Talk:Dismissal of James Comey/Archive 3

The tag at the top
There is a "too long" tag at the top of the article. This tag seems appropriate, and I suggest we can get rid of the tag by deleting the commentary section. That section seems like a backdoor method of using unreliable sources that really don't add much to what this article already says.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Nuking the commentary section would be overkill. Many reasonable and relevant points of view are cited, and the amount of commentary is quintessential to what made this affair notable and long-lasting, compared to for example the dismissal of Sally Yates which didn't develop further than a few days of outrage. However many are repetitive as well. I would suggest a serious haircut, to maybe one third of the current length. — JFG talk 16:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * A third sounds okay.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I was going to bring up that tag too, but I was going to wait until the talk page was a little less crowded with discussion of the lede. I do agree the article is somewhat bloated. I see that someone already removed the quote of Comey's entire farewell letter, that's good. I don't think we need to cite Trump's dismissal letter in its entirely either; the normal thing would be to paraphrase with selected quotes. I think the Commentary and Media sections could be trimmed way back, and most of the "Succession" section is unnecessary and irrelevant for this article.
 * The other part of the tag - "no organization" - makes no sense to me. And HT never came to the talk page to explain what he meant by it, as you are supposed to do when you add a tag. I propose we simply remove that part of the tag. --MelanieN (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Taking a look at "Succession": I would propose we simply delete the first two paragraphs, with all the to-ing and fro-ing about who was considered and who was interviewed and all that; maybe a single sentence saying that Wray was announced on this day and confirmed on that day and sworn in on the next day. Maybe not even that. I would suggest keeping the third paragraph, about the appointment of Mueller, and changing the section heading to "Appointment of special counsel". --MelanieN (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I take credit for removing Comey's boilerplate farewell letter. Trump's dismissal letter is far more significant, given the abundance of commentary that stemmed from parsing its exact words and his other utterances. I would think twice before paraphrasing it, this may become a counterproductive exercise. My two cents on "no organization": it's a valid tag, there is no thread in this article. I would volunteer to create an outline with appropriate subsections, similar to the work I've done when merging Comey memos. But yes, we must de-bloat first, there is a lot of redundancy in this article, essentially due to the pile-on of daily news reports. FYI, was recently indeffed, he won't be able to comment unless his block gets lifted. There is an active discussion on his talk page, in case you'd like to take a look. — JFG talk 18:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant "backdoor method of using unreliable sources" <--- which unreliable sources would that be? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I just noticed this question (it did not ping). Many of the sources that were in the Commentary section looked unsuitable to me.  Opinion pieces are generally considered to be primary sources, unless a secondary source reports about them.  So, for example, I did not think this is an appropriate source for that section:   This is just an example, and there were many more.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Lead wording
Would someone who hasn't reverted in the past 24 care to deal with this nonsensical edit, please? It's from a blocked sock and I'm at 1rr for the day. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  05:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Let's improve the revised Aug 5 lede
I think that today's revision has many problems. A few: Comey was not under ongoing public pressure about the Clinton email matter. The Justice Department documents were not "recommendations". RS tell us they were coerced by Trump. Both of these POV insinuations in the lede are manifestly promoting an unverified POV narrative and are unacceptable. SPECIFICO talk  18:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no insinuation that I can distinguish in the new text. We do say quite explicitly that Trump had requested a rationale from Rosenstein to justify firing Comey, a decision he had already made. Now, if you have specific suggestions to improve the text, let's read them. — JFG talk 19:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * + - "Comey was not under ongoing public pressure about the Clinton email matter." - He was, actually. Donald constantly said that Comey wasn't tough enough on Clinton regarding her email misuse, and that he should have been tougher on her, which was one of the many reasons why he was fired. See: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-fires-fbis-comey-over-clinton-email-investigation/article/2622593. Also, the current lead is a massive improvement compared to what was there before, without a single doubt. Yes, the current lead may need some more improvement, but the under construction template is there for a reason.  --M.W.B.A.B. 20:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) SPECIFICO's other objection is equally meritless: Contrary to SPECIFICO, "Comey had been under public and political pressure as a result of both the FBI's role in the Hillary Clinton email controversy and the FBI's investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections" is long-standing text from the old lead, which was simply carried over with no changes in the latest revision. SPECIFICO appears to be playing some sort of word game with her reference to " ongoing public pressure" above, but obviously Comey's handling of the Clinton email investigation had been widely criticized across the political spectrum, with prominent Democrats accusing Comey of costing Clinton the election and demanding his ouster; to insinuate that none of that ever happened is to play chess with extra pieces.