:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

It's already in there. ^Falling_Gravity 07:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The Daily Wire is not a RS, so it must be sourced better or removed. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Oops! I see that it's sourced to CNN, so no problem. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I was talking about the general substance of the article, not source itself. ^Falling_Gravity 07:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Article rename suggestion

Since this article isn't really biographical (it doesn't cover very much about Strzok's life aside from the text messaging scandal), I suggest this article be renamed to something similar to "Strzok-Page Text Messaging Scandal" with a redirect for "Peter Strzok". Yomrlax1 (talk) 03:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree. This is not really an article about the person Peter Strzok. It's really an article about the FBI shenanigans and the texting scandal, etc. A rename is needed. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

[55] Wray said that Peter Strzok was not punished

He was the #2 counter-intelligence agent, when he left the FBI, for the Mueller Investigation. He returned as an HR employee, after being released from the Mueller Investigation. It seems he was demoted, like Bruce Ohr. Isn't a demotion considered punishment? Rossbarranco (talk) 04:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2018

Brsinai (talk) 11:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The Fox News portion of this page has absolutely no relevance and is entirely political. Please remove.

 Not done - Please obtain consensus for major edits before using this template. - MrX 🖋 12:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

What's his rank?

GS___? GG___? SES___? DISES? DISL? --63.243.196.34 (talk) 00:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

July 12, 2018, Congress hearing

This section is very biased. It offers only Strzok's "side of the story" and not the "other side". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

This section currently reads as follows:

At a July 12, 2018, public congressional hearing, Strzok denied that the personal beliefs expressed in the text messages impacted his work for the FBI. Strzok explained that a "We'll stop Trump" text message was written late at night and off-the-cuff shortly after Trump denigrated the immigrant family of a fallen American war hero, and that the message reflected Strzok's belief that Americans would not vote for a candidate who engaged in such "horrible, disgusting behavior". Strzok said the message "was in no way — unequivocally — any suggestion that me, the FBI, would take any action whatsoever to improperly impact the electoral process for any candidate." Strzok added that he knew of information during the 2016 presidential campaign that could have damaged Trump but that he never contemplated leaking it. Strzok also said that he criticized politicians such as Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders in his "blunt" text messages. Strzok's said that the investigation into him and the Republicans' related rhetoric was misguided and played into "our enemies' campaign to tear America apart."

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Nothing is stopping you from adding the "other side", as long the other side is covered by reliable sources. Articles don't write themselves.- MrX 🖋 23:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: And, what's your point exactly? Do you know what the point of a Talk Page is? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Do you? Article talk pages are for proposing and discussing specific edits, not for general complaints. See WP:SOFIXIT.- MrX 🖋 12:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: So, you are saying that article Talk Pages are for suggesting only specific -- and not general -- edits or suggestions or proposals? Really? That's a new one on me. Perhaps you are correct, though I doubt it. I will ask this question over at the Wikipedia Help Desk. And I will let you know the answer. I will link it here. And -- before you start to play semantics and parse words -- my above post was a suggestion / proposal, not a "complaint", as you call it. I am fully aware that I am able to edit pages. I am fully aware of the "be bold" concept. I don't know or have the information, so I don't feel that I can add it appropriately. Hence, my suggestion that another editor do so. Which, by the way, is exactly what a Talk Page is for. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Here is the link: Wikipedia:Help desk#Question: What is the purpose of article Talk Pages?. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 12:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't care to get into a meta-argument about the purpose of talk pages. If you think complaining about content being biased will accomplish anything, knock yourself out.- MrX 🖋 12:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly. You want to avoid the issue. And preemptively at that. Because I suspect you know exactly what the responses will be to my Help Desk question. And, by the way, another purpose of the Talk Page is to talk (i.e., discuss). So, you yourself post a suggestion (which was really a snide complaint) ... and then you want to end the discussion when things don't seem to go your way. So, to quote your own words: If you think complaining about another editor's valid Talk Page posts will accomplish anything, then you can knock yourself out. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Do the hard work of reading sources, summarizing them, citing them, proposing a cogent rewrite (or just put it in the article), and debating the merits. That's what I would do. I'm not sure what you expected to happen when you declared the section to be biased.- MrX 🖋 01:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Further Biographical Information on Peter P. Strzok II

YEARS IN AFRICA

According to a newspaper article published in 1981, Peter Strzok II had lived in Africa with his parents for the previous three years. ("He [Peter P. Strzok] and his wife and son have lived in Africa for three years." Source: "Per Capita Income in Africa's Upper Volta Is $125 per Year" by Lynn Meyer, Leader-Telegram, Eau Claire, WI, August 21, 1981, page 32. Note: I presume these "three years" to have commenced sometime after the Strzok family left Iran in early 1979, thus not three whole years but all or part of three calendar years, 1979-1981.)

In 1983 [probably in mid-1983; see note 1 following], Peter P. Strzok completed a three-year term of service in Upper Volta (now Burkina Faso), where he worked for Catholic Relief Services. His next assignment was as director of Catholic Relief Services in Haiti. (Source: "Relief Services Director En Route to Haiti," Bismarck Tribune, Bismarck, ND, August 19, 1983, page 5. Note 1: Strzok presumably completed his term in Upper Volta in mid-1983, as this source, dated August 19, reads in part: "Strzok has just [emphasis on just] completed a three year term in Upper Volta." Note 2: Peter Strzok II was presumably still with his parents during at least part of this time, as this source reads in part: "The Wisconsin native [Peter P. Strzok] is married and has a 13-year-old son. He said his family has a good attitude about the lifestyle [presumably in Africa or more specifically in Upper Volta], but every now and then his son wishes for a television video game." From these and other sources, I think we can safely conclude that Peter Strzok II lived in Africa, all or much of that time in Upper Volta, with his parents from sometime in 1979 to sometime in 1982, or at the very latest, the first week of January 1983. A source from my previous proposed edits to the Wikipedia article says that Peter P. Strzok enrolled his son at Saint John's Preparatory School in Collegeville, Minnesota, in that first week of January 1983. This is assuming that Strzok was present when his father enrolled him, an assumption that I think is safe to make. Strzok graduated from St. John's in May 1987 at age seventeen, thus he would have been in attendance from January 1983 or early 1983, when he was twelve years old, to May 1987. Note 3: It also seems safe to conclude from these and other sources that Strzok is an only child.)

