Talk:Dismissal of James Comey/Archive 2

"Honest Loyalty"
I object to this edit by User:MrX (emphasis added in bold): "According to Comey associates interviewed by The New York Times, Associated Press, and CBS News, Trump had asked Comey in January to pledge his loyalty to him. Comey allegedly declined to make this pledge, saying that he would give him  'honest loyalty' 'honesty .  Trump denied that he asked Comey for his loyalty, but says such a discussion would not necessarily have been inappropriate." MrX's edit summary states: "Comey did not say that. He said 'you will have that'. Best to leave this in a form that faithfully reflects the source." Let's start with the easy stuff:
 * Is there any rational reason to have a quote mark on the left of the word "honesty" but not on the right? No reason has been offered, so please restore the quote mark on the right.
 * Is there any reason to delete the word "allegedly"? No reason has been offered to use wikivoice here, so please restore that word in order to be faithful to the source which itself uses a lot of hedging: "according to the account of the conversation. But Mr. Trump pressed him on whether it would be 'honest loyalty.' 'You will have that,' Mr. Comey told his associates he responded."  It is beyond bad editing to put in wikivoice a claim that the cited sources do not put in their own voice.
 * Lastly, do the cited sources not use the term "honest loyalty"? What kind of nonsense is it to say that the words "honest loyalty" do not "faithfully" reflect the source?  Comey allegedly said that he would give Trump "honest loyalty".  Where is there any ambiguity about that?  This was allegedly the outcome of the conversation, and I strongly object to its deletion.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Your edit placed "honest loyalty" in quotes, making it appear as if it was a direct quote of James Comey. However, James Comey never spoke that phrase. Why do you insist on an edit that is demonstrably false? ValarianB (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comey allegedly said that`Trump would have his "honest loyalty". There is no ambiguity about it whatsoever.  There is no ambiguity that the cited sources use the term "honest loyalty".  If you want to change it to say "Comey allegedly said Trump would have what Trump called 'honest loyalty'" then go ahead but it's awkward and unnecessary.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with MrX and ValarianB. "Honesty" reflects what Comey actually said, and better captures (and more concisely captures) the tenor of the sources. As the citations indicate in the quote field, the summary/most important thing is that Trump asked for loyalty and Comey declined to give it, instead offering his honesty. Neutralitytalk 18:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comey allegedly declined to pledge simply "loyalty" and instead agreed to Trump's request for "honest loyalty". How ironic that all of this spinning is occurring in the midst of a discussion about "honesty".  Do I have to be sufficiently friendly and influential to make this BLP accurate?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * @Anythingyouwant: Comey did not say those words. Either quote both sides of the conversation or accurately paraphrase it. - MrX 18:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You rephrase it, you're the one who deleted the material. I have no objection to "Comey allegedly offered what Trump called 'honest loyalty'".  I decline your kind invitation to break 3RR.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * On second thought, we should leave the "honest loyalty" part out of the lead and possibly expand on it in body of the article. The significant point here is that Trump asked for loyalty and Comey offered honesty. Does that seem reasonable?- MrX 19:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it absolutely does not, because (allegedly) the offer of simple honesty occurred at an intermediate point in the conversation, and the final result of the conversation was (allegedly) Comey agreeing to Trump's request for "honest loyalty". It's quite obvious that some editors here want to make it seem as outrageous as possible that a president would request loyalty from a subordinate FBI Director, when in fact that FBI Director allegedly agreed to offer a form of loyalty.  Spin, spin, spin.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So in your unspun version of what happened, Comey capitulated to Trump's insistent request for a pledge of loyalty, seemingly ignoring his oath of office in which he pledged to uphold the Constitution. Is that about right?- MrX 19:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * No, Mr. Anything, he did not. Comey said he would give Trump "honesty". Honesty is in quotes in that case, as it is a word directly attributed to Comey's voice, i.e. it was literally a word that he spoke to the president. It was the president who pressed on whether it would be "honest loyalty" (a quote), to which Comey replied "you will have that" (a quote). When you quote people, you must do so with precision, not piece together what you think they meant or infer this or that. ValarianB (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * See my immediately-preceding reply to MrX.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I did, and it does nothing to advance your argument for improperly citing quoted material. No one here is making it "outrageous as possible", as the near-universal condemnation of the affair by all corners of the political spectrum suffices for that purpose. ValarianB (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm actually pretty indifferent as to whether "honest loyalty" should be in the lede or in the main text so I'll defer to what others decide. Feel free to undo my editions and not have it counted as a revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Chop the Lead
It seems the lead has run amok:  into 3 screens of length, content that does not suit WP:LEAD and WP:WBA, verges into chasing WP:TABLOID, and has made for arguing and edit warring. So asking for general opinions of chopping and restraint for lead seems like it might help.

Please post your thoughts on what would be a reduced lead. In particular, do folks agree to these:
 * per WP:LEAD no more than four well-composed paragraphs.
 * per WP:LEADELEMENTS and MOS:BEGIN, the first paragraph should define or identify the topic and scope.
 * per MOS:INTRO avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article.

Cheers, Markbassett (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree and have previously stated that the lead needs to be trimmed back. Because this is so recent, it's difficult to know what is significant and what is less significant. My thoughts right now are something roughly like this:
 * Remove the second paragraph
 * Reduce the third paragraph to something like:
 * Remove the fourth and fifth paragraphs (portions covered in the third paragraph):
 * Retain the sixth paragraph.- MrX 21:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree but is all that info covered already later down in the article? Does anything need to be moved down into the body and then summarized? Sagecandor (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, but if any of it is not in the body of the article it should be.- MrX 23:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, but if any of it is not in the body of the article it should be.- MrX 23:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

"Prosecutor" or "Counsel"
The term Special Prosecutor is factually incorrect. The correct term under the enabling statute us "Counsel"
 * Read this: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/us/politics/robert-mueller-special-counsel-russia-investigation.html
 * 98.118.62.140 (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

"Loyalty" incident in lead
I've returned to the lead a sentence of text on the dinner meeting where Trump reportedly asked Comey for loyalty and he declined to give it. This was removed by.

The reliable sources accord this high significance in the context of the lead-up to Comey's firing, and I didn't see any conversation here on this talk page that would indicate that removal is appropriate. Indeed, Anythingyouwant wanted the wording of this sentence to be changed, but this was contested by myself,, and. Moreover, a few dozen other editors have edited this article and none seems to have objected to the presence of this critical text in the lead. Neutralitytalk 13:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Removal of this material from the lead had not previously been discussed, pro or con, so I properly removed it per WP:Bold. My edit summary stated: "Moving loyalty stuff out of the lead because the lead is quite long and the lead does not say what (if anything) this 'loyalty' stuff had to do with the dismissal."  The tag atop this article stated "This article's introduction may be too long for the length of the article. Please help by moving some material from it into the body of the article."  Now that the material has been put back in the lead, here is what it says:

According to Comey associates interviewed by The New York Times, Associated Press, and CBS News, Trump had asked Comey in January to pledge his loyalty to him, and Comey declined to make this pledge, saying that he would give him "honesty". Trump denied that he asked Comey for his loyalty, but says such a discussion would not necessarily have been inappropriate.
 * Frankly, this is garbage (not "critical text" as (non)Neutrality says in his edit summary), for two separate reasons. First, as stated in my edit summary, it gives the reader no clue what this incident has to do with the dismissal.  Second, it deliberately omits how the alleged conversation concluded: with Comey agreeing to Trumps' request for "honest loyalty".  The latter term ("honest loyalty") was previously removed repeatedly at this page for two possible reasons: first, to make it seem like Trump was allegedly making a "loyalty" request that was completely out of bounds when in fact Comey thought it appropriate to offer a form of loyalty; second, to make it seem like the alleged conversation did not end in consensus and was thus an unstated reason for the dismissal.  That is the effect of removing the term "honest loyalty" which is a term to which the reliable sources accord high significance.  I strongly object to selectively editing this lead in a way that has the effect of severely misleading readers, if not confusing them as well, and of course occupying space in the lead that could be put to much better purposes.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No way should the loyalty pledge content be removed from the lead. It seems like it was removed petulantly because the editor did not get their way in the previous discussions. In response to the post immediately above, we should not be trying to give readers "clues". We should present a simple summary of the most important facts, then the reader should read the rest of the article, then they should read the sources. In this case, the simple facts are that Trump privately asked Comey to pledge his loyalty and Comey demurred. Trump's made up concept of "honest loyalty" is not noteworthy. - MrX 14:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Many reliable sources do indeed characterize the exchange as a demand for loyalty, and Comey not refusing but not exactly agreeing either. In a Private Dinner, Trump Demanded Loyalty. Comey Demurred ValarianB (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