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe that sentence could be reworded to something like: Comey had been under major political pressure during the Trump Administration, due to the FBI's role on both the Clinton email controversy and the investigation of the Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections. --M.W.B.A.B. 20:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be incorrect: Comey had been under pressure from all colors of the political spectrum ever since he gave the July 2016 press conference regarding Clinton emails. Democrats thought he was too harsh, Republicans too lenient. Some said he cleared Clinton, others said he buried her. Not a comfortable situation for him either way… — JFG talk 21:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Folks, let's discuss the edits, not criticize the editor. I do think it is accurate to say that Comey was under "ongoing public pressure" about both of the matters named. In recent months it had been more about Russia and less about the emails, but the email issue and particularly his handling of public disclosure about that issue had not been forgotten or forgiven by large segments of the public and of congress. That issue was "live" enough that Rosenstein used it as the rationale for firing him, and many Democrats in Congress felt he deserved to be fired for that reason. Thanks, M.W.B.A.B., but I don't think the sentence needs expansion. For one thing, the public pressure preceded the Trump administration. As for the Justice Department, it is difficult to read Rosenstein's memo any other way than as a recommendation (although I guess he later insisted it wasn't one). Anyhow, Sessions put it very directly in his cover letter: "I must recommend that you remove Director James B. Comey, Jr." --MelanieN (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think there is no justification for the language, hence...
 * Self-interested statements by Trump are not "public pressure" -- those are job-related threats or as was later revealed by RS, attempts to deflect attention from Trump's motivation for the dismissal. Trump≠"the public". SPECIFICO  talk  21:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops, I read that wrong, I thought it said "political pressure," not "public pressure." Sorry about that, . I take back what I said before. --M.W.B.A.B. 21:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Melanie, please, what RS says that Rosenstein initiated the memo due to that concern. Plenty of RS say he was instructed to cite that, none say he was motivated by it. RS say he chose to remain employed at the Justice Dept. and wrote the memo the lack of which which, had he refused, would not have kept Comey in place.  SPECIFICO  talk  21:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Again,, it would be easier to debate your point if you made a specific suggestion to amend the text. Thanks for your consideration. — JFG talk 21:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, Rosenstein was ordered to come up with a rationale for dismissing Comey. He was told to do it and he did so. Trump has said he meant to fire Comey regardless, which kinds of lets Rosenstein off the hook, doesn't it? The fact that he wrote the memo under orders does not wipe out the fact that he wrote it. We have no reason to suspect he thought his memo was false or didn't mean it. He had a full range of reasons he could have chosen for dismissing Comey, and he chose the one he felt most comfortable with and thought might "sell" well with the public. Nobody told him what reason to pick, and no RS that I have seen says he was "instructed to cite" the Clinton email controversy. He was just told to come up with a reason. So I don't think there's anything unverified or POV, or any "insinuation" of something false, going on here. In any case, the "Justice Department memo" justification did not last long. Trump's "I fired him because Justice recommended it" claim was dropped - within less than 24 hours if I remember correctly - and other reasons were quickly advanced, as our lede points out. --MelanieN (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. to JFG about a specific suggestion: Little play on words there, I s'pose? --MelanieN (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * JFG, it's not my job to make your job easy when it's your job to NPOV V AGF BURDEN, etc etc. Try demonstrating that you meet site policy.  It's getting late around here so maybe I'll find a pleasant surprise in the morning.  SPECIFICO  talk  21:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO, it is not OUR job to try to figure out what you are asking for here. Several of us have disputed your premise that something or other in this lede is POV or unverified or unacceptable, or that there is "no justification for the language" - exactly what language we don't know. If you can't explain clearly what wording you want to have changed, I for one am going to quit responding to this unproductive thread and move on. --MelanieN (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "Plenty of RS say he was instructed to cite that." Like MelanieN, I'd love to see some of those alleged plentiful "sources," SPECIFICO.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, based on your comments on my talk page, I believe the language you are objecting to is: 1) you think the current lede implies that Trump fired Comey because of public opinion against Comey, and 2) you think we should not say or imply that the Justice recommendations had anything to do with the dismissal, because those recommendations were requested rather than spontaneous. Also, 3) that our current lede language implies that there was some kind of professional evaluation of Comey's job performance and leadership, when in fact there was not. Have I understood your objections correctly? If so we can look at the individual issues here. --MelanieN (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