WIFE MELISSA HODGMAN

Peter Strzok's wife, Melissa Hodgman, is the daughter of William D[aniel] Hodgman of Grosse Pointe, Michigan, and Ann Marie (Ripton) Hodgman of Rochester, New York. William D. Hodgman is a graduate of Georgetown University (A.B., 1964) and the University of Michigan (J.D., 1967). He is an attorney with Cox, Hodgman & Giarmarco P.C. of Troy, Michigan. Ann Marie (Ripton) Hodgman was a graduate of Trinity College. They were married in 1966. (Sources: "Ripton-Hodgman" [wedding announcement], Detroit Free Press, Detroit, MI, July 11, 1966, page 25; Professional Services Company Overview of Giarmarco, Mullins & Horton, P.C., Bloomberg, accessed July 14, 2018, at the following URL: https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=11438267&privcapId=4542194&previousCapId=4542194&previousTitle=Giarmarco,%2520Mullins%2520&%2520Horton,%2520P.C. Note 1: Mr. Hodgman evidently lives in and/or has an office in Grosse Pointe Park, Michigan, as a search of the Internet will show. Note 2: He should not be confused with the attorney William Hodgman who was involved in the O.J. Simpson trial.)

Melissa Hodgman is a graduate of Georgetown University School of Foreign Service (B.S., 1990) and Georgetown University Law Center (law degree, 1994). (Source: "Melissa Hodgman Named Associate Director in SEC Enforcement Division," [Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) press release], October 14, 2016, accessed July 14, 2018, at the following URL: https://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2016-217.html.)

PURPORTED ARMY CAREER

According to the Wikipedia article, Peter Strzok II graduated from Georgetown University in 1991 and began working at the FBI in 1996. ("As of 2018, Strzok has a career of 22 years at the FBI," thus 1996.) Also according to the Wikipedia article, he served in the U.S. Army. If that's the case, then his time of service was presumably in the period 1991-1995. The article provides two sources for the assertion that Strzok served as an officer in the U.S. Army, in notes 8 and 22. These sources may be generally reliable (Business Insider and the New York Times), but they mention Strzok's purported service in the army only in passing. There are no details, and the assertion in these articles seems to be based on second-hand information. In my opinion, neither the article nor the sources on which it is based substantiate the assertion that Strzok served in the U.S. Army. Unless and until there is substantiation of this assertion, it should be, in my opinion, removed, or at least qualified in some way.

American Reader (talk) 02:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

If you are suggesting that we remove reliably-sourced information because you personally disagree with it, the answer to that is going to be absolutely not. We will not characterize the military service of Strzok as "purported" merely because you think information sourced to The New York Times is "unsubstantiated." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know, he served in the military at some point. When I watched the congressional hearings the other day, I remember it being mentioned, but it would be good to do some more research on his background and add it to the article, provided it can be reliably sourced.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia and don't quite understand the "Talk" feature. If I'm using it incorrectly, I apologize. Having said that, I would like to respond to the user NorthBySouthBaranof: I don't, as you say, "personally disagree" with the information that Peter Strzok served in the U.S. Army. I merely wrote that the assertion that he served in the army is, in my opinion, unsubstantiated. What I mean in saying that is that Mr. Strzok's military service is mentioned only in passing and that there aren't any details offered: no dates of service, no places of service, no ranks achieved or dates of rank, no units in which he served, no training or schools listed, no awards or decorations listed, no job descriptions or specialties listed, no duties or responsibilities, nothing about the nature of his service or of his separation from the military. If he served in the army sometime in the years 1991-1996, did he serve during the period of the Gulf War? Did he serve in the postwar demilitarized zone or in the monitoring of the no-fly zone over northern or southern Iraq? Did his service involve at all the NATO intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina? If he had an eight-year obligation to serve, when did he leave active duty and enter reserve or inactive status? When did he complete his presumed eight-year obligation? I think these are legitimate questions. Answers to all of them may not be necessary for the article. However, they are not a personal disagreement on my part. I only seek to know more. The user Rusf10 makes a point with which I agree: "it would be good to do some more research on his background and add it to the article, provided it can be reliably sourced." Further, I did not and do not suggest or propose that the Wikipedia article describe Mr. Strzok's military service as "purported." I think you have misinterpreted what I have written. I should probably have used a word other than "purported," but please do not put words in my mouth. I would not pay you that discourtesy, so please don't do it to me. Finally, an honest question: When you refer to "we," to whom do you refer? Do you mean Wikipedia as a whole? Do you refer to a certain group within Wikipedia? Again, I'm new to this and just want to know.

American Reader (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I have further biographical information on Peter Strzok II:

His mother is Virginia Sue (Harris) Strzok of Laurinburg, North Carolina. She is the daughter of Fred Baldwin Harris and Sue (McCants) Harris and attended Flora Macdonald College, located in Red Springs, North Carolina. (Sources: Ancestry.com.) I have not tried to follow very far any line of descent, but I presume that Peter Strzok II is on his mother's side of Scots-Irish, Scottish, and/or other descent from people of the British Isles.

In 2016, his father, Peter P. Strzok, then of Pinehurst, North Carolina, wrote an article for the Fayetteville Observer about Iran and his experiences in Iran. Then Captain Strzok presumably first went to Iran in 1965 when he was "[f]resh out of Persian language studies at Monterey, California." According to his article, he last saw Iran in 1994 from the Iraqi side of the border. (Source: "Peter P. Strzok: 50-year Difference in Iran" by Peter P. Strzok, Fayetteville Observer [on line], Fayetteville, North Carolina, September 3, 2016, accessed on July 15, 2018, at the following URL: http://www.fayobserver.com/d8027ffd-e2a6-5ef0-be77-c43f22fb5fa6.html.)