No comment on the details of how it's included but claiming that this doesn't belong in the lede is mind boggling. Every single source mentions it and every single source mentions it right away. Trying it to tuck it away in some obscure corner of the article is plain WP:TENDENTIOUS. And there's been way too much of that lately, from a user (Anythingyouwant) who had previously been topic banned from all US-politics related articles but seems not to have learned their lesson.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please do not cast aspersions or speculate about the motivations of editors. Not all of us agree with your characterizations. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Trying to strong arm WP:UNDUE material into the lede with vague threats of AE action is not appropriate, VM.--v/r - TP 15:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I have adjusted that quote to say "honest loyalty" which is what the cites quote where it was left and what is said later in the article. Markbassett (talk) 00:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read the section above this one &mdash; Comey said "honesty" then Trump pressed him on whether it would be "honesty loyalty" he said "you will have that." Per CBS News: "He meant, said the source, that he would always be honest with the president." So simply saying "honesty loyalty" obscures what the sources actually say. (Note that Comey never said those words, as quote marks would imply). Neutralitytalk 00:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Neutrality Hmm - I'm thinking stopping in the middle isn't accurately paraphrasing the event either, but see that things moved on and both parts are in there at the moment. Markbassett (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

This edit by User:MrX again mangles the lead by truncating our report of this alleged conversation, thus misleading readers to think Comey did not end up offering honest "loyalty" to Trump, and misleading readers to think that Trump fired him in part for refusing to do so. Please stop propagandizing in the lead. Thanks.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We have talked about this on this very page, and you were not able to gain consensus for including those details in the lead. If you want to get broader input, please initiate one or more RfCs, but please don't keep restoring content that has been objected to until a consensus to include it has been reached.- MrX 16:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * First of all, the formulation that you deleted was not discussed in a previous section. Second, even if there were consensus supporting your removal (there wasn't), consensus is no excuse for violating core Wikipedia policies that bar propagandizing, such as WP:NPOV and WP:BLP.  I haven't got infinite time to be on Wikipedia today, but will try to flush more of my life down the drain by pursuing this with you later here, at BLPN, via RFC, or wherever is necessary to eliminate the propaganda from the lead.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have partially self-reverted. The "honest loyalty" was discussed and I did not see consensus to include. Please correct me (with links or diffs) if I am mistaken. You added this:
 * which I object to because it is substantially similar to the previous content that were trying promote, and which failed to obtain consensus. Also, we need to quit calling the Russian election interference "alleged". See my previous comments and the non-cherry-picked analysis I did on that article's talk page.- MrX 17:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see that your partial self-revert had anything whatsoever to do with "loyalty" in the lead, nor does the blockquote that you mention, and even if this talk page section were about those things, you completely fail to engage with the fact that the blockquoted material was proposed by another user above, not me, and was met with no objection whatsoever. Please stop WP:GAMING.  If you think some material is flawed, try suggesting how it might be improved.  And please don't clutter up this talk page section with material that doesn't fall within the scope of its header.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * How exactly am I gaming? As far as I know everything I wrote above is accurate. If you are aware or an uncontested edit proposal for this material or a previous consensus, it would be helpful if you could link to it, please. I'm not sure why you think I would want to improve text that you added promoting a point of view that is not reflective of the body of available sources. The red herring about Democrat's hypocricy is not what is important about this subject. I'm certain that I have said that before.- MrX 17:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously, the "Many commentators...." proposal was made here. The proposal had nothing to do with hypocrisy. And it also has nothing to do with the "loyalty" stuff or your persistent efforts to present a misleading and incomplete account of the "loyalty" stuff in the lead.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, the discussion in which five commenters opposed almost identical content. Sorry, that's not even close to a consensus.- MrX 20:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The discussion in which one commenter who opposed the proposed content provided a revised draft that he said would alleviate his objections. That's called responsiveness and collaboration.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The discussion in which one commenter who opposed the proposed content provided a revised draft that he said would alleviate his objections. That's called responsiveness and collaboration.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Chop it out? - on further reflection ... this much controversy and lead spaceover what is about 1 to 2% of the article body .... Think it WP:LEAD is better served by chopping out the entire paragraph, as it is neither a summary of the article, nor a major focus of it, nor a final conclusion. It's a cute anecdote, but other than showing leaks of innuendos get published, meh. It isn't something official from any principle nor leading to any evidence or followup event. I'll start a separate thread about chopping and see what folks think. Markbassett (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Unexplained deletions
I cannot imagine any valid reason for the following deletions:

Several sources within the FBI have stated that the White House's firing of Comey was a culmination of high-level efforts to interfere in the Russia investigation. Appearing before Congress two days after the dismissal, Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe testified: "There has been no effort to impede our investigation to date". Comey has indicated he is willing to testify about his dismissal in an open hearing. He declined an invitation from the Senate Intelligence Committee to testify before a closed-door session. ....

Comey's termination was controversial, with some comparing it to President Richard Nixon's termination of Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox in the 1973 Saturday Night Massacre, and others disputing that comparison. On May 17, 2017 the deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller as Special Counsel to oversee the Russia investigation. This is how one subtracts balance from an article.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to "Appearing before Congress two days after the dismissal, Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe testified: "There has been no effort to impede our investigation to date" being restored.


 * I do object to "and others disputing that comparison" being restored because it is WP:OR. In fact, "according to Bernstein, Trump’s firing of Comey is “a potentially more dangerous situation than Watergate." As far as I can tell, the Fox News segments doesn't mention the Cox firing.- MrX 11:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So, you want us to tell readers that some people compared this to Watergate, but not tell them that others including Bob Woodward disputed the comparison? That strikes you as NPOV, User:MrX?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I proposed no such thing. Woodward was not responding to the people who made the comparisons to the Saturday Night Massacre. Setting up an argument that doesn't exist in a single source seems like editorializing.- MrX 12:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What Woodward is saying in the Yahoo News-cited article is more nuanced than the outright "the comparison is invalid" you are suggesting. ValarianB (talk) 12:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I quoted Woodward at length above (emphasis added): "BOB WOODWARD, THE WASHINGTON POST....But this is not yet Watergate. Not a clear crime on the Russian issue... in the case of Nixon, he had his former White House counsel, John Dean, for four days testifying that the president corruptly and illegally led the obstruction of justice and you have nothing comparable. Now, that doesn't mean, you know, we don't know where this is going to go. There is an immense amount of smoke."  You think we should completely ignore what he said, and instead pretend that the comparisons to Watergate were undisputed?  I think you both know better than that, don't you?  Please see WP:NPOV.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is objecting to the fact that a comparison to Watergate is disputed, but MrX is saying that the direct comparison to the firing of Cox was not mentioned by Woodward. I'd say that he was making the comparison in terms of the size and scale of the scandal and if it implicated the president in corruption. The ideal thing here would to be to find another source that's more direct and outright. If not, this should probably be rephrased to be more accommodating. -Indy beetle (talk) 12:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Rephrased and reinserted.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Accurate articles derive from citing a source correctly, yes. Looks good now. ValarianB (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This reinsertion is entirely precipitous and should be reversed. I object to the McCabe bit. It's cherry-picked. McCabe is not privvy to everything Comey knew and/or is not going to reveal whether he/Comey felt that Trump or others were engaged in (possibly criminal) obstruction of the FBI investigation.  Please undo your hasty reinsertion and let the discussion proceed along a natural and customary timeline here.  SPECIFICO  talk  13:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The McCabe quote was in the lead for awhile before it was removed, and the person who removed it has no objection to reinsertion. Of the four people commenting in this talk page section, only SPECIFICO has objected, so I don't plan to remove the material.  That material conveys what McCabe is aware of, and what McCabe is aware of seems very notable, at least as notable as what several anonymous sources within the FBI say they are aware of.  McCabe is the acting director of the FBI.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it would have been wise to wait until a couple of other editors weighed in on the matter. In any case, if we specifically quote Woodward we should also quote Bernstein, and I don't think we should in the lead.- MrX 13:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't quote Woodward, and the view of Bernstein is included in the prior sentence. Redford and Hoffman have remained silent.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That bit misrepresents the cited source. Read the entire article where McCabe is challenged on the firing and states that he cannot comment. The firing is widely regarded as possible criminal obstruction of justice. And nothing changes the fact that a quick restoration before others can comment is not constructive. There's no rush. A good edit will gain consensus soon enough, but obstinacy will not.  SPECIFICO  talk  13:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with you 100% about obstinacy. Do you dispute that the McCabe quote says the opposite of what's in the previous sentence of the lead?  I am open to improvements in how we present the McCabe quote, if you would do us the favor of suggesting such.  Meanwhile, I don't think there's consensus to remove.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The writing  "Appearing before Congress two days after the dismissal, Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe testified: "There has been no effort to impede our investigation to date"."  Much better to say, "although acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe denied it."  As for the second deletion, "some" and "others" are weasel-words and should be avoided unless they appear in the source.  They imply that the numbers are significant which is a judgment that can only be made in sources; when editors do it, it is OR.  TFD (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Intro sentence
Shouldn't the intro sentence include more information about why this action is so stunning and is one that will be commented on and discussed and analysed for a LONG time: that historically, of all the positions in the US government, heads of the FBI are not fired and that Comey was investigating Trump? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.220.7.15 (talk) 03:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The lead paragraph does discuss whether Comey was investigating Trump. Regarding whether FBI directors are fired, it's true that this is unusual, but it's not very different from being forced to resign which has happened before, for example to Director William Sessions and Acting Director L. Patrick Gray.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Article on Comey's replacement started.. come help out
Article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_A._Wray
 * Someone should add this development to this article. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Reasons for the dismissal
The reasons for the dismissal - the White House's shifting explanations, Trump's own pronouncements and tweets, and Comey's evaluation and response - are in two different places in the article. Some are in the "Reasons for dismissal" section, others are in the first paragraph of the "White House messaging" section. Should we move all of that to the "Reasons" section, with just a single sourced sentence under White House about the fact that the reasons offered kept shifting? Or what do people think? --MelanieN (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. I have done some work on the "Reasons" section, grouping the paragraphs into single subjects and putting them in better order. I have not removed anything from the "messaging" section and would like consensus before doing that. --MelanieN (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Opinions of scholars and Media commentary sections
Sections seem to be getting a little bit big and over weighting the article?