One sentence to last paragraph in lead
FYI: I have revised this:

"In light of the dismissal, the memo, and Comey's testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee in June 2017, some media figures and political opponents accused Trump of attempting to obstruct justice."

to this:

"In light of the dismissal, the memo, and Comey's testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee in June 2017, some commentators, Trump critics, and legal scholars said that Trump's acts could be construed as obstruction of justice."

This makes a few improvements which I think should be noncontroversial, but it is good to explain the reasons anyway:
 * Many commentators didn't actually say that it was definitely obstruction of justice, but could be construed that way, or pointed in that direction - I think the second sentence is more accurate. Many commentators were carefully to say that while the question was raised, more investigation was needed.
 * This debate was not limited to "some media figures and political opponents" but also included many law professors; e.g., Ryan Goodman (link), Laura K. Donohue (link), and Laurence Tribe (link), all said that Trump's acts could be construed as obstruction of justice. (And, conversely, there were other law professors who were more skeptical; this summary from The Atlantic is good). The point is that there was a robust debate about the implications of the acts among scholars/experts - this issue wasn't just discussed by pundits and congressmen. Neutralitytalk 21:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This goes back to the same problem we're having with the James Comey lead line of "some analysts think Comey influenced the election." Sure some do and some don't (including a scientific study proving that it didn't), just like some legal experts think Trump obstructed justice. But just as many say that there is no case at all here, and ridicule any suggestion otherwise. From NBC, "Legal experts are divided." If they're divided, it's POV to only say that some legal experts think that Trump obstructed justice, to the exclusion of "Some legal experts do NOT think Trump obstructed justice." Hidden Tempo (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Neutrality, I think your change is an improvement and I endorse it. HT, I am getting really tired of your dragging that one sentence into unrelated discussions all over the 'pedia. It is under discussion at the relevent talk page; let's keep it there. --MelanieN (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * HT - as Melanie notes, that's not what we are talking about here. But, in any case, the word "some" implies "a number, but not all." See, e.g., Merriam-Webster definition: "being one, a part, or an unspecified number of something (such as a class or group)." So I'm not sure what your complaint is. Neutralitytalk 23:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Lol I thought the analogy worked perfectly, my bad. But yeah, just wanted to go on record that I disagree with the choice to include only what some legal experts think to the exclusion of other legal experts. As NBC stated, legal experts are divided and this should be communicated in the lead.
 * Yes, I know what the word "some" means. Some analysts believe the Apollo 11 moon landing was a hoax. Some commentators believe there's more questions than answers surrounding the 9/11 terrorist attacks. And yes, some legal analysts believe that Trump obstructed justice. "Some" isn't a magic word that provides a loophole to placing POV content in leads. How do we decide which legal experts' opinion we put in the lead? How did you decide to choose the legal experts that think Trump obstructed justice, instead of the legal experts that do not think Trump obstructed justice? What was your process? Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * HT, yes, there were respected scholars who said that this does not amount to obstruction of justice. (You don't add strength to your argument by comparing it to Apollo 11 deniers and 9/11 theorists, in fact you weaken it. Unlike those cases, in this case there is respected opinion on both sides.) Do you think we should add a "while others said" phrase to this sentence in the lede, or just defer the whole debate to the article text? --MelanieN (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with something like "...some commentators and Trump critics believe it's obstruction. Legal experts and scholars remain divided."? At least until the investigation is over and all the speculation and conjecture can be replaced with the findings of Mueller and Co. Don't pay too much attention to the nuance of the metaphors - the principle remains the same. We don't get to pick certain opinions to place in leads as long as the word "some" goes in front of it. Isn't the "some say" tactic considered WP:WEASEL anyhow? Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If we are going to work from Neutrality's sentence (and on second thought I think we could leave out "Trump critics" - I mean, what do we EXPECT them to say?), how about "In light of the dismissal, the memo, and Comey's testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee in June 2017, some commentators and legal scholars said that Trump's acts could be construed as obstruction of justice, while others said his actions do not rise to that level." Neutrality, what would you think about that? --MelanieN (talk) 23:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hope I'm not taking up all the air in the room but I'd be good with that just to throw it out there. Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , that's fine with me. Neutralitytalk 00:46, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for the good collaboration, everybody. --MelanieN (talk) 02:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that brought an important point to the lede, however the resulting change completely omits reactions by political opponents. There was a rather stunning switch from bipartisan criticism of Comey to a sudden "Comey sainthood" after Trump decided to fire him. Likewise among media figures, we saw hysterical pile-ons about deceit, obstruction of justice and Nixonism, while Bob Woodward of Watergate fame said this was not comparable to the Saturday Night Massacre. Trump trolled everybody with his "Comey tapes" adding fuel to the fire. We can't just ignore that and defer the debate to legal pettifoggery. Not sure yet how to write something concise reflecting those events, but I think some of the political atmosphere following Comey's dismissal must be conveyed in the lede; it is well-covered in the article body. — JFG talk 03:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought "commentators and legal scholars" should cover it; who else should we mention? We already have some wording (your wording) about the political pressure he was under before getting fired. For encyclopedia purposes and especially lede purposes, this calm and balanced sentence about the "obstruction" claims (our new added wording covers Woodward) seems appropriate to me, but can you come up with some new or additional wording? Of course it has be documented in the article text if we are to put it in the lede; can you find some wording in the article that we could draw on for a summary? Hopefully brief, so we don't overbalance the lede we just reduced to proper proportions? --MelanieN (talk) 04:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, will think more about it. Other editors have jumped into the lead without discussing changes here, so the concise text we developed has become a bit blurred already. I agree it should not be excessively expanded again — JFG talk 15:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * - I'm pinging you specifically since you were the last editor of the lead, but anyone could chime in here. How did the "But Trump soon stated..." part end up in there? I don't remember that language in any of the proposed versions. I believe "But" is one of the NPOV/weasel words to avoid. "Trump soon stated..." is more neutral, and the reader can draw their own conclusions from the two facts. Hidden Tempo (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks as if I was the one who inserted "But". I agree it could be construed as a weasel word and I have removed it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have performed some more copy-editing, taking into account prior consensus and useful additions. — JFG talk 23:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , you seem to have accepted SPECIFICO's unsupported assertion that Trump "requested that rationale" from Rosenstein. Are there, in fact, any sources to support that language? If not, you should change it to "requested a rationale" from Rosenstein.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You are correct; and our consensus version from the previous thread said "a rationale", not "this rationale". Reverting. — JFG talk 23:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , : I understand that there has been a lot of back-and-forth on the article in the last two days while I've been offline, so this comment is directed at material no longer in the lead, but in case the issue pops up again: I want to specifically object to name-dropping individual commentators in isolation in the lead. For example, in the lead section, I would oppose mentioning Bob Woodward by name, unless we are going to also to mention other commentators by name. (It makes no sense to name Woodward specifically, but not others - is his view more important than Carl Bernstein's? Laurence Tribe's? John Dean's? I think not). In the lead, we should summarize. Neutralitytalk 17:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Totally agree. This is not on the table. — JFG talk 18:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Trump did not tell Rosenstein what to say
This BLP used to say (citations omitted): He dismissed Comey by way of a termination letter which said it was recommended by the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, who had been contemplating firing Comey for many months. Trump then stated that he had intended to fire Comey regardless of recommendation.

Today it was edited to say: Trump dismissed Comey by way of a termination letter highlighting recommendations from Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. He quickly stated that he had intended to fire Comey regardless, and had requested this rationale from Rosenstein.