American Reader (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I should add that I don't expect all of the information I have given here to go into the article. The information on Peter Strzok's family, other than on his parents, may be irrelevant. I just want to offer the editors of Wikipedia something more than what currently appears in the article. In any case, I would like to say thanks for the chance to contribute.

American Reader (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@American Reader: You can't use ancestry.com as a source, it is not reliable, see WP:UGC for more information.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Rusf10, for pointing that out. May I use specific sources within Ancestry.com? For example, Virginia Sue Harris is in the 1940 U.S. census in Laurinburg, North Carolina, S.D. No. 8, E.D. No. 83.S [I think--it's a little hard to read], Sheet No. 17B. The date is April 13, 1940. Virginia Sue Harris is aged three. The address is 328 Vance Street. Presumably the same person, Virginia Sue Harris, with an address of 301 West Vance Street, Laurinburg, North Carolina, is listed in the yearbook of Flora Macdonald College for 1959, page 94. In the yearbook for 1958, a photograph of a Sue Harris of Laurinburg, North Carolina, is shown on page 35. (Scanned images of both pages appear in Ancestry.com.) Unfortunately, Ancestry.com makes a connection from that person to presumably the same person but under the name Virginia S. Strzok without giving a reason for making the connection. Virginia S. Strzok is listed with a birthdate of August 12, 1937, and addresses as follows: 120 Melbourne Ave SE, Minneapolis, MN, 55414-3516 (1993); [10600 43rd Ave N, Minneapolis, MN, 55442-2809]; [PO Box 14926, Minneapolis, MN, 55414-0926 (1988)]. The source for this information is given as follows:

Ancestry.com. U.S. Public Records Index, 1950-1993, Volume 1 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2010. Original data: Voter Registration Lists, Public Record Filings, Historical Residential Records, and Other Household Database Listings.

Are any of these sources permissible?

On an unrelated matter, the Wikipedia article reads: "Strzok's other brother, James, is a Jesuit priest performing missionary work in east Africa." There should be a clarification here. Rev. James Strzok is not the brother of Peter Strzok II. He is the brother of Mr. Strzok's father, Peter P. Strzok. See the following source: "New Priest," [photograph and caption on Rev. Strzok's ordination], Leader-Telegram, Eau Claire, Wisconsin, May 27, 1970, page 2. No mention is made of Peter P. Strzok, but Rev. Strzok's parents are given as Mr. and Mrs. Michael Strzok of Gilman, Wisconsin. The sentence first quoted here is ambiguous and misleading and should be, in my opinion, changed at the earliest opportunity.

American Reader (talk) 03:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevant/BLP-violating material removed

I have removed unsourced claims about Strzok's brother's wife being the daughter of someone once convicted of a crime. Besides being entirely unsourced (and thus entirely unacceptable for inclusion) it has literally no relevance to this encyclopedic biography. It smacks of some incredibly-stretched attempt at guilt by association, three-people-removed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Date of birth

Date of birth 3/7/1970. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GTOGal389 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Unless there are reliable sources for this bit of personal information, it cannot be included. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2018

Peter Strzok was born March 7, 1970 (Source: According to MyLife.com.) There is no record of his birth in the Minnesota Birth Index, and he may have been born in Iran. "...[He]attended the American School in Iran up until 1978 when it closed down and then he attended the American School in Saudi Arabia." Source: Bigleaguepolitics.com July 17, 2018. 2600:1700:B840:D5C0:6082:625F:BBBE:8942 (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

"MyLife.com" is in no way a reliable secondary source and speculation about anyone's personal information has no place here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Peter Strzok spent time in his childhood in the biggest US school in Tehran, Iran.

Article from 1979 with his father (Peter Strzok II) describing then eight year old Peter Strzok attending a US school in Tehran where his mother was also a teacher.

https://www.newspapers.com/clip/17096018/peter_strzok_21_feb_1979/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poliphilosophy (talk • contribs) 20:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• "was at the American School in Saudi Arabia from 1978- 1980" --87.170.202.140 (talk) 00:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Peter P. Strzok at Lake Superior State College

For purposes of this article, it has been established that Peter Strzok II was born on March 7, 1970, at Kincheloe AFB Hospital near Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan. At the time, Mr. Strzok's father, Peter P. Strzok, was chairman of the military science department at Lake Superior State College, now Lake Superior State University, in Sault Sainte Marie. (Sources: Photograph of then Major Strzok presenting a certificate and pin to an employee of the department, Evening News, Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan, November 17, 1969, page 2; "ROTC Cadets Stage Events at Camp Lucas," Evening News, Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan, May 9, 1970, page 9. Maj. Strzok is referred to in both items as chairman of the military science department. A further source of minor interest regarding the birth of Peter Strzok II: "Pink and Blue Shower Honors Mrs. Strzok," Evening News, Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan, February 2, 1970, page 6.)

American Reader (talk) 13:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

More on the Military Service of Peter P. Strzok

Peter Paul Strzok, father of Peter Strzok II, was born on March 18, 1936. He received his bachelor of science degree from Marquette University in 1958. If I read the source correctly, he entered the U.S. Army Reserve on January 29, 1958, as a second lieutenant in the Corps of Engineers. He was later in the regular army and by the date of publication of the source (Jan. 1, 1966) had attained the rank of captain. (Source: U.S. Army Register, Volume 1, United States Army Active and Retired List, U.S. Government Printing Office, January 1, 1966, page 546, digitized on Ancestry.com from the following original source: United States Military Registers, 1902–1985. Salem, Oregon: Oregon State Library.)

Peter P. Strzok retired from the army in 1978. (Source: "Poor Sister: Tiny Nation a 'Basket Case' Catholic Worker Assesses," by Joel Rutchick, Saint Cloud Times, Saint Cloud, Minnesota, January 6, 1983, page 19.) He served twenty-one years with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and retired with the rank of lieutenant colonel. "He spent much of his Army service in development work in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, the Philippines and Korea." (Source: "Catholic Relief Battles Upper Volta Famine," Minneapolis Star, Minneapolis, August 21, 1981, page 8.)