Maybe we should keep it to just the facts and events, without the commentary? Sagecandor (talk) 12:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We should certainly not eliminate the commentary entirely. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to place events into context - ie commentary and analysis: "what does this mean? what is its importance and impact?" While we don't know the full historical impact yet, it is certainly one of the major events of the current presidential administration, if not THE defining act. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.220.7.15 (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Both sections belong. The scholarly section is credible for thinking about the legal implications of the Comey dismissal and expert views as to what the firing has to say about the state of democratic norms in the United States. The media commentary section has encyclopaedic value in that it documents the responses to the firing. Both sections inform the readers (especially the first) and will have lasting encyclopaedic value. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, but they are both getting big and unwieldy. Both should be judiciously trimmed in size. Sagecandor (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that's reasonable. The content can be trimmed and be together more concisely. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The whole thing is one big WP:QUOTEFARM. Sagecandor (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

And now we have a whole new section, full of legal opinions about how Comey's testimony improved the case for obstruction. These are cherry picked, with no quotes from people with a contrary opinion. The same is true of the "Comey's memo and obstruction of justice" section. We could add a dozen balancing opinions, but even we did, I don't think these sections add helpfully to the article. I am inclining toward eliminating both of those sections entirely. --MelanieN (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please find quotes from people with dissenting opinions then. Nothing was cherry-picked and I abhor the implication. I'll only say that it boggles the mind that a section that starts with the summary line "Legal experts are divided as to whether Trump's alleged request that Comey end the investigation can be considered obstruction of justice" needs balance. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So you just accidentally missed all the opinions on the other side? More generally, opinion pieces are primary sources per WP:OR, and so I recommend that we not use any of them unless they are deemed worthy of mention by reliable secondary sources that are reporting about those primary sources.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The sections are literally every single comment by a "law professor" that I could find in reliable sources (good luck to the rest of you on finding other views besides the dozens that I put a lot of time into finding at the time) on the (i) memos (at the time) and (ii) testimony (today), and the views of the law professors are absolutely not cherry-picked or of one mind. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll note that Anythingyouwant's idea of a dissenting opinion is Jeffery Lord's opinion on the whole thing. Lord is not a recognized authority on any of this, unlike the legal scholars I added (that's why I removed Lord from the "scholarly analysis" section weeks ago). I'll also note that I removed Gloria Borger's opinion on the thing from the article as well, because she is not a recognized authority either. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I recall adding Lord to the separate Wikipedia article about release of confidential information. Is that relevant here?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right that it was the article on the classified info reveal, but the point stands. I add the views of recognized authorities, not the ravings of non-experts, to "scholarly analysis" sections. There's nothing unbalanced about that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I take it back, and apologize. The first section is balanced. The second is not. You say you looked and couldn't find contrary opinions, and I accept that in good faith. Setting aside the balance issue, my opinion is unchanged: balanced or not, they are out of place in this article. TMI, and entirely opinion (even if they are professional and presumably "expert" opinion). --MelanieN (talk) 23:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The expert assessments of law professors, as reported in RS, are of enormous encyclopedic value. These experts are the only ones able to put the actions into the proper legal context. This is the kind of material that Wikipedia needs more of, not less. This is the kind of material that will (with appropriate adjustments) be of value 5, 10, 20 years into the future when people try to work through the legal contexts and contemporaneous scholarly assessments of events. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The proper test is not whether we think lawyers are more worth quoting here than everyone else, but rather what secondary sources think of the various opinions floating around.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Why is this page a partisan thing?
Why are democrats suporters delete anything that Comey said that attack AG Lynch or diminish any proof of Trump wrongdoings? Wikipedia is not a liberal thing. You should all be concerned about FINDING the TRUTH, not whether Trump stays president or not.

Finding all sorts of crazy arguments for Trump wrongdoing but deleting Comey's own statements that contradict those is a partisan thing. Shame on you, democrats rewriting the history.

El C is such an editor which totally ignores the truth.


 * (Please sign your username, so editors know who wrote what.) You are grossly overquoting—you need to use your own words to summarise to a much, much greater extent. And be wary of the undue weight facet of our neutrality policy. El_C 12:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Name is not important. El C has a strong anti-trump bias that makes the entire page a mockery. Quoting all sorts of legal experts is acceptable if it serves the liberal cause of building a case of impeaching Trump. But quoting Comey's own statements about its performance and pressure on the job about Clinton'e emails are systematically deleted by WIKIPEDIA moderators. Shame on you Wikipedia. You will never get my donations EVER AGAIN. Ban El C and eliminate him/she from your system as it is toxic and pollutes your data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.146.1 (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump's Russian Investigation Interference
Started a new article that I see as important and needs development and some more content. It is here: Donald Trump's Russian Investigation Interference.Casprings (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

1RR
User:MelanieN, just because DS apply doesn't mean 1RR applies, right? See here.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's best probably for all of us to be on the safe side. I've gone and reverted myself per good faith gesture and attempt at talk page discussion. Sagecandor (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's nice of you, but the link I gave in my last comment is quite clear that 1RR doesn't apply here.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I hope you're right. But in any event, regardless, I'd much rather discuss, and add back later, then edit myself, and keep it in. There's no urgency. :) Talking things out politely on the talk page is a good thing! Sagecandor (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it is best, for myself at least (admin setting a good example and all that), to strictly observe 1RR- one revert or series of reverts per 24 hours - on all DS tagged articles. Sometimes I forget and then I self-revert. Thanks for the good faith gesture; not necessary since I don't think you had any 1RR issue here. Anyhow, let's talk about the See also section above. --MelanieN (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed ! Sagecandor (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

People should not be afraid of the "R" in BRD in the mistaken belief that 1RR applies here. BRD is an important process which shouldn't be truncated unnecessarily to "B" alone. That said, I'm all for talking politely.🙂&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, it does make one kinda afraid sometimes. :( Sagecandor (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Kept two in See also
Kept two in See also as relevant.

Removed the rest.

The Dismissal of James Comey --> directly relevant to topic of Efforts to impeach Donald Trump. Sagecandor (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Sagecandor is referring to this edit by me, removing links from the "See also" section that I perceived as unrelated to the subject of the article. (I have actually reverted that edit now, per DS, because I realized I had already made a revert today.) First, my reason for removing them: I had noticed that the See also sections of many Trump articles were getting overloaded, often with links to a book or some such thing that had really no relation to the subject. So I have trimmed the See also sections of a dozen pages including this one.


 * As for this particular article: Sagecandor restored two of links, Efforts to impeach Donald Trump and The Case for Impeachment. We can discuss this. To me it is POV to include those in this article. Maybe the one article, Efforts to impeach, could be included at some future time if 1) impeachment becomes a real possibility and 2) the firing of Comey becomes an issue in that effort. For now I think they are both inappropriate. What do others think? --MelanieN (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why you feel that way? Sagecandor (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought I just did. Can you explain why you think they are appropriate? --MelanieN (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I explained, above that they are both directly relevant to the topic. I don't think a simple link in a See also section can be POV. Otherwise are you advocating removal of Efforts to impeach Donald Trump from all other articles on Wikipedia, because you feel its very title of name of choice of the article is POV? That doesn't make sense. Sagecandor (talk) 00:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * They MIGHT become directly relevant, if events turn out to connect them. For example if somebody proposes an impeachment motion and mentions the firing of Comey, then it would be appropriate to say so in this article, and at that point a link in the article to "Efforts" would be appropriate (in which case it would not be listed under "see also"). At this point I don't imagine there are very many articles where a "See also" link to "Efforts to impeach Donald Trump" would be appropriate. --MelanieN (talk) 00:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