The sources indicate that this second newer version is incorrect, that Trump did not provide any rationale to Rosenstein, much less the rationale that Comey had bungled the Clinton investigation; instead, the sources say that Rosenstein had already been considering for months both firing Comey and the rationale for firing Comey. In other words, Rosenstein's reasoning in the memo was not trumped up by Trump, as we currently say.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I see it's been changed back to "requested a rationale", as it was in the consensus version. --MelanieN (talk) 23:52, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That is correct. I just reverted the text to "a rationale", not "this rationale", as noted by above. — JFG talk 23:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That's better, but I still think it's highly relevant that Rosenstein had been contemplating firing Comey for many months, so Rosenstein was not merely inventing a rationale to satisfy Trump, which is what we currently imply (falsely).&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I reverted that from the lede as unnecessary detail. It could be added to the article text. (In fact it shouldn't be in the lede if it isn't in the article text. The lede is supposed to summarize the main points from the text.) --MelanieN (talk) 23:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:Preserve you should have put it in the article text. I will do so.  But that is no reason to convey a false impression in the lead which is what we're now doing.  Rosenstein did not create a rationale to satisfy Trump.  That is simply false.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * So it's just a coincidence that Trump asked on a Friday for a rationale in writing to fire Comey, and Rosenstein and Sessions presented him with one on Monday? --MelanieN (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course that was not a coincidence. What I am saying is that the rationale pre-existed Trump's request.  It was developed by Rosenstein and Sessions months before.  The rationale was not formulated simply to please Trump in response to Trump's request.  Got it?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

JFG and Anythingyouwant, would you PLEASE stop inserting stuff into the lede without discussing it first? First Anything inserted that Rosenstein "already had one (rationale) ready", then JFG made it into a whole sentence, "Rosenstein had already prepared arguments against Comey several months earlier". But that is not supported by the cited source, which merely says Rosenstein and Sessions had "discussed" the need for new leadership. The source actually contradicts your claim about having a rationale all ready in his back pocket having "prepared arguments against Comey several months earlier". The source says "Rosenstein told House members he learned on May 8 that Trump planned to fire Comey and 'sought my advice and input'. He then wrote his memo, dated May 9." That's from Rosenstein himself. Also "Rosenstein defended his decision to write last week's memo". "to write last week's memo," got it? I just don't see any support for the claim that he had this argument all written up ready to use, or even that he and Sessions had decided to use "Clinton's email" as their reason for firing him. I think this new material should be removed, at least until it is verified. What we do know is that Sessions and Rosenstein had agreed, months before, that "the FBI needed new leadership" - but I don't see any evidence that they developed the "Clinton's email handling" or any other agreed-upon rationale at that time. --MelanieN (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither I nor JFG ever suggested that Rosenstein had a memo "all written up ready to use". That's an invention, User:MelanieN.  What Rosenstein already had was a reason, which is synonymous with a rationale, for firing Comey, but that doesn't mean he had written any of it down or developed it in detail.  I strongly oppose any version of this lead that falsely implies Rosenstein devised a rationale to satisfy Trump, which is just not true.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * May I please see your evidence that Rosenstein and Sessions had decided, months ago, that their reason for firing Comey would be the Clinton email handling? Or had "prepared arguments against Comey months earlier" as the article currently says?--MelanieN (talk) 02:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Rosenstein already had a rationale for firing Comey, which is obvious from the fact that he already supported firing Comey. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please provide it.  I really don't care how we phrase it.  If you can improve on JFG's phrasing, that would be fine.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've read the sources before writing the sentence. Rosenstein is quoted as testifying: “Among the concerns that I recall were to restore the credibility of the FBI, respect the established authority of the Department of Justice, limit public statements and eliminate leaks.” – sure, he doesn't say "Clinton emails" explicitly, but neither does our text. correctly points out that Rosenstein already had considered several reasons to replace Comey, so that when Trump prompted him to come up with a rationale, he was quick to produce his letter. That being said, I'm open to alternate ideas for the phrasing. — JFG talk 02:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, I obviously think my version is superior to both the original text (which MelanieN tried to restore) and the monkeyed-up version that Anythingyouwant and JFG constructed. Let me make an argument for it, although I think the version MelanieN tried to restore is a fine starting point (edited).

So, first the wording "Trump has offered "shifting and contradictory accounts" for why he fired Comey" is straight from the source AND it succinctly summarizes the nature of Trump's explanations. And THAT is what the lede is suppose to do, summarize. Hence it's a very useful sentence.

Second, the "claimed" vs. "said" is fine. Let's put this aside.

The fact that Rosenstein letter was a cover for something that was going to be done regardless for other reasons is highlighted in several sources. For example. At the very least the fact that Rosenstein explicitly said that the letter was not meant as a justification for firing needs to be mentioned.

Finally, the fact that the subsequent of criticism of Comey by Trump and the claims that he wasn't liked or respected among the rank and file was indeed a latter "justification" and this is born out in sources as well.

Anyway, like I said, MelanieN's version should be the starting point for discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, so we have dropped the claim that "he already had his rationale figured out" (which was raised as an argument against the straw man implication "Trump told him what to say"). Glad that's behind us. According to his testimony he had considered a number of possible rationales. This sentence, currently in the article, is simply false, or at least unverified: Rosenstein had already prepared arguments against Comey several months earlier. What IS verified is that Rosenstein and Sessions discussed replacing Comey, back before Sessions took office. Then they apparently put it on a back burner for five months, until Trump told them he wanted a reason and they came up with one.