Then Captain Strzok may have been in Vietnam as early as 1963 as part of the Army Concept Team "to evaluate engineer control and advisory detachments (ECAD) in support of counterinsurgency operations." A photograph of a Captain Strzok appears on page C-140 of the source. (Source: Army Concept Team in Vietnam, Engineering Control and Advisory Detachments, Final Test Report, October 15, 1963; published at the Defense Documentation Center for Scientific and Technical Information, Cameron Station, Alexandria, Virginia, and accessed on July 19, 2018, at the following URL: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/423198.pdf.)

American Reader (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Mass-removal of reliably sourced content

An editor removed the "Fox News commentary" section[4] (and violating the 1-revert rule in doing so). The one-paragraph section was sourced to six RS, substantiating that it's WP:DUE. The paragraph is also necessary in terms of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP given that the subject of the article was the subject of intense conspiratorial rhetoric and was used to undermine Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe into Russian interference. That's Strzok's main claim to fame and notability: the intense media coverage and commentary that he provoked and which was used to undermine Mueller's probe. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Revert

I made my first and last revert (per 1RR) to the article today (July 24, 2018). However, nothing was removed over disputed notability as @Snooganssnoogans inaccurately surmised or discerned, but primarily, rather, due to questions about POV. Please see diffs ([5], [6]). Quis separabit? 23:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Quoting Strzok is not a POV violation. Other language that was removed mirrored the sources' language. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The POV found in RS must not be altered or neutered. Neither sources nor content must be "neutral", but editors must be neutral while editing. POV deletions and alterations aren't allowed. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

consensus required

Re [7] - this text has been in the article for some time, so Rms125a@hotmail.com's removal was challenged by Snooganssnoogans and should not have been made again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Misleading mention of Sessions

With regard to the following sentence in the lede:

"The Department of Justice, led by Republican Jeff Sessions, has defended Mueller's response to the text messages."

The phrase "led by Republican Jeff Sessions" gives a strong impression, in my opinion, that Sessions himself has opined on the issue of Mueller's response. Neither source footnoted for that sentence makes any mention of Sessions. He is titular head of Justice, but is recused on the investigation and is unlikely to say anything about it. The sentence should be changed to eliminate the misleading mention of Sessions. The footnoted NY Times article states that Rosenstein defended Mueller's response, so we should make that clear, instead of falsely implying that Sessions commented. A suggested alternate: "Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has defended Mueller's response to the text messages." DonFB (talk) 04:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Blind revert

by User:D.Creish, the account who's very first edit was to cite an obscure Wikipedia policy ([8]) on a controversial article, made here: [9]. Why do we have to put up with this WP:GAMEing anyway?

Regardless, this is ridiculous. At the very least, please update the freakin' timeline to note that he ALREADY TESTIFIED rather than reporting old shit from March or whatever about how he was GOING TO TESTIFY. Sheesh. Can't even bother to edit war correctly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Misleading edit summary, (additional) falsification of a source

This edit, in response to a failed verification tag I added, claims to have found a source for the claim that Strzok "agreed to testify" after "further anti-Trump messages were revealed". Neither the previous source (CNN) nor the new source (WaPo) say anything like that. This is a fairly blatant, POV manipulation of sources on an article which is subject to discretionary sanctions.

(Nevermind that the info is outdated since Strzok ALREADY freakin' testified!) Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Single-purpose account and 1RR violations

A single-purpose account has now four times in a span of two weeks mass-removed reliably sourced content. On two occasions (19 July, 31 July), the editor violated the one-revert rule. There are several discussions above wherein the editor, Vaalpak, can argue for why reliably sourced content should be mass-removed, and the editor has not taken a single opportunity to do so. The editor has also been repeatedly warned on his user talk page, yet the behavior persists. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Responding here to Snooganssnoogans false statements above: I have never violated any one-revert rules first of all (why is this user allowed to just make things up and no admin steps in to do anything)? Besides lying they also smeared me as "fringey", and they consistently remove any RS content added into an article because Snooganssnoogans disagrees with it personally and labels those editors "fringe"? Vaalpak (talk) 23:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, obviously they aren't an SPA since they have edited articles other than this one. They are, however, a newbie - please don't bite the newbies. Also please stop attacking editors with whom you don't see eye to eye. This is an issue with you that keeps coming up at article after article - when are you going to stop? He also did not violate 1RR. Don't lie about other editors (also something that's become a habit with you). -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey, Mr. Tone Police, you long ago lost any moral standing to give advice to other editors -- not to mention you forgetting that calling someone a liar out of the blue like that qualifies as, you know, attacking editors. Maybe you ought to read the links you toss about. --Calton | Talk 02:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Where's my laughing emoji when I need it? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I will grant you that, yes, you are a joke, sure. --Calton | Talk 02:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

You're killin' me, Smalls! Have you thought about taking your act on the road? Perhaps the Comedy Store might be a good first gig for you? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Stupidity of "consensus required" bites again

First, I am challenging the entire sentence about starting with "After the release of the DOJ-OIG report, which revealed further anti-Trump texts from Strzok..." because it is NOT supported by sources, which do not 1) link OIG report to Strzok's decision to testify 2) do not link Strzok's decision to testify to "revelation of further anti-Trump texts"

The above is grounds enough for a challenge and in fact is some serious abuse and misrepresentation of sources by User:D.Creish.

I am also challenging the info for the very simple reason that it's outdated. Strzok ALREADY testified but the text reads as if that was yet to happen.