"Comey's assurances to Trump"
I see there has been quite a bit of activity in this section recently. There was an attempt to add "alleged," but these three assurances are no longer "alleged"; Comey specifically confirmed them. I am not very happy with the first paragraph citing sources that Trump's claim was "false", since it has now been confirmed. I wanted to put the confirmation in that same paragraph, directly rebutting the "false" claim, but I see it has been moved to the end of the section per chronological order. But overall, are we now happy with that section? --MelanieN (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually I do have one comment: I am not sure what this sentence Comey added that Trump's private comments urging him to drop the Flynn probe led him to tell his Justice Department colleagues they needed to be careful.[117] is doing in the middle of the "assurances" section. Is there some better place to put it? --MelanieN (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I have for some time been concerned with the detailed comments in the intro section on these assurances. The assurances have no effect on the dismissal, one way or the other. They are a statement thrown into the termination letter by Trump for his own personal concerns with the FBI Russia investigation. Just because they have been tacked on in the termination letter should not be given excessive attention in the intro. Enthusiast01 (talk) 09:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Recordings
Shouldn't we somehow combine the "Possible existence of audio recordings" section and the material in "Messaging from the White House" which largely duplicates it? --MelanieN (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of 2017 Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice team for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2017 Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice team is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/2017 Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice team until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Nominator's note: I feel that having a stand-alone article for this is WP:UNDUE, and do not expect people on the talk page to be interested in merge proposals. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Dershowitz
Volunteer Marek recently deleted renowned Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz's opinion on the legal implications of Comey's testimony (Dershowitz says it's hardly unusual for Presidents to excercise prosecutorial discretion as Trump is said to have done with regard to Flynn), explaining: "that one is undue and the quote is questionable encyclopedic value". Given the dozens of similar sources in this article's Commentary section, including Dershowitz—twice—it's hard to see this as anything other than a POV-driven deletion, but I will assume good faith and politely ask Volunteer Marek to expand upon his edit summary here. In particular—and maybe I'm wildly off-base, but—I would like to pose the following question: Is Dershowitz's claim that Donald Trump's disclosure of classified information to Russia is "the most serious charge ever made against a sitting president" somehow more "encyclopedic" than the text under dispute here? (If anything, one might say the latter charge is rather hyperbolic ... but I'm not advocating removing it, only that Wikipedia maintains some form of consistency).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, Volunteer Marek has just clarified that "really, i think the previous text is sufficient to explain the position, no need for what is essentially a block quote," which is certainly a defensible opinion, though I welcome others. In particular, the NPR snippet lacks the full legal reasoning Dershowitz presents in his editorial. While I'm willing to negotiate the length of excerpt, I think that presenting Dershowitz's in-depth argument actually has greater encyclopedic value than a brief snippet devoid of context. But if we're not at a point where we can agree on that, then, of course, I will have no choice but to drop the matter.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Dershowitz is already mentioned in the article and expanding it further makes it undue. Furthermore, block quotes are generelly unencyclopedic. How often do you open EB and find an article which is a bunch of block quotes strung together. Quotes need to be paraphrased. Which has already been done - like I said, Dershowitz is already in the article. Also, that particular quote, plucked out of context is hard to understand - what does this hypothetical have to do with anything? To understand the quote you need background and articulation otherwise it's just confusing. But adding the background and articulation would make it even more undue. And at the end of the day it's just not necessary.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your thoughtful reply. To be honest, part of the issue here may well lie with competing editing styles; over time, I have developed a tendency to write text that mirrors the cited RS as closely as possible, with lengthy quotes where that is necessary to prevent copyvios. It's certainly understandable that you would prefer a more concise synopsis. If I were to replace the existing NPR citation with a reference to the aforementioned editorial, condensed down to "Dershowitz argued that Trump's instructions to Comey were not illegal due to the President's broad prosecutorial discretion," would that address your concerns about paraphrasing and due weight, or would you still consider such an edit problematic? Thanks in advance for your consideration,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I understand. I use quotes occasionally myself when I think someone's gonna revert on the pretext that it isn't "exactly" as in the source. But to the extent possible they should be avoided. So yeah I'd be fine with the "Dershowitz argued that Trump's instructions to Comey were not illegal due to the President's broad prosecutorial discretion". But could you find a different source for it? Thanks. Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Because it's from Fox? I would have thought that the author mattered more than the publisher, but, certainly, I will see if I can find similar comments by Dershowitz from another source when I have the time.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Find a source that's not Dershowitz. Otherwise it's UNDUE. SPECIFICO  talk  14:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, hello, SPECIFICO. I'm afraid your short comment is rather confusing to me, as it appears to be utterly disconnected from the conversation above. Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz is widely cited as a RS on Wikipedia, and his attributed opinions on legal matters are probably not the sort of thing that can be dismissed with a single invocation of WP:UNDUE. Incidentally, if you feel so strongly about Dershowitz, are you going to remove Dershowitz's claim that Donald Trump's disclosure of classified information to Russia is "the most serious charge ever made against a sitting president," which seems much farther removed from his area of expertise? Surely you would not suggest that Dershowitz is reliable and DUE for criticism, and only criticism, of President Trump? Perhaps if you could elaborate ... TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * With the exception of this Tweet—"Of course Pres can violate obstruction law-- by bribing, lying to FBI, destroying evidence-- but NOT by merely exercising his const powers"—I've been unable to find another source where Dershowitz expresses his view as directly as he does in the Fox editorial. To be perfectly honest, I think Wikipedia policy is clear that the author matters as much or more than the publisher in a case like this, and Fox is hardly the subject of a Daily Mail-style ban, but—while I think the sentence I proposed should be added to achieve a more balanced summary of the legal community's sharply conflicting assessments—I will wait for the time being to see if there are any other opinions on citing Dershowitz in this particular context, and to give SPECIFICO more time to explain what she meant by her comment above, if she wishes to do so.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Dershowitz can say whatever he wants, but it is still just HIS OPINION. While opinions do bare some relevance, and are allowed with appropriate inline attributions, how much WP:Weight does HIS OPINION deserve, in your view? If he deserves more, do other OPINIONS deserve more as well? Where does it end? See WP:BALANCE and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV - Sincerely, DN (talk) 06:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think Dershowitz deserves at least one sentence. Given the size of this article's "Commentary" section, I do not think a sentence would violate WP:DUE. In fact, because Dershowitz is already cited in this article—twice—I think that point has already been conceded by the community as a whole, if not by SPECIFICO.
 * I have suggested adding the following text under "Comey testimony and obstruction of justice": "Dershowitz argued that Trump's instructions to Comey were not illegal due to the President's broad prosecutorial discretion." However, some might contend that the two existing references to Dershowitz render a third WP:UNDUE. In that case, I would remove "Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz said that 'it's a very, very high bar to get over obstruction of justice for a president,'" which is from an earlier source preceding Comey's testimony and is relatively unclear as to why the bar is so high. (The other mention of Dershowitz consists of the two words "total nonsense," with which Dershowitz dismisses a Republican talking point. Considering that the latter quote touches on a completely separate topic than obstruction, and is very succinct, I think it could remain alongside Dershowitz's comments on obstruction, as indeed it has already for quite some time.)
 * Note that Laurence Tribe, another Harvard Law professor who strongly disagrees with Dershowitz on this point, is currently allocated three sentences, and has never been challenged as WP:UNDUE. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, no?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting trading out one sentence for another? DN (talk) 08:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, if necessary to resolve any concerns about WP:WEIGHT.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

It's now been a few days, and SPECIFICO still hasn't explained why Dershowitz is inherently WP:UNDUE, unlike the myriad of commentators cited in this article's "Commentary" section. Meanwhile, Volunteer Marek has not clarified his earlier statement that the content would be fine, but not unless I replace the source (Dershowitz's Fox editorial) with another Dershowitz commentary. I contend that moving the goalpost from Dershowitz to Fox, if that is indeed Volunteer Marek's intent, has essentially no merit as a rationale for keeping Dershowitz out of the article, and remind Volunteer Marek that (while the author is of principal importance when dealing with an editorial) he recently failed to have Fox blacklisted at WP:RSN. As regards SPECIFICO, I contend that I—like all good-faith contributors—deserve at least some response, some concrete objection that I can respond to—and that, if SPECIFICO is unable or unwilling to provide any such response at this time, her disapproval should carry no weight. Since this page does not appear to be governed by the "provision that keeps on giving" requirement that no challenged edit can be reinstated without consensus, I intend to add the sentence that I proposed above relatively shortly.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Undue is pretty simple. Dershowitz is an iconoclast and in this case his view does not represent the weight of mainstream thinking or even a significant minority view. Nobody's supporting your proposal. Argument to authority is eminently empty in this case.   SPECIFICO  talk  02:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity TTAAC, and I personally don't feel strongly one way or the other about the quote, why do you feel it is so important to get this Dershowitz reaction in the article? How does this quote in particular give the reader a greater understanding of the Comey firing? I actually think the article is far too long as it is and overflowing with undue material, and I agree with Volunteer Marek on this one astonishingly enough lol. Hidden Tempo (talk) 02:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If SPECIFICO means to suggest that Alan Dershowitz is WP:FRINGE, then I very much disagree, although I do appreciate her responding. In any case, if I'm getting opposition from Hidden Tempo, perhaps I really have no choice but to withdraw this motion for the time being.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of name info
There has been lots of discussion over mentioning the name "Tuesday Night Massacre" in the article. It has been discussed in a few different places in different contexts (in fact some individuals attempted to use that phrase as an excuse to delete this article).