So what should we do with the article? We had nothing about this until today. Then Anythingyouwant added the phrase "who had been contemplating firing Comey for many months". I removed that. with the edit summary This lede has consensus; please don't introduce new (and not very widely reported) information without discussing at the talk page. (So much for THAT request!) But since some people think it's important to have something about this, that's a model that might work. IMO "for many months", as if they had been working on it constantly, is not well supported by sources. How about "who had discussed (or "considered", or "contemplated") removing Comey earlier in the year"? --MelanieN (talk) 04:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think "who had discussed (or 'considered', or 'contemplated') removing Comey earlier in the year" would be fine. This article is about the Comey dismissal, so mentioning when that idea arose would be apt for the lead, even if it were not also useful for clarifying whether Rosenstein wrote the memo because he was an obedient robot.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Other issues

 * What on Earth is going on here? Why is Volunteer Marek re-inserting the "But Trump soon stated" material that he "prefers" after talk page discussion determined this was a weasel word and is POV? Hidden Tempo (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * So you're here to sabotage yet another effort at collaboration? I've restored the version that MelanieN restored.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In particular this is the version I've restored. Not my version - as you can see it clearly states "as edited by MelanieN". So please stop trying to derail the discussion just because you want to get your kicks in at me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

VM, please don't invoke my name as if I approved of this kind of "bold", cowboy editing, reverting or changing without discussion. I don't. I haven't taken a look at your edits and won't until morning. But I am not proposing any kind of "Melanie's version" and would rather do things Wikipedia style, discussing until we reach consensus, rather than a "my version" vs. "your version" battleground. --MelanieN (talk) 04:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The point is that I restored the same version you restored rather than, as HiddenTempo falsely claims (again) "my own version".Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Who's ever "version" it is - IMO this is a very unhelpful approach to an article. Who even knows what is in the article, or what to discuss, when you do something like this? --MelanieN (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Restore the same stable version you restored?
 * Also re: a single word is NOT a copyright violation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * On the other hand it appears that Anythingyouwant agrees that we can use the current version (as of right now) as a starting point, so I think we're good to go.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

"Revealing" that Trump was not under investigation
This edit removed the word "reveal" because it is not used by the source. However, my understanding is that good paraphrasing will always use words that are not used by the source. The edit has the effect of hiding from readers that Trump was not being investigated by Comey.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Good paraphrasing doesn't change the meaning of the text. When you put in "refused to reveal" or something like that, it seems like he was actively trying to hide it or imply otherwise, which wasn't the case. He just simply thought it wasn't his place to make that kind of statement. Which is why "say" is the appropriate word here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Your edit followed another edit by yourself where your edit summary supported going back to "the reasonable starting point for discussion". So why not stay with "the reasonable starting point for discussion" instead of deleting "reveal"?  I find your explanation completely unpersuasive.  Why not just say up front that you'd prefer the lead not to inform readers that Trump wasn't being investigated by Comey?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Because that's not necessarily my preference. I do think that "reveal" does imply that Comey was trying to hide it, which wasn't the case.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Please suggest how we can inform readers that Trump was not under investigation by Comey, when we say in the lead that Trump was frustrated Comey would not say so.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's already implied. But I guess we could add something like "...extremely frustrated that Comey would not publicly state the fact that Trump was not under investigation". However, at that point you sort of get into the WHY of why he didn't want to do that. And that becomes too much for the lede. So my preference would be for keeping it as it is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

If we keep this phrase, I would suggest this wording: Trump was reportedly "enormously frustrated" that Comey would not publicly confirm that the president was not personally under investigation. It cites the source about Trump's frustration, and the verb "confirm" reflects reality: people doubted Trump's assertion in the dismissal letter that Comey had told him that he was not personally under investigation, and those statements were eventually confirmed in Comey's Senate testimony (the infamous "three times"). — JFG talk 05:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That wording is fine.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I also support JFG's proposal.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If we add this we should also have "at this time" in there since it may not be true anymore.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right: Trump may or may not be personally under investigation now, that's not clear. All we know indeed is that contrary to expectations, he was not targeted directly as long as Comey was in office (there must be some brilliant Shakespearian analogy here, but my English literature skills are weak). Don't think we should go into that level of detail for the lede, lest we turn it into lead. — JFG talk 10:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * But we know that Trump is personally under investigation now, and even back then, he, as the leader of the Trump administration/campaign, was under investigation in a general sense, since the whole campaign was under investigation. Comey was being coy with his language. He was speaking to a suspect. He was telling a technical, but misleading truth, not the "whole" truth. It was not accidental that Comey refused to publicly say it. He didn't want to have to later state the opposite. Later revelations reveal that to be true. Comey used this reasoning on several occasions. So we just need to be careful to state the knowns, without implying anything one way or the other. We can say that Comey said it, but not that Comey stated "the fact that Trump was not under..." (Volunteer Marek's wording above). We can't assume it was a "fact", only that Comey stated it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I support JFG's proposal Trump was reportedly "enormously frustrated" that Comey would not publicly confirm that the president was not personally under investigation. I don't think we need to say "at that time" or "during Comey's tenure" because obviously Comey could only confirm what was the case during his tenure. (I wonder if Trump has already asked Wray about this? And requested a public declaration?) --MelanieN (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Commenters are mostly in agreement with my proposed wording (Anything, TTAAC, MelanieN). Applying change to article. As my proposal doesn't state the absence of investigation as a fact, I hope it takes into account your reservation. We don't need to add "at this time"; the whole sentence is in past tense. — JFG talk 23:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll support JFG's wording. I don't see any problems with it at the moment. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Recap and move forward
A lot of stuff has happened to this lede in a short time, so let's first get the history right.
 * 1) There was a constructive discussion in the thread above that reached a consensus trim of the lead by, , , , ,  and myself. The result was  (A).
 * 2) Then Neutrality made a point at, which was debated by MelanieN and Hidden Tempo, and endorsed in  (B).
 * 3) Then,,  and  made a bunch of bold changes without hitting the talk page; the result was  (C).
 * 4) Later, MelanieN reverted part of those changes, (version D of 22:47) and I performed some cleanup and copyediting, (version E of 23:50).
 * 5) Finally, Anythingyouwant added that Rosenstein had his rationale ready  (version F) but that formulation was unclear so I replaced it with a sentence. (version G)