Now, I would love to add the fact that Strzok already testified, and I did, but then D.Creish went and "challenged" that. So we're in this dysfunctional situation where the article cannot be updated - indeed it's a few months behind the times now - because ONE user, who has not even bothered to participate in talk discussion can hold the article hostage and make it outdated and ridiculous. Am I really expected to start a RfFC on the very obvious and non-controversial fact that Strzok ALREADY testified before the freakin' committee? (And can we please get rid of this idiotic restriction?) Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd be fine with updating the tense, even expanding now that he's testified. I objected to was your POV rewrite. Propose something and we can work on it. You should know your latest removal breached the DS by reinstating a challenged edit. D.Creish (talk) 06:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Fired in August 2018

It should be added to the lead text that Strzok was fired in August 2018. Strvk (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Done. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you also add "Good riddance"? Strvk (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Was Strzok a member of the SES?

I think that division directors and their deputies are members of the Senior Executive Service, an employment category that was created to make civil servants more responsive to elected leaders. If so, this is a critical piece of missing information from the article, because the rationale for firing a member of the SES meets a much lower threshold than other civil servants. John (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Demoted

This edit claims that it's adding two sources which speak of "demotion" of Strzok. The first one, CNN, actually says "was cast as a promotion by some at the bureau despite the fact it is widely seen to be a demotion". The second one, WaPo also only says that it was "viewed" as a demotion. Not the same thing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

We can't say in Wiki voice that he was demoted, but we can say "considered internally as a demotion" perhaps within parentheses after we say in wiki voice that he was "moved" or "reassigned" (which is the language that RS say). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree, topic of "demotion" needs to be attributed and can certainly be included, along with the highly complimentary report from the NY Times. An edit to do it would probably look a lot like this one I made, since reverted. DonFB (talk) 12:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

He was clearly demoted (before being fired) and the article should reflect that. As proof, here is a quote from his own lawyer using the word demotion, the deputy director “reversed the decision of the career FBI official responsible for employee discipline who concluded, through an independent review process, that a 60-day suspension and demotion from supervisory duties was the appropriate punishment.” .[10] Since his own lawyer says it was a demotion, then it should be considered undisputed.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion. Sources disagree whether the transfer that happened as a result of removal from the Russia investigation was a demotion. Strzok's lawyer seems to be referring to a hypothetical demotion. The FBI's response says that the OPR review happened after the IG report: "Strzok was subject to the standard FBI review and disciplinary process after conduct highlighted in the IG report was referred to the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR)". Politrukki (talk) 09:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Claim that Strzok worked/works for CIA as well as FBI

https://www.intellihub.com/strzok-fired-by-fbi-but-still-works-for-the-cia/ https://brassballs.blog/home/strzok-worked-for-cia-and-fbi-at-the-same-time-in-counterespionage https://www.scribd.com/document/320564549/FBI-and-State-Letters-Clinton-Top-Secret-Email would fit in with living in Iran and Saudi Arabia, and 1963 work in Vietnam, but needs more verification. GangofOne (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

None of these appear to be reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

We go with reliable sources

This reversion [11] of sourced content occurred. It's been said numerous times that "we go by what reliable sources say". The source attached to the content added [12], stated specifically that Strzok's firing was due to his anti-Trump texting. I'm now quite confused. And honestly, I don't see how the edit summary explanation is valid ("Details and context are not fully known. BLP requires caution in tone and substance of assertions here") when I and other editors have been told repeatedly by the reverting editor that "we go with what reliable sources say". The reliable source said it, why do we have to take caution with tone and substance? I'm quite perplexed at what seems to be blatant duplicity. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it is really too early in the news cycle to be characterizing his firing. If, after some time has passed and no other narrative emerges, then I agree we should be putting in the "due to anti-Trump texts". As it stands though anything beyond that he was fired is treading pretty close to controversial BLP claim territory. In addition there is the matter that his firing was against the recommendation of OPR so characterizing the reason for his firing before we have more complete information has some ethical implications which may implicitly raise BLP issues re the individual who fired him. Jbh ^Talk 20:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

"I think it is really too early in the news cycle to be characterizing his firing." You're saying then that we don't go with reliable sources that are characterizing his firing when it's on the same day as the firing? I mean, it is in a reliable source. As a matter of fact, it's all over the internet in numerous reliable sources:[13] Not sure why there's now a wait-period (is that policy?). -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Well-put, Jbhunley. This is a frog patch with BLP issues lurking all around underfoot. NOTNEWS tells us be patient and BLP requires it. SPECIFICO talk 20:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

"This is a frog patch with BLP issues lurking all around underfoot. NOTNEWS tells us be patient and BLP requires it." I'll be sure to remember that. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 I am saying WP:NOTNEWS and that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not CNN. As to why we should wait, I believe I was pretty clear – We do not know the actual reasons and circumstances, we know what was reported a few hours ago. That may or may not be accurate and because it is a 'controversial claim about a living person' we should not be using 'breaking news' reports. All initial reporting on an event is primary once the story settles and has been subject to analysis and interpretation then we will have something to base detailed article text on.

The story is going to continue beyond this first 'flash' (if not then WP:DUE would be an issue) so we can wait a few days for things to settle out. In fact I would say WP:BLP requires we wait in the case of matters regarding personal ethics and/or accusations of ethical failure. Jbh ^Talk 20:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Interesting to note the different interpretation of what sources say with your comments and the different interpretation of what I've seen numerous editors (even administrators) say in regard to inclusion of content based on what reliable sources say. Full disclosure: I've always seen it as you are saying you do above. I've been mocked and chastised and even ABF'd time and again over the last several months for that interpretation. I was led to believe that my interpretation (aka your interpretation) is silly and plain wrong. I've seen what I believe is the incorrect interpretation applied and defended by a plethora of editors and admins at certain articles that all fall within a specific genre. But today, suddenly, that's changed. Hopefully, you can see why I'm "confused" by these differences. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Yep. Wikipedia has, in my rather strong opinion, a huge problem with editing based on 'breaking news'. There is an art to figuring out what events are significant and worth including and it becomes more difficult as the news and outrage cycle becomes shorter. A few years ago it was easy to discount an event as not being encyclopedic if reporting on it dropped off after a few weeks. Now we have the significant being up-staged by the venal being up-staged by the outrageous in rapid and continuous succession. Now the best we can do is, at a minimum, wait for a settled narrative to emerge after all the players have had a chance to get their bit in. Jbh ^Talk 21:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