For the record: This phrase is widely used and notable. Certain individuals have attempted to purport that this is an obscure phrase that was invented by a random WP editor. However the widespread usage of this name has been well established:
 * WP discussions:
 * Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_May_10
 * Talk:Dismissal_of_James_Comey
 * Usage by the media:
 * Jackson Sun (May 13)
 * Times Argus (May 13)
 * U.S. News (May 12)
 * Boston Herald (May 11)
 * Slate (May 11)
 * Fox News (May 11)
 * Wall Street Journal (May 10)
 * Fortune (May 9)
 * The Irish Times
 * Bloomberg News
 * Mediate
 * LA Times
 * SF Chronicle
 * Philadelphia Inquirer
 * ,, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
 * Discussions of trending in social media:
 * 
 * 
 * 

Nevertheless, it seems there is an agenda by some individuals to continue trying to hide this name from Wikipedia.

-- MC 2605:6000:ec16:c000:38c1:c602:9adc:a4c7 (talk) 02:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Survey
I am requesting feedback on the following question: "Should the article mention the name Tuesday Night Massacre in the lead section?" -- MC 2605:6000:ec16:c000:38c1:c602:9adc:a4c7 (talk) 02:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Mention it - The name Tuesday Night Massacre is widely used by the media and the general public. Whether or not this name is fair is irrelevant. Its notability is fact and hiding it is introducing deliberate bias. -- MC 2605:6000:ec16:c000:38c1:c602:9adc:a4c7 (talk) 02:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, not in the lead section. Your very first source is an opinion piece in the Jackson Sun.  Opinion pieces are mere primary sources per WP:OR, so you need to focus on reliable secondary sources to be persuasive here.  Per WP:OTHERNAMES, "When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article...."  The title of the present article is not a name, and therefore significant alternatives need not be mentioned, and surely should not be in bold.  Go ahead and mention this buzzword in the article body if you like.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that wasn't a primary source. Not all of these are sources to be used in the article. I was simply showing notability. But there are many secondary sources listed as well. WP:OTHERNAMES does not say "If you choose not to use the article name in the lead sentence then alternative names should not be mentioned" so I don't know what your point is. -- MC 2605:6000:ec16:c000:38c1:c602:9adc:a4c7 (talk) 03:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERNAMES says that when the title is not a name, then significant alternative designations for the topic need not be mentioned in the article, much less with bold lettering in the lead sentence.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I think it should be mentioned somewhere, but I don't think the lede is the proper place; the #Media commentary section is probably better. Its use has been dropping since the initial news burst. ansh 666 06:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If consensus is to include in the lede, I'd prefer wording like "sometimes referred to as", since not everyone uses the phrase and some sources actually use this kind of language themselves when talking about it. ansh 666 05:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * While the comparison with Nixon's historical Saturday Night Massacre has been widespread, the moniker "Tuesday Night Massacre" itself has not endured beyond emotional reports on the first couple days of the affair. For that reason, it is not lead-worthy and should only be mentioned briefly in the "Media commentary" section. — JFG talk 07:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Mention, but not in Lede - Think I concur with User:ansh666 on this one. We don't really know if moniker's like this will stick until a long time after-the-fact. NickCT (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Mention in lead: The overwhelming amount of sources that deemed it the "Tuesday Night Massacre" seems sufficient to include. Whether or not its an appropriate pejorative is up for the reader to decide. Kamalthebest (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Exclude from lead, and only include in body with extreme caution. The sourcing appears to be extremely thin. I went through quite a few of the listed sources and none of them were reliable non-opinion sources that adopted the term in their own voice. I could see the words "Tuesday Night Massacre" being included in the body of the article in the context of a quotation of a noteworthy opinion, with appropriate in-text attribution. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No and Invalid RFC - looks like false information here and preloaded the arguments so ... no. Factually it fails as Google is hitting 4 million plus about his dismissal -- and only 27 thousand include the phrase "Tuesday Night Massacre".   Procedurally it fails because WP:RFC statement should be supposed to be neutral and brief -- not start as an unsupported conclusion "For the record: This phrase is widely used and notable." and "the widespread usage of this name has been well established", and then further leading the discussion by listing a couple dozen offbeat places it was found.  (Even listed the same Irish times opinion piece twice.)   Come back as a neutral question and present both sides position as best you can -- and if it's trying to claim 'dominant' then stick to more mainstream media and academic sources.  Minor remark by portion of opinion writers, maybe; not significant enough to mention, maybe... Markbassett (talk) 00:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't mention in the lead. It's a mildly interesting bit of information, but more about journalism than about the topic at hand. Watergate parallels speak for themselves, so let us not interrupt them. --Kiz o r  10:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Mention in the lead. It's an accurate description of some of the media's reporting of this event, if preceded by something such as "sometimes referred to as..."—OhioOakTree (talk) 03:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't mention in lead - Summoned by bot. It is a POV description that is clearly WP:UNDUE. Meatsgains (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Mention in lede It is in the headline of the Finiancial Times - not an opinion piece and extremely high quality publication. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 02:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's actually an opinion piece. It reads like an opinion piece, and the author, Edward Luce, is a "columnist and commentator" for FT. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Mention in lede, as it is a noteworthy and encyclopedic comparison used in many sources. Sagecandor (talk) 23:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Lead overhaul of August 4, 2017.
The lead has been overhauled as it was way too detailed, and did not meet with Wikipedia's lead standards.

Here is a list of removed text from the lead:

...and also noted that Comey had told him on three separate occasions that he (Trump) was not under FBI investigation. According to The Washington Post, sources stated that this and other assertions Trump made about events leading up to the dismissal were false, and Trump subsequently implied that there may be tapes of Trump's conversations with Comey. Comey later confirmed that he had informed Trump he was not under investigation, in testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee.

After the dismissal, Trump said that he had been considering the dismissal since the election, and had experienced an "erosion of confidence" because Comey was "not doing a good job", pointing to Comey's recent congressional testimony as problematic, and also basing the dismissal partly on a recommendation from the United States Department of Justice alleging that Comey had mishandled the investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server. These justifications were criticized by some Democrats and political commentators, and Trump later sought to further explain his decision to dismiss Comey, saying that Comey was a "showboat" and "grandstander", while Trump also indicated that the dismissal was connected to dissatisfaction with the story about himself and Russian interference in the election. During a meeting on May 10 with two Russian officials, the New York Times reported that Trump boasted about firing Comey, describing Comey as "crazy, a real nut job" and saying to them that he (Trump) "faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off."

According to Comey associates, Trump had asked Comey in January to pledge loyalty to him, to which Comey demurred, instead offering him "honesty", and when pressed further by Trump, "honest loyalty". Trump denied that he asked Comey for his loyalty, but says such a discussion would not necessarily have been inappropriate. However, House Speaker Paul Ryan disagreed stating that it's "obviously" inappropriate for the president to ask the FBI director for loyalty. Several sources within the FBI have stated that the White House's firing of Comey was a culmination of high-level efforts to interfere in the Russia investigation. Appearing before Congress two days after the dismissal, Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe testified: "There has been no effort to impede our investigation to date", later adding "I cannot comment on any conversations that the Director may have had with the president". Comey accepted an invitation from the Senate Intelligence Committee to testify at a public hearing, and later did so.

On May 16, 2017, The New York Times reported on the existence of a memo written by Comey in February after a conversation with Trump, in which the FBI director described Trump's request that the FBI shut down the investigation into Trump associate Michael T. Flynn, who had resigned as National Security Adviser the previous day. The White House denied the allegation. Comey personally believes that the White House tried to get him to halt the investigation.

Comey's termination was controversial, with some comparing it to President Richard Nixon's termination of Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox in the 1973 Saturday Night Massacre, while Bob Woodward said the matter was not yet comparable to Watergate. On May 17, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, as acting Attorney General, appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel to oversee the Russia investigation.