Now VM restored version D and suggests to restart talking from there. I would rather move forward to version E as a starting point, because the prose is cleaner and nothing of substance has changed. I hope my fellow editors will agree.
 * Thanks for this badly needed clarification, JFG. This whole thing became an almost-impossible-to-follow mess. That is what happens when people start making undiscussed, because-it-sounds-good-to-me changes to the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Now there is obvious editor disagreement about versions F and G. The question is: Comments please. I have no strong opinion one way or the other at this stage. — JFG talk 05:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Should we say that Rosenstein had already thought of arguments against Comey prior to Trump's request for a rationale?
 * And if yes, how should we say it?
 * Yes, merely saying in the lead that Trump requested a rationale from Rosenstein and Rosenstein supplied it makes it sound like Rosenstein devised the rationale to provide cover for Trump's decision. And that's false.  Alternatively, we could say that Rosenstein agreed with Trump's decision and supplied a memorandum explaining why, without getting into the longstanding nature of Rosenstein's concerns.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Why is that false? Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC
 * In particular, it's way too much to say that Rosenstein had a prepared reason. What happened is that him and Sessions had discussed the possibility previously. And in fact, they both had different reasons for it, which were then different from the ones Trump finally gave. This doesn't sound like something that was "planned months in advance".Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's false for us to imply that Rosenstein devised a rationale for firing Comey to satisfy Trump, because that's not what happened. Trump said he was considering firing Comey, and Rosenstein said he agreed, and wrote a memo saying why, based partly on arguments he had developed months before with Sessions ("restore the credibility of the FBI, respect the established authority of the Department of Justice, limit public statements and eliminate leaks").&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, at least not in these words. Personally I don't understand this concern from some people that our language somehow implies... what exactly? that Rosenstein made up a rationale to provide cover for Trump without really believing it? I truly can't see where this objection comes from, or what problem we are trying to fix. The proposed language here seems to imply that Sessions and Rosenstein had decided, months ago, that the Clinton emails would be the reason to fire Comey, and there is no sourcing to support that. What there IS, is sourcing that they had discussed firing him long before, even before Sessions took office. So I would suggest something like Anythingyouwant's original approach: adding a phrase after "highlighting recommendations from the AG and the DAG". Anything added ""who had been contemplating firing Comey for many months". If we must have anything, I think that is clear and well sourced, and gets Rosenstein off the (imaginary) hook of having invented a rationale just to keep his job. --MelanieN (talk) 14:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be fine, thanks.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Frankly, we could even do without this level of detail for the lead. If people want to add it, let's keep it short and factual. I would make a separate sentence: "Sessions and Rosenstein had already discussed Comey's fate before Trump took office." (+source) — JFG talk 18:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * JFG, now I'm confused. You said "sounds good to me" with regard to the phrase "who had been contemplating firing Comey for many months"; then you said there is already too much detail and "keep it short and factual"; then you suggested a separate sentence which is longer and has more detail. I had thought we were about to get consensus for this one point? Where do we stand now? --MelanieN (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Haha, yeah, that's what happens when I think about an edit while writing a comment. Let me clarify my stance: either we drop this thing from the lede entirely, or we write a proper sentence for it, because as you and VM pointed out, the earlier Sessions/Rosenstein musings about Comey during the transition are not strongly connected with the recommendations they ended up writing in May. I'll defer to consensus from other editors to decide whether we mention it or not; I have no personal preference. If we do mention it, I suggest this wording: Sessions and Rosenstein had already discussed Comey's fate before Trump took office. (+source) — JFG talk 20:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd rather have nothing than this. But in case consensus overrules me, do we really have to say "discussed Comey's fate"? Were they planning to shoot him or something? How about "discussed replacing Comey"? --MelanieN (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * With the now-tuned version of some phrases that were in flux, I think this particular bit of Sessions/Rosenstein discussion is unnecessary for the lede; it does not bring significant information to the reader. Would you agree to drop this request? Our current text doesn't imply that Rosenstein codified a rationale somehow dictated by Trump; he apparently made the case for dismissal on his own, although he did put it in writing at the request of Trump. — JFG talk 23:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that this isn't necessary for the lead. It's too much nitty gritty detail. Save it for the body. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In answer to JFG's question, yes.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, that's ✅, thanks. For the record of consensus, we won't mention the earlier discussions between Sessions and Rosenstein about Comey's future as FBI director. — JFG talk 16:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Version D to E
I think version D is more accurate than version E.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * How so? I don't see much difference in meaning. Let's check each change between D and E in turn:
 * "in which he said the dismissal was recommended by" vs "highlighting recommendations from" (more compact, same meaning)
 * "by the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General" vs "from Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein." (more precise with names)
 * "But Trump soon stated" vs "He quickly stated" (better grammar, same meaning)
 * "regardless of any recommendation" vs "regardless, and had requested a rationale from Rosenstein" (more info in E for this part)
 * "He then said he believed" vs "He believed that" (simpler)
 * "Russia investigation" vs "Russia probe" (that was just to avoid repeating the same word over and over again: synonyms are healthy)
 * "Trump's advisers have said that he was extremely frustrated that Comey would not publicly reveal that Trump was not under investigation." vs "Trump was reportedly "enormously frustrated" that Comey would not publicly confirm that the president was not personally under investigation." (that change is being discussed up there)
 * "a memo Comey had written while FBI Director, recounting a February 2017 conversation where Trump asked Comey to "let go"" (I kept this at version D in the current version)
 * "some commentators and legal scholars" vs "several media figures, political opponents and legal scholars" (more precise in E)
 * Which of those pieces do you object to, and what do you suggest? — JFG talk 10:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Highlighting is for hair. It has no meaning in this context. Do you mean "citing"? Anyway they're what he claimed were recommendations or they're purported recco's.  The point is they were not rec's because RS tell us his mind was already made up and folks don't get rec's after their minds are made up. Maybe ...which he rationalized by citing what he said were recommendations from... ?  Remember, we need to convey what RS tell us are the facts and context, not Trump's interim narrative.  SPECIFICO  talk  21:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We report RS'ed facts. The termination letter refers to "recommendations" and the memos of Sessions and Rosenstein are annexed to justify why Comey was fired. We don't pass judgment on Trump's ultimate motives, we just list all his explanations one after the other. I'd be fine replacing "highlighting" with "citing" or "referring to" if your hairdresser feels better that way. — JFG talk 23:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "Motives"? strawman. SPECIFICO  talk  03:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