If we are supposed to wait for the news cycle to finish WP:NOTNEWS, why note that he was fired? You just get to WP:CHERRYPICK what is news and what is not based on your own well developed "art" of figuring out what is important? I thought we just quote reliable sources and attribute appropriately, if they are wrong, it is on the source, not WP. Man have we lost our way, which leads to garbage articles, like this one. 2600:1700:1111:5940:1C10:FFB4:FF54:7E2E (talk) 00:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Here's an addition to the narrative: Strzok has a GoFundMe page and has set up a anti-Trump Twitter account.[14] [15]. And for the record, Jbhunley, there are even more reliable sources saying definitively that he was fired because of his texting habit. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

And by "narrative", of course, you mean "spin". --Calton | Talk 00:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I've never played that game. 00:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winkelvi (talk • contribs)

Even though Specifico's explanation of the revert is lacking, the revert per se was good (as a side note, the next edit was unnecessary weaseling). I assume that you added "as a result of his anti-Trump text messages" because the Washington Post headline says "fired over anti-Trump texts". Headlines are not considered reliable sources for statements of facts because usually they are not subject to the same editorial oversight the text is. In this case the headline is not substantiated in the body.

You say "there are even more reliable sources saying definitively that he was fired because of his texting habit". Could you provide sources? So far I have not seen anything definitive. For example AP news minute headline says "fired over texts that were critical of President Trump", but the voice-over attributes that to Strzok's lawyer. The folks at CNN who were reading The Washington Post report as the story broke said it was unclear what the ultimate reason for firing was. Though I don't know which revision of the WaPo report, which went through major changes before it was published in the paper, they were reading. Politrukki (talk) 09:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I found some sources that say Strzok was fired over text messages:

1. "an F.B.I. agent who helped oversee the Russia investigation and who was fired for sending texts critical of Mr. Trump." – The New York Times
2. "Strzok was fired Monday ... for sending texts to FBI lawyer and girlfriend Lisa Page that were critical of Donald Trump while working on special counsel Robert Mueller’s team." – HuffPost
3. "Strzok was fired from the FBI on Monday over anti-Trump texts." – CNBC
4. "after he was fired for sending texts to a former FBI lawyer that expressed his dislike for President Donald Trump" – Newsweek
5. "Peter Strzok ... has been fired over controversial texts that subjected him and the bureau to national scrutiny, the Washington Post reported on Monday." –Business Insider
6. "after he was fired for sending texts critical of President Trump before the election while involved in multiple politically relevant investigations" – The Hill

Then on the other hand, former FBI Special Agent Chris Swecker writes that "the reasons for Strzok's firing, other than the texts, are still not public ... In other words, Strzok was not fired for simply expressing his opinion privately. According to the Department of Justice inspector general, Strzok also used his private email to send and receive classified information – exactly the misconduct by Hillary Clinton he was supposed to be investigating.[16] Politrukki (talk) 08:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

This article is argumentative

From the opening section where Republican concerns about Strzok are dismissed as "conspiracy theories" (a value judgment backed merely by the citation of opinion pieces) this article is argumentative and needs major revision. Wikipedia is not a forum for polemical writing.

From the subtle clues, however, it's clear that any attempt to edit it would be promptly reversed. This unfortunately means that responsible editors are discouraged from wasting their time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.2.79.124 (talk) 06:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

This article is coming of as very biased

The following text is coming of as bias and I think this article needs revision as we shouldn't be trying to manipulate readers, rather just give them the facts.

• The revelation of the text messages led Republican congressmen and right wing media to start pushing conspiracy theories to the effect that Strzok was involved in a secret plot an undermine the Trump presidency.
• Strzok's personal messages to Lisa Page have been used by Republicans to attack the impartiality of Mueller's investigation into Donald Trump's alleged collusion with Russia during the election.
• In 2018, President Trump falsely claimed that 19,000 text messages between Strzok and Page "were purposely & illegally deleted" and that these text messages "Would have explained whole Hoax". PolitiFact rated the claim "Pants-on-fire" false noting that there was no evidence the messages were purposefully deleted, some from the work phones were recovered, and that the texts on their personal phones were lost when they were reset.
• Some commentators on Fox News used Strzok's messages to comment negatively on the Mueller investigation.

These lines are pretty unnecessary and this article needs to be revised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jana Brahimi (talk • contribs) 10:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jana. Do you question the sources used for this material, or do you feel this is editorial opinion, rather than content based on RS? If so, those are issues which can be fixed. It would help if you can be more specific. Our job is to document the facts and opinions found in RS. The above is found in mainstream RS, while the opposing views are found in unreliable fringe sources and Fox News, IOW they are fringe/minority views which no or little weight. Therefore their mention is only due to their being mentioned in actual RS. We don't use the unreliable sources to document the existence of these misleading ideas. We only use RS to point out falsehoods and conspiracy theories. These particular passages deal with the misuse of certain facts to support misleading conspiracy theories, the ones pushed by Russia/GOP/Trump. This is all part of the continued Russian interference in American politics, and Russians and some Americans are actively cooperating in this effort. You may find this sandbox material on the subject interesting. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi (above person), I am pretty young and new to Wikipedia so I have no idea how to message someone so I'd thought I'd leave my message here. I have read a lot of American Wikipedia articles in order to educate myself in the real situation instead of relying on news sources. I'd like to clarify I am not a US national so I am not trying to push any agenda here, but what I noticed was anti-right wing rhetoric. I read the Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign and didn't seem to find any reliable sources to prove that the Russian government was directly involved with manipulating the masses of the United States. Though Russian nationals or IP's from Russia having may been discovered most people educated in Computing Science can tell you that this could easily been a diversion from the real culprits, it may have even been US nationals. Now I am going to believe this is all honest work and there is no deliberate agenda trying to be pushed. Majority of references I read were really vague and I tried to cross check but could not find any definitive proof. What I keep seeing a lot too is accusations of right-wing media creating conspiracy theories which is just purely dumb as when I checked these references they were low budget websites that did not represent the right-wing media. I will do more work and try to investigate all these claims I've come across so we can root out any political bias in Wikipedia. Anyhow, I appreciate the reply and the reason I brought this up as I believe in Wikipedia as the number 1 source of information and would prefer hard facts to let the reader decide rather than political manipulation. Thanks and I hope I can assist you in anyway in the future!