'''Feel free to paste any the removed text above into the ARTICLE where it is more appropriate, and not the lead. Thanks! :D''' --M.W.B.A.B. 21:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Excellent job . You're a braver editor than I - that wall of text was way too intimidating for me to dive into lol. Good summary, maybe could use some slight tweaks, but overall this is a massive improvement. Thanks again. Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! I really appreciate your feedback! And yes, feel free to tweak the lead! :D --M.W.B.A.B. 21:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I completely disagree with this change. Maybe the lede was overly detailed, but the lede currently in the article fails the most basic requirement of a lede: if fails to summarize or represent the content of the article. To read the lede as it is now, one would think that he was dismissed at the request of the Justice Department because he was not doing good job. That is a total distortion, leaving out all the subsequent corrections to the reasons for dismissal, as well as the reaction and the consequences. If you don't promptly restore some of that content, I will. --MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Did DOJ ever retract or correct any of its memorandum in support of dismissal?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Go for it, ! --M.W.B.A.B. 21:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with Melanie and have restored the prior version. Maybe we should make significant edits to the lead section -- I'm not sure. One thing that I am sure of, however, was that this massive cutting and rewriting was not an improvement because it failed to summarize the article. As Melanie said, the causes, subsequent revisions of the stated reason for the firing by Trump and his spokespeople, the political consequences, etc. are all pivotal elements of the story that the lead must reflect. If significant restructuring is desired, it should be discussed here and analyzed piece-by-piece. Neutralitytalk 21:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, there's a lot of overlap between this lead and James Comey's lead, which extensive discussion is still ongoing with no consensus. Since this article is a standalone focusing on the dismissal itself, to summarize the article we would need to list all the major reasons in the lead. It may look a bit ridiculous, but a numbered list would work. There's what, at least 10 reasons that were given? Rod Rosenstein recommended the firing/DOJ letter, not doing a good job, showboat, grand-stander, Trump letter/Comey wouldn't publicly clear Trump, NYT "ease the pressure" story...I'm sure there's a few I left out. Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * is right, there's a significant part of the Comey saga missing from the new lead. I have attempted to summarize the controversy; feel free to improve. — JFG talk 21:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I had an edit conflict with your mass restore, sorry. I stiill believe a short version is much better for readers, and we should work to improve from here. As said, some of the more detailed deleted material can go back into the article proper. — JFG talk 21:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The original (and now current) lede isn't very good either, contains a lot of extraneous material not directly related to the subject. I am working, offline, on a possible new lede and will post it here for discussion. I invite others to do the same. --MelanieN (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, actually, I see that the bloated and extraneous lede has been replaced by a much more direct and to-the-point paragraph. Who did that? JFG, was it you? Good work! We may tweak it a little but you got the basics in. --MelanieN (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Credit is due to for attacking the monster; I just tweaked what they wrote and added missing material. — JFG talk 22:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks and ! :D  --M.W.B.A.B. 22:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks to MelanieN for the revert. To the editors who were overhauling this article please be more thorough and do not leave broken references all throughout the article without correcting them as was the case in the Aug 4 versions.   Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Can we not just transplant some of this into the James Comey lead? There's a highly POV and undue sentence in the lead there about how it's supposedly Comey's fault that Clinton lost, which a few editors just simply do not want to let go of. Since support for this version was reached so quickly, perhaps we can just use this material for the main article's lead as well. Hidden Tempo (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * @ - "To editors who were overhauling this article please be more thorough..." - The "under construction" template was there for a reason, lmao, and I created this section in the talk page for that very same reason too. I apologize for the broken references, wasn't really a big priority at the time, I'll definitely be more careful next time, thanks for letting me know. --M.W.B.A.B. 22:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) How about a slight expansion of the second paragraph to something like this? "In a termination letter, Trump said the dismissal was based on a recommendation from the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, although he later conceded that he had intended all along to dismiss Comey regardless of any recommendation. Trump later offered other justifications for the firing, such as that Comey 'wasn't doing a good job' in leading the FBI, and that dismissing Comey had relieved the pressure Trump had felt because of the Russia investigation. After his dismissal, Comey caused a personal memo from February 2016 to be made public, describing what he said was a request by Trump to end the FBI's investigation into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. The dismissal, the memo, and Comey's subsequent testimony to a congressional committee led to accusations that Trump had attempted to obstruct justice. Shortly thereafter, former FBI Director Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel to lead the investigation into Russian meddling and related issues that Comey had supervised during his tenure." This does not contain any references, but it doesn't need to. We are talking about the lede. The references are in the text. --MelanieN (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds great, ! --M.W.B.A.B. 22:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That's more progress. I'd object to "conceded" which is editorializing, and "caused a personal memo from February 2016 to be made public" which is weaseling around "leaked it to the press" (and that's 2017 btw). My update, cutting some more repeats:
 * Further thoughts? — JFG talk 22:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm good with removing "conceded", it is a POV word. I'm not OK with the changes about the memo (one memo, not plural). I was deliberately avoiding "leaked" which implies something sneaky, or release of material you have no right to have; Trump made a big point out of "Comey is a leaker" implying there was something wrong or even illegal about it, but releasing your own material to the press is not "leaking" in my book. Can we come up with a more neutral and less stilted wording than "caused to be made public" that avoids "leaked"? Also, several factual objections; Comey did not release (or "leak") actual memos (which have still not been made public), he just had someone describe their contents to the NYT. And Comey did not put out information from "memos," plural; the NYT report was based on one single memo, the Feb.14 one. I'm OK with your rewording of what the memo said. I don't really like Trump was "suspected" of obstruction of justice, that sounds like something law enforcement would say; if you don't like "accused" can we come up with something that means "some people said it"? --MelanieN (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. How about this? After his dismissal, a February 2017 personal memo by Comey was made available to the press, in which Comey says Trump asked him to "let go" of the investigation against former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. --MelanieN (talk) 23:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I came up with this reworded version of your suggestion,, with links to other articles. "In a termination letter, Trump noted that the dismissal was based on a recommendation from both the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, although he later conceded that he had intended to dismiss Comey regardless of any recommendation ever since he became the president-elect. Trump later offered other justifications for the dismissal, such as that Comey 'wasn't doing a good job' in leading the FBI, and that dismissing Comey had relieved the pressure Trump had felt because of the Russia investigation. After his dismissal, Comey caused a personal memo from February 2016 to be made public, describing what he said was a request by Trump to end the FBI's investigation into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. The dismissal, the memo, and Comey's subsequent testimony to a congressional committee led to accusations that Trump had attempted to obstruct justice, in which former FBI Director Robert Mueller was appointed shortly after as special counsel to lead the investigation into Russian meddling and related issues that Comey had supervised during his tenure."What do you think? --M.W.B.A.B. 23:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, M.W.B.A.B., but let's work from JFG's rewrite. BTW JFG, here's a grammar nitpick: This phrase ...such as Comey "not doing a good job" in leading the FBI, and that dismissing Comey had relieved the pressure Trump had felt because of the Russia investigation, is not grammatically parallel. I suggest ...such as that Comey was "not doing a good job" in leading the FBI, and that dismissing Comey had relieved the pressure Trump had felt because of the Russia investigation. --MelanieN (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Got it! :D --M.W.B.A.B. 23:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Got it! :D --M.W.B.A.B. 23:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, I was puzzled when an article was created about Comey memos at the time when only one memo was being quoted in the press. And I still believe that sub-article should be merged into this one, instead of repeating lots of contents and day-by-day media reports. Bygones… OK, new version:

Added something about credibility of Comey in addition to "not doing a good job", that was quite a notable attack by Trump. Quoted him on calling the investigation a "witch hunt" too. I get your grammar point and I also avoided "such as that" which looks odd to my non-native eyes. Finally, if we want to avoid the direct word "leaked", we must explain how the press obtained the memo (which we learned later in Comey's testimony, so there's no problem telling it as a fact here). Attempted to avoid the vague "was suspected" by saying who accused him (media and politicians, not the investigators yet; that would be a serious accusation under law). Are we good to go? — JFG talk 23:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Excellent. I endorse this version. Oh, except for a request for an Oxford comma: In light of the dismissal, the memo and Comey's testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee in June 2017, ... I'd like a comma after "the memo," --MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. re: "non-native": Coulda fooled me! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I support the change too! :D Nice job, ! --M.W.B.A.B. 13:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Oxford comma endorsed!  — JFG talk 14:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Oops, I missed this. Your original rewrite said "…and that dismissing Comey had relieved the pressure Trump had felt because of the Russia investigation." That was excellent. Somehow, in your re-rewrite, that got watered down to "He further claimed that dismissing Comey would relieve some pressure of the Russia investigation." IMO your previous wording was much better: "had relieved the pressure" is a much more accurate reflection of what Trump said than "would relieve some pressure". And it should be clear that it was Trump himself who was feeling the pressure; the later version gives no indication what pressure was being applied or to whom. What Trump actually said was "I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off." That's pretty clear about who felt the pressure and what the effect of the dismissal was. I'd propose using your original sentence in the article. Sorry for not noticing this earlier. --MelanieN (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, he first said that the pressure was off, but very quickly it appeared that the pressure only increased when Mueller took over; this is why I used a hypothetical. Sources use both. I'd be happy to change "would relieve some pressure" to "would relieve the pressure", better conveying Trump's hopes at the time. Or we could say, perhaps even more accurately, "hoped it would relieve the pressure" instead of "claimed it had relieved the pressure". What do you think? — JFG talk 17:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Clearly he thought at the time that the dismissal HAD relieved the pressure. Not that he hoped it would, but that he thought it had done so. As you point out he was very wrong about that - it only increased the pressure. But we are talking about his rationale at the time of the firing, at which time he clearly thought he had dealt with the problem and "taken off" the pressure. He hasn't ever taken it back or said he was wrong (not that he ever does). I think it would be OR for us to change his confident belief that he had dealt with the problem to a kinda-sorta hope that it might mitigate it. Also "the pressure" is no better than "some pressure" unless it makes clear that he meant pressure on himself. Maybe we can do a merge of the two sentences. How about "He further said he believed that dismissing Comey would relieve the pressure he felt because of the Russia investigation." --MelanieN (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I like your suggestion. I would cut "He further said" filler, and just write "He believed that dismissing Comey would relieve the pressure he had felt from the Russia investigation." Note "had felt" for grammar points. OK? — JFG talk 19:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I like this. Go ahead and do it. I notice that some other people are chiming in, both at the article and below, so let's take a look at their thoughts and modify if needed. Let's say we're done with this discussion and enacting what we worked out, but other suggestions may be forthcoming. --MelanieN (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ . And ok to close this thread; further changes can be discussed below. — JFG talk 21:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Please read more carefully
Wikipedia currently claims that "Trump, on several occasions, inquired whether there was an investigation into the President himself, to which Comey replied each time that there was not." In fact, Comey's written testimony actually suggests that each of these assurances was unprompted: [...] prior to the January 6 meeting, I discussed with the FBI's leadership team whether I should be prepared to assure President-Elect Trump that we were not investigating him personally. That was true; we did not have an open counter-intelligence case on him. We agreed I should do so if circumstances warranted. During our one-on-one meeting at Trump Tower, based on President Elect Trump's reaction to the briefing and without him directly asking the question, I offered that assurance. [...] During the dinner, the President returned to the salacious material I had briefed him about on January 6, and, as he had done previously, expressed his disgust for the allegations and strongly denied them. He said he was considering ordering me to investigate the alleged incident to prove it didn't happen. I replied that he should give that careful thought because it might create a narrative that we were investigating him personally, which we weren't, and because it was very difficult to prove a negative. [...] Then the President asked why there had been a congressional hearing about Russia the previous week -- at which I had, as the Department of Justice directed, confirmed the investigation into possible coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign. I explained the demands from the leadership of both parties in Congress for more information, and that Senator Grassley had even held up the confirmation of the Deputy Attorney General until we briefed him in detail on the investigation. '''I explained that we had briefed the leadership of Congress on exactly which individuals we were investigating and that we had told those Congressional leaders that we were not personally investigating President Trump. I reminded him I had previously told him that.''' He repeatedly told me, "We need to get that fact out." There's no shame in misreading a source or falling prey to confirmation bias, but hopefully now that I have pointed out this error, I will be allowed to correct it with minimal acrimony. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Corrected.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This falls under original research based on primary source. The secondary source we had in there (which I think you removed) stated: "The former FBI director, James Comey, plans to tell senators Thursday in highly anticipated testimony about a wide-ranging effort by President Donald Trump to influence the FBI’s investigation into Russia’s meddling in the election, including repeatedly asking Comey to announce that the president was not personally under investigation."
 * Now, since that's a source about something which was going to happen, and which has since happened, it should be updated. But that update should be done on the basis of secondary sources, not our own interpretation of the primary source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "Repeatedly asking Comey to announce that the president was not personally under investigation" does not imply anything about the original three assurances that Trump subsequently asked Comey to make public. Again, this is a case of a source being inaccurately parsed in Wikipedia's voice—you have just proved as much. Sure, we can look for secondary sources if you really are concerned about using Comey's testimony as a source for what Comey testified (I'm not sure that that qualifies as WP:OR; it's more like WP:PRIMARY), but hopefully we can all agree that factual mistakes should be corrected and should not be restored.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right. I see that the following sentence addresses the issue. However, that sentence - " Comey stated that Trump requested that he publicly declare this so that his image could be improved, but Comey said he told the President he would need to have approval from the Attorney General's office for reasons of legality" - omits the reason given in many sources, which is that Comey did not want to "have to take it back later" (paraphrasing). But as far as your edit goes, I agree with you, my bad.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Merging Comey memos
Reading this article and Comey memos in parallel, I noticed that almost everything that is written in the memos article is also written here. Two solutions: trim this article down or merge the other article here. Given that the Comey memos are just an element of the Comey dismissal saga and its consequences, I would advise a merge. Asking for community sentiment before doing the work. — JFG talk 17:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - I have thought the same for a long time. I see that the Memos article has never been subject to a deletion discussion or merge discussion (unlike many of these Trump spinoff articles), so there is no previous consensus against it. I agree that the Comey memos are merely a sidebar to his dismissal, although they might in the future become evidence in some other matter. But that's WP:CRYSTAL thinking; something like that could be dealt with when and if it happens. I think a section here containing what we know about the memos, and a redirect from the Memos title, would be an improvement. I do agree that we need a discussion (I would say at least a week) and a consensus before actually carrying out the merge. --MelanieN (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Having two articles with duplicate content is a sure sign the articles should be merged. Octoberwoodland (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Same as above. --M.W.B.A.B. 20:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I actually think this article should be merged into James Comey as well now that the dust has settled, but I suspect that would probably be met with resistance. Until then, strong support for the merge of Comey memos into this one. Hidden Tempo (talk) 22:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment JFG, it looks as if you have started merging material already? That doesn't hurt anything, but this discussion should not be closed, or the memos article made into a redirect, until a decent comment period has passed. --MelanieN (talk) 02:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Fully merged. Hey, I'm quick sometimes, sorry … Looked like a SNOW case anyway. — JFG talk 02:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You are too damn quick. This discussion hadn't even gone on for 48 hours. I said at the beginning, and I said again just now, allow a week for discussion. It's true you have done this kind of thing before - decide after 12 or 24 hours to just go ahead and implement something. You need to stop that. It wouldn't have hurt anything to wait a few days. Sometimes WP:Process is important. Sorry, but that was way out of line. --MelanieN (talk) 04:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, this was not a formal process, I figured we got enough of a pulse to go ahead. I could have done a bold merge in the first place but as I said in my first comment here, I was "asking for community sentiment before doing the work". Now look on the bright side: I've given some structure to the "Comey memos" section, so that a new reader can actually make sense of it all instead of being carried haphazardly through accumulated day-by-day reports. The rest of the article needs some kind of the same treatment, but I'm not volunteering this week: it's time-consuming work! However, on a personal note, I'm sorry I overlooked your recommendation to hold on for a week; will pay more attention to your wise words next time. — JFG talk 10:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article.
This is now applied to this article. Doug Weller talk 14:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Trying to summarize the Justice Dept. memos in the lede
After all this discussion and tweaking every word in the lede, with particular attention to the reasons for dismissal, you unilaterally went ahead and added the bolded part: "Trump dismissed Comey by way of a termination letter citing recommendations from Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein who said that Comey's reputation and credibility had been damaged.  I object to that phrase and have removed it for discussion.

Checking your two sources: I don't find that wording or reasoning anywhere in the NYT (Haberman) story. What I do find is, "In letters released Tuesday evening (the day of the dismissal), Mr. Trump explained the firing by citing Mr. Comey’s handling of the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server." The Newsweek (Glum) report does point out that the Rosenstein memo begins by saying, "over the past year ... the FBI's reputation and credibility have suffered substantial damage, and it has affected the entire Department of Justice." (Note: that quote from the memo says the FBI's reputation and credibility, not Comey's as in Anything's addition.) The Newsweek report then describes how Rosenstein cited Comey's handling of the Clinton email investigation. That was also the issue that most Reliable Sources reported as the meat of Rosenstein's recommendation. We would be distorting the lede if we pretend the Rosenstein memo was not about that issue.

IMO we shouldn't try to summarize the two Justice department memos in a phrase. I think this phrase should stay deleted. I see it was added to the article text, where it should probably also be removed, as it is not well sourced but rather contrary to most reporting. And I want to reiterate my frequently stated objection against people adding new, undiscussed material to the lede, in defiance of the current careful attention at the talk page to every phrase in the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for mentioning this, I should have been more precise, and have edited the article body to say "Rosenstein's memorandum said that the FBI's 'reputation and credibility' had been damaged under Comey's tenure". The source says:

He hurt the FBI's reputation

A memorandum prepared by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein recommending Comey's termination kicks off with the fact that "over the past year ... the FBI's reputation and credibility have suffered substantial damage, and it has affected the entire Department of Justice."