It is usually best not to treat these things as "one version vs. another" when there are many differences, but to analyze them and pick out the best features of both. But in this case, many changes were made at once so that is where we are. If we are to choose between D and E for a starting point, I would choose E for most purposes. Some of the reasons I prefer E: elimination of the weasel word "But"; naming the AG and DAG; adding that Trump had requested a rationale from Rosenstein; use of "confirm" in the final sentence. The only place where I think D is preferable is that IMO "He then said he believed" is better than "He believed". IMO we can't state in Wikipedia's voice what he believed - we are not mind readers. --MelanieN (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Why not just rollback to the version we had before all the consensus-skipping additions? Starting fresh would solve a lot of these problems. Hidden Tempo (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There are changes no one has objected to, so I don't think those should be rolled back.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Any kind of mass addition, deletion, or rollback makes an enormous mess. Changes should be discussed, and implemented, one at a time. --MelanieN (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd be OK to write "He said he believed that…" although that's hair-splitting. Trump has been quoted extensively as stating his belief that firing Comey would ease the pressure from the Russia probe, to colleagues, to interviewers, to Lavrov… This is not hearsay, although he turned to be wrong. I think we can confidently write "He believed". Looks like a rollback to something earlier would be counter-productive at this stage. — JFG talk 19:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's even necessary to put anything about who believed what in there. Just include it bluntly and neutrally: "According to the New York Times, Trump stated that Comey's dismissal relieved the pressure of the ongoing Russia investigation." As far as I know, NYT is the only media outlet that has verified this supposed interaction. All other sources that mention it link straight back to the NYT. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with that wording, and possibly prefer it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

"I'm not under investigation"

 * The quote in the article body is this: "I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off....I’m not under investigation". The last four words suggest that he believed the pressure was taken off because the process of firing Comey put into the public record that Comey had not been investigating Trump.  Without those last four words, a reader would be more inclined to think Trump felt relieved because Comey might have uncovered the truth.  So, if we don't include those last four words in the lead, they at least ought to be paraphrased, IMHO.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "... the pressure was taken off because the process of firing Comey put into the public record that Comey had not been investigating Trump." That makes no sense. If he believed that there was nothing to investigate, he wouldn't have felt a need to fire Comey. Pressure was taken off because Trump thought that by firing Comey he stopped the investigation. That's what makes sense, and RS and subsequent events back that up. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That ellipsis ... implies that the two thoughts came together or were connected, that we have simply removed something in between. But the sources do not give any indication of that. The Times story, which is where most of the other sources are getting their information, puts "I'm not under investigation," he added, in a separate paragraph from "that's taken off". No way to tell whether there was any connection between the two quotes, or how close together they were in time. If we connect these two thoughts in a single set of quotation marks, separated by an ellipsis, that suggest the an immediate connection between the two thoughts that is not supported by the source. (Notice, Anything, how you assumed a causal connection between the two quotes.) This wording is OR in my opinion. --MelanieN (talk) 02:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it's not OR. Per Vanity Fair, Trump said: "'He was crazy, a real nut job. I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.' He then added: 'I’m not under investigation'".  The two quotes are thus connected.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, this is pure OR. In fact, it's pretty strange OR which tries to squeeze out a fairly implausible connection out of these words and tries to read the guy's mind.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's OR. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The Vanity Fair link proves nothing and adds nothing. Vanity Fair's source is the New York Times, same as our original source. AFAIK NYT is the only source for this information, and all other reports are drawing from it. Anyhow, Vanity Fair separates the two quotes into two paragraphs just as the New York Times does; they don't elide them. IMO we are being deceptive with this ellipsis format, which implies these two quotes were spoken in close association and we just eliminated a little verbiage in between. But actually, for all we know the two quotes could have been separated by 15 minutes. --MelanieN (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no problem removing the ellipsis and more closely tracking Vanity Fair. But I must say, I've never encountered a situation at Wikipedia where a reliable source reported "Person X said A.  Person X then said B" and the slightest dispute arose about rendering that as "Person X said A [and]....B."  Four dots instead of three denotes that it wasn't in the same sentence.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that's too much hair-splitting for the lede. "He believed that dismissing Comey would relieve the pressure" is an accurate paraphrasing of several well-reported quotes by Trump. We don't need to single out the New York Times or Vanity Fair in there.
 * Aside: Never heard of the "four dots" rule. When citing disjoined utterances, typographers usually write […] between the two quoted parts. — JFG talk 23:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * An ellipsis (THREE dots) only indicates content in the SAME sentence was left out. If what follows after the dots is from other sentences, then FOUR dots are used, the three to indicate content was left out and the fourth to indicate a period. An ellipsis doesn't indicate any type of logical connection between the parts, although the parts usually can be seen as a continuum, but that's not required and should not be assumed. Sometimes it's just to shorten a very long passage, nothing more. An improper use of ellipses can easily create an OR or SYNTH violation. That's what's happening here. It's a dishonest use of ellipsis, no doubt inadvertent, but nonetheless improper. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