Yours,

Jana. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jana Brahimi (talk • contribs) 03:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Has Strzok been in here editing this article ? Parts of it sound like he could have written it himself F. L. (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Which parts seem so? DonFB (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The President accused former FBI lawyer Lisa Page and former FBI agent Peter Strzok and "hundreds of others" of treason and implied they could be punished for it.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/27/politics/trump-mueller-attempted-takeover-government/index.html

that's one gigantic conspiracy theory! Who to believe the guy who was just cleared of being an agent of the Russian government and has seen everything or the sources permeating the 132 articles containing this topic that did nothing but insist for two years that they had incontrovertible proof of collusion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk) 04:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theories"

Does no one realize how biased that sounds? This is shameful for Wikipedia. People have read his text messages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:8E00:5798:47A:8B28:9729:7188 (talk) 03:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Fox News Commentary

Why does this section exist? Should there be sections for CNN Commentary, MSNBC Commentary, NYT or WaPo, etc? Does every article about a controversial political figure contain a section like this? I don't think so ! WBcoleman (talk) 23:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Why was my edit undone

I added citations referencing the actual text messages and they were undone by Volunteer Marek. A link to primary documentation seems way better than links to news articles *about* the text messages. Am I missing something here? Nweil (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

OPR investigation

The FBI OPR investigation of Strzok is highly relevant to his career as an FBI agent.

The data provided is (a) factual, (b) accurate, and (c) sourced.

The primary source for the information is the head of the FBI's OPR. The secondary source is Strzok himself (since he filed the letter as an exhibit to his lawsuit against the Attorney General.

a & b: so what? c: Wrong. It's two WP:PRIMARY sources. Read the link. --Calton | Talk 07:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Strzok1.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Why doesn't Lisa Page have her own page?

Both Strzok and Page are most famous for their text messages, and the role they have played in the Russia Collusion investigations by the IC Muller, as well as various Congressional committees.

Yet there is no Wikipedia page for Page, it refers here.

She seems as well known and important as Strzok to the story, why does she not rate her own page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeroXero (talk • contribs) 21:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Lisa Page is only notable for this particular story linking her to Peter Strzok. Hence her story can be fully covered here. See WP:BLP1E as the relevant policy. — JFG ^talk 23:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

As of 12/2/2019 Lisa Page has apparently become more of a news item on her own: — Preceding unsigned comment added by AltSyzygy (talk • contribs) 22:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

References

New Documents

Looks like some new news with Strzok's involvment on the Michael Flynn case. The Hill reporting notes from director of counterintelligence (Redacted).[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] PackMecEng (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Your one and only non-opinion, reliable source there (that last Hill article) doesn't even mention the word "Strzok". I have removed several claims here that are not supported by the sources, and per WP:BLP, you may not make unsupported claims about a person, particularly defamatory ones. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, don't touch my post again. Not a BLP vio and certainly reliably sources. PackMecEng (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't publish defamatory falsehoods again. The source says nothing about who said that statement. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Not sure of a purposed text yet, but this is pretty fresh and something people should keep an eye on. I am sure this article will become popular fairly soon. PackMecEng (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Are we now Voldemorting Strzok, too? Some additional sources:

Fox: Strzok stopped bureau from ending Flynn probe despite lack of derogatory evidence unsealed documents revealLawfare looking into the entrapment issue a WaPo article I can not read The National Review on the entrapment plan National Review on the motives for the Flynn entrapment The last one is a kicker. It's probably an opinion piece and should be handled accordingly, but it has punch:

"The perjury trap was set for Flynn out of necessity. If the Justice Department had informed the White House about recordings of Flynn and Kislyak discussing sanctions, and the FBI then asked for permission to interview Flynn, the bureau knew permission was sure to be denied. Flynn would be untouchable, and free to discover the entirety of the Obama administration’s extensive but secret effort to depict Trump and his minions as Russian operatives — an effort the FBI was determined to keep pursuing."

Yeah, guys - keep that out of the article. Wefa (talk) 02:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, consider the source. That McCarthy spin is pure Trump/Putin protectionism and historical denialism. It's a fact that Flynn did seek advice from the campaign team at Mar-a-Lago, and then followed their advice and contacted Kislyak in an act which violated the Logan Act and was a classic quid pro quo about lifting the sanctions, IOW giving the Russians what they had wanted as payment for their election help to Trump. And he lied about it. The whole Trump-Russia thing has been about lifting the sanctions all along, as that was a key demand from Putin. It was at the heart of the Trump Tower meeting, a key (and proven) allegation in the Steele dossier, and elsewhere. It is the red thread, and the FBI's job is to uncover such violations of laws and decency by a candidate who so overtly, yet sneakily, favors Russian interests. The FBI was doing what it's supposed to do. Read the story here. -- Valjean (talk) 05:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The Logan act is widely considered unconstitutional and unenforceable. In its 220 years of existence there was never a successful prosecution under it. That was purely used as pretext for that perjury trap. Beyond that it is utterly ridiculous to claim an incoming administration is not allowed to talk to foreign representative mere weeks before they takes over. This is another instance of democrats inventing rules as they go in this whole sordid saga. Oh - and this debate of yours is pointless - we are talking about an article about Peter Strzock here. I gave you a bunch of reliable sources that apply in certain ways (the opinion piece tells you how Republicans see this matter, for instance). You can't just suppress all that. Wefa (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Your entire quote doesn't mention Peter Strzok at all, and yet you're talking about that quote as if it's some sort of silver bullet in Peter Strzok's biography. Perhaps that opinion belongs in a broader article on the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, but it doesn't have any "punch" here, in the biography of someone it doesn't mention at all. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The article I linked mentions Strzok multiple times. I quoted a part that contains an assessment of his actions. Wefa (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The section you quoted nowhere links anything to Strzok, so no, it doesn't belong here. If you want to perform original synthesis smearing a living person you politically disagree with, Conservapedia is thataway. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

May I politely ask you to assume good faith and maintain civility here? And, no, that is not original synthesis here - I merely summarize the article referenced. Summarization of sources is what we do.