 * I agree with VM to the extent that the lead should give at least some slight summary of Rosenstein's letter, some slight idea of why Rosenstein and Sessions recommended that Comey be fired. So, I strongly support saying in the lead, "Trump dismissed Comey by way of a termination letter citing recommendations from Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein who said that the FBI's reputation and credibility had been damaged under Comey's tenure."  This is the lead reason given by the cited source.  It is also entirely consistent with Trump's own statement mentioned in the lead about credibility ("Subsequently, Trump criticized Comey's leadership and credibility at the FBI...").&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It is the lead reason, in that it is the introductory sentence. It is also maybe 5% of the letter, maybe less. The letter expounds in great detail about the Clinton email handling, and that is what almost all Reliable Sources have cited as the reason given by Rosenstein. If you want I can cite a bunch of references but I doubt if it's necessary; we have all read the coverage and we all know that's what it was about. I don't think we need to try in the lede to explain what Rosenstein said in a several page letter and what Sessions said in a cover letter. But if we do it needs to reflect the WP:WEIGHT of what Reliable Sources said. Anyhow, I would like to see some recognition by you that while there is all this discussion going on about the exact wording of the lede, you should not simply insert stuff without proposing it here first. This is not the first time you have done this, and not the first time I have reprimanded you for it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * User:MelanieN, "reprimand" is rather a harsh word isn't it? I criticized you above for ignoring WP:Preserve, and not for the first time, but I have yet to see any recognition by you that WP:Preserve is Wikipedia policy that needs to be followed.  As for the lead not giving any hint about why Sessions and Rosenstein recommended what they did, the FBI's reputation and credibility were purportedly damaged because of Comey's handling of the Clinton matter, so the former is a concise summary of the latter.  They are not separate matters as you contend.  I thought a slight summary was a no-brainer in the lead, so I followed WP:Bold which is a Wikipedia guideline that seems to be applicable to the lead of this article, no?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Being "Bold" when you know everything in that area is under discussion, and people are carefully waiting for consensus before making a change, is not applicable. BRD (notice the order) refers to situations that are NOT under discussion, and only need to be discussed after someone reverts. There is no guideline that says DBR, i.e., there is ongoing discussion but be bold and ignore the fact that discussion is going on. --MelanieN (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No one had discussed inserting anything like what I inserted, AFAIK.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Everything about the reasons for dismissal has been under a microscope for weeks here. I see you are not repentant, but IMO that was out of line. Recognizing the intense interest here in that entire part of the article, would it have HURT anything to post here saying "I propose inserting such-and-such" before doing it? Don't you see everyone else here, including me, saying "I propose" and "I suggest" instead of simply doing it? --MelanieN (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You have not pointed to any discussion about inserting anything like what I inserted. I thought it was a no-brainer that the lead should give some brief hint about DOJ's reasons for supporting Comey's firing.  It's utterly absurd to say nothing about that in the lead.  Has anyone argued at this page for giving no hint in the lead about why DOJ supported the firing?  Do you dispute that DOJ argued that the FBI's reputation and credibility suffered substantial damage because of Comey's handling of HRC?  And do you think it's perfectly fine to delete reliably sourced pertinent information from this article and flush it down the memory hole despite WP:Preserve?  As I said above, "Thanks for mentioning" that it was the FBI's credibility and reputation at issue here (not just Comey's), but please relax, and perhaps consider WP:OWN.  I am not about to put this stuff back into the lead without a consensus here at the talk page, but it strikes me as highly POV for the lead to be totally silent about DOJ's reasons, while describing Trump's reasons, and I don't think the alignment between those reasons is an acceptable and neutral reason to omit the former.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've said my say. Time for others to weigh in. --MelanieN (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You say but you don't answer.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose – If we start listing reasons given in the 3-page Rosenstein memo, we'll end up with a bloated lede again. Such details are not immediately helpful for readers to comprehend the topic at hand. I'd leave this for the article body. Incidentally, I think the "regulars" here should start focusing their energy on improing and de-bloating the article body. We are now three months removed from the event and we can keep appropriate summaries of what turned out to be important, without the daily breakdown of sensationalist news, revelations and hypotheses. — JFG talk 18:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm intending to work on that - reducing the sections we mentioned above, in some cases BOLDly - but I may have to wait a little longer to get out of 1RR jail. :-( --MelanieN (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That's one of the beauties of Wikipedia: there is no "get out of jail free" card, even for trusted First Ladies of the Admin Corps… — JFG talk 20:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Seriously, ping me when you have a draft, I'm happy to play copyeditor. (Hint: nobody can 1RR your personal draft.) — JFG talk 20:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds like WP:OWN last word, etc. Edits should be multilateral. "Copyedits" introduce POV biases. SPECIFICO  talk  13:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously edits are multilateral. You are welcome to participate in the hard work of writing prose in a constructive way, instead of endlessly bloviating on talk pages and casting aspersions on everybody whose words you dislike. — JFG talk 13:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

How to trim the article
It has been suggested above that the article is too long ("bloated" was my term) and that we could trim sections such as "Media" and "Commentary" by at least half. It has also been suggested that the article is poorly organized. I would like to suggest some approaches to fixing these problems. --MelanieN (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

"Reactions" subsection
We have a "Reactions" subsection under "The dismissal". IMO it should be eliminated. It duplicates other sections of the article and should be combined with them. Half of it (4 paragraphs) is about reactions from the press; that should be merged into the "Media" subsection under "Commentary" and then greatly trimmed. We don't need to cite every editorial page and every pundit. Two paragraphs are about reactions from congress members and should be merged into the "Reactions from Congress" section. That section is already good at summarizing instead of quoting every individual congress member. The final paragraph is about White House reaction and should be merged into "Messaging from the White House". --MelanieN (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

"Boldly" taken actions
Good work! As the next "obvious" action, I'd recommend merging a largely duplicate portion about "tapes" in "Messaging from the White House" with the section "Possible existence of recordings", and trim the outcome. — JFG talk 20:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The "May 10 meeting with Russian officials" was largely duplicated in the "Based on other reasons" subsection of "Reasons for dismissal". I have combined them under "Reasons for dismissal".
 * The "Succession" section was way over-detailed and over-cited. I trimmed out the excess detail and placed the remaining paragraph under "Post-dismissal". --MelanieN (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Funny you should say that. In fact I had the same thought and I was actually working on a trim of the "existence of recordings" section. I was just about to insert the trimmed section, but now I can't because you made an intervening edit. Anyhow I hadn't noticed that it duplicates material in the "messaging" section. I do think it is worth maintaining as a separate subsection. Do you want to take a shot at merging the two? You'll find it at User:MelanieN/practice. Actually I will go ahead and work on it, but I can't insert it until tomorrow. Yesterday I was sternly warned, at my talk page, that I had to self-revert a few tweaks I had made to this article, because I had made a revert 10 minutes earlier which was separated from my tweaks by an intervening edit. Apparently we have some very strict interpreters of the 1RR guideline here. Others be warned.--MelanieN (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Trimming longstanding content is not a revert. There must be a short-term connection with someone else's edit (addition or deletion). Ask if in doubt. Sorry I have no time to help today. Good luck! — JFG talk 06:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Many Admins disagree with that POV and instead enforce the regulation according to WP:1RR as she is written. SPECIFICO  talk  00:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have asked this question at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring. No one has replied yet. --MelanieN (talk) 00:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There was a recent meta-discussion of this, not an enforcement matter, on the AE board. -- no resolution. SPECIFICO  talk  00:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * White House Messaging also include some material which is duplicative of the "other reasons" section. Do you want to go ahead and eliminate the duplication? I promise to stay out of your way at the article. --MelanieN (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I have pretty well dealt with the White House Messaging section. Or at least I am ready to deal with it, tomorrow. --MelanieN (talk) 23:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, I pruned and got rid of the duplication in "White House messaging" and "possible existence of recordings". That's probably all I can do for a while. --MelanieN (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * My suggestion for "Media' and "Commentary": as I have commented at some other articles, these sections tend to turn into "this legal expert said this; that legal expert said that" or "this newspaper said this, that newspaper said that" - without any kind of organization or summary or picking out the significant comments from the run-of-the-mill comments. There have been some articles where we have eliminated this kind of approach entirely. I await opinions as to how we should decide which opinions to retain - or whether to retain any of them except in summary. --MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I say omit. It's not like dissent on a philosophical or scientific finding. Adds nothing to the factual narrative. Appropriate interpretations can be integrated with the body of the article where required. SPECIFICO  talk  00:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There are not so many points of view expressed by all those commenters. Just list the various POVs and pick one strong source for each of them. That should take care of the bloat. I disagree with removing it all, because the sheer amount of commentary is what makes the event more notable than the dismissal of Sally Yates or other similar stories. — JFG talk 13:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Good way to introduce UNDUE fringe views with false equivalences. Find secondary RS overview of public reaction if you wish to consider such content.  SPECIFICO  talk  13:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Which of the commenters cited do you consider fringe? They should be easy to wipe out. The rest should be summarized as appropriate. — JFG talk 13:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * My comment related to the process and due weight. We don't just choose one statement from each POV regardless of their representation among RS or notable experts. That's how we end up with goofball self-promoting "commentators" and "expert" blogocrats. Criticism and commentary is much better integrated with article text only where appropriate and deemed significant by independent RS. Otherwise everyone gets 15 minutes of fame according to editors' OR selection of what tickles them.  SPECIFICO  talk  14:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That's all well understood for the general case. How do you suggest to improve this specific article, besides nuking the whole section? What is fringe in your eyes? Whet is undue? What is redundant? What is worth keeping? — JFG talk 06:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)