User:JFG, per the Wikipedia article Ellipsis: &#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Good to know, thanks. I'm afraid the subtlety would be lost on most readers, though. — JFG talk 23:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Have we properly killed the idea of ". . . . I'm not under investigation" being part of this quote? If not, please let me quote some of the people just above in this thread, using the same technique. MelanieN said, "The Vanity Fair link proves nothing and adds nothing. . . . these two quotes were spoken in close association." Anythingyouwant said, "I have no problem removing the ellipsis. . . . it wasn't in the same sentence." BullRangifer said, "An ellipsis (THREE dots) only indicates content in the SAME sentence was left out. . . . That's what's happening here." See how it works?  In each case, I was able to use an ellipsis to completely alter their meaning, or to connect two completely different ideas. We don't know if that's what is happening with ". . . . I'm not under investigation" (because we don't know what came between), but it's a distinct possibility.  --MelanieN (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I was behind the times. I see the ellipsis has been replaced in the article text with "He then said, "I'm not under investigation". That's better, but I object to "then" as if he said it immediately after the other. We don't know that. How about "He later added," ? Or else leave it out, as a side issue to the reasons for dismissal.--MelanieN (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed the ellipsis yesterday (22:07, 8 August 2017), though it seemed entirely unobjectionable to me, in response to criticism at this talk page of the ellipsis. Thus, ". . . . I'm not under investigation" is no longer part of the quote, but rather is quoted separately.  The word "then" is explicitly used by Vanity Fair because it is implied by NYT.  Saying he "later added" is directly contradictory to "then".  I would like to keep the "I'm not under investigation" quote, because sources like the NYT and Vanity Fair consider it important context, and without it readers would be more likely to think Trump was trying to get Comey off his trail.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Other changes

 * I recently made this edit to the lede re:public/private. I see there are multiple discussions and I'm having difficulty contextualizing comments among article edits. The article is under 1RR so if there was or is consensus not to include this please ping me and I'll self revert. James J. Lambden (talk) 14:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Your recent edit has been overridden by a different wording that reached consensus in the above discussion. Nevertheless, that wording could be amended to include your distinction between public and private assurances given by Comey: for example we could add “although Comey had told him so in private“ at the end of §2, with a source to Comey's testimony. I would suggest asking that question in a new thread. — JFG talk 23:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

As to the points. Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "highlighting" is not better wording and is somewhat inacurate in this context.
 * You can put their names in there if you want
 * "soon stated" is better grammar than "quickly stated". "Quickly stated" suggests that 1) the claims were made in quick succession (not true) and 2) the second claim was a clarification of the first claim (not true)
 * Again I think the original wording is ore to the point.
 * You can put in "He believe that"
 * Russia probe is fine
 * As you say this is the change being discussed. Original wording is better.
 * The stuff about political opponents appears to be an attempt at poisoning the well.
 * The stuff about political opponents appears to be an attempt at poisoning the well.
 * Thanks for your comments.
 * "highlighting" --> would you accept "citing" as suggested by ?
 * names, ok
 * "soon" vs "quickly" – Trump did make the claims in quick succession; "soon" is too vague. Perhaps "the next day"? In any case, the initial "But" has to go: it's bad grammar, and it's editorializing.
 * "regardless of any recommendation" vs "regardless, and had requested a rationale from Rosenstein" – we disagree, I think saying "had requested a rationale from Rosenstein" clarifies what happened.
 * "He believed", ok
 * "Russia probe", ok
 * Defer to separate discussion about "reveal" vs "confirm"
 * description of memo, ok
 * "political opponents" are among critics often cited by RS; some even went so far to call for impeachment from the House floor, we can't weasel that away – keeping

Let's close this asap. I have restored the points we agree on and tentatively replaced "highlighting" with "citing". Waiting for input from other editors regarding "soon" vs"quickly" vs "the next day"? and "had requested a rationale from Rosenstein"? — JFG talk 22:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me address the last one really quick. If "political opponents" were the only people making the criticism then we could include it. But the criticism came from a pretty broad spectrum of folks (unless one thinks that anyone who questions anything Trump does is automatically a "political opponent"). So it is poisoning the well. Why not describe their professions, roles, etc. rather than