Beyond that, I will try to restart this whole debate below with some basic assumptions. Wefa (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

In addition, that column is penned by Andrew C. McCarthy, who is hardly a source you'd want to rely upon - he claimed Obama supported a "Sharia agenda," falsely said Obama's autobiography was ghostwritten by Bill Ayers, and extensively demanded the impeachment of Obama and Hillary Clinton while breathlessly declaring the impeachment of Trump to be a "plot." In other words, it would be like citing a column by Markos Moulitsas in the biography of Stephen Miller. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

McCarthy is a staff columnist for the National Review. Regardless how much you like him, it is legitimate to read his opinion piece as one published by that paper. Wikipedia does its sourcing rules by publication, not persons. As for Kos, I don't really know why you would not quote an opinion piece by him in the Miller article. I used to be a DK member for more than a decade and know he is well anchored in that community. With proper context and suitable topic, there is nothing that prevents such an inclusion per se.

But I did not mean to start this matter in this article with this opinion piece. Inclusion of the factual references I linked is a way better start. Facts that should be in the article is that a.) Strzok prevented the Flynn investigation from being dropped, against the advice of the agents involved; and b.)(Redacted) Both of this can be derived from reliable sources. Wefa (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I will also reintroduce the quote you unduly deleted from another editor's talk contribution: The Hill reported notes from director of counterintelligence (Redacted) This is impeccably sourced by at least two reliable sources, both of which have been linked in the talk page already. Strzok did that.Wefa (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

No, it's not "sourced" to anything - again, none of the sources say that the notes were about Strzok. If you disagree, quote the specific section of the source where it says the notes recorded something Strzok said. In addition, claiming as fact that Strzok was responsible for "entrapment" is also a BLP violation, and will not be included here at all whatsoever. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The only thing you said which appears to be supported by sources as a fact is that Strzok texted someone asking them to keep the investigation of Flynn open. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

you have now repeatedly removed or edited other editor's talk page contributions. In my case, the edit was especially unwarranted as you directly repeated the deleted claim in lour own text. This is utterly improper, please do not repeat this. Wefa (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• I would suggest starting a new thread proposing specific language to add with sources, and seeing if there's consensus to make that edit. Maybe with separate survey and discussion sections. This horse has already had a good beating at AE, let's !vote on something. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strzok involvement seems somewhat covered, allegations include his keeping the probe going (at behest of 7th floor), his coaching McCabe to tell Flynn no lawyer involvement, his checking how little advising Flynn of the legal consequences was allowed, and his tampering with the interview notes. FoxNews Strzok stopped FBI from ending Flynn probe, Newsmax Newly Revealed Texts Show Strzok, Page Altered Flynn Interview Notes, NY Post It sure looks like the FBI was gunning for Mike Flynn, CBSNews, DailyMail, CNN, MSN, etcetera. There's sidenotes description of GC Baker nervous if WhiteHouse finds about Flynn being interviewed under "false pretexts" and a Comey bragging on dodging of White House counsel "something I probably wouldn’t have done or maybe gotten away with,” he later said, “in a more organized administration.” This looks like only a bit for this article as it does not look like major coverage for Strzok, and it's perhaps too early in this part to do edits as yet. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 08:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

  Markbassett, do you have RS for any of these claims, like Strzok "coaching" McCabe, or is this a BLP violation? Newsmax is not RS. WP:DAILYMAIL is deprecated. So the best you have is Fox News and NY Post? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Muboshgu There's a number relating that the Jan. 24 email appears to show the bureau preparing McCabe for how to discuss his request for an interview with Flynn, so as to avoid having the White House counsel involved. The sensationalized labels for that vary of course, including calls to dismiss the case against Flynn due to government misconduct including that agents were aiming to “trap ... him into making statements they could allege as false.” Or that that the material from Jensen “prove[d] Mr. Flynn’s allegations of having been deliberately set up and framed by corrupt agents at the top of the FBI.” As far as Strzok BLP though, prepping McCabe to sucker Flynn seems a nothing -- it's noted as iffy but has had no actual impact on Strzok and they simply can't fire him twice. Mentions there may actually be criminal culpability in altering notes is also just speculation at this point so nothing much there for the article either. Depending on WEIGHT of coverage, this all might deserve a bit of general content about 'further emails' at the end of the FBI section involving Flynn, or an addendum in the 'Text messages' section. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• The New York Post article is clearly labeled "OPINION" at the top, which means it is not useful for claims of fact, only for the attributed opinions of David Marcus, who is a correspondent for The Federalist, an outlet best known for having absolutely zero transparency about who funds it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

  Ha I didn't even click the NY Post link. It is a Murdoch rag after all. Yes, that one can be tossed too. His opinion that the FBI was "gunning for Flynn" isn't so useful. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

No "Edit" button

There is no "Edit" button at the top of this article. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 09:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

idk seems like here is the best place to talk about the edit, anyway... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.138.224.249 (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: information about what Strzok has been doing since losing his job at the FBI. Doesn't he have a new book coming out? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 09:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Here's my take on the edit button missing: someone with the ability to do that has decided 1) this person was newsworthy and relevant in a time that has passed, 2) there doesn't need to be a feature for this, publicly expressed --previous comment not signed til i'm convinced this is really the public encyclopedia we needed  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.138.224.249 (talk) 14:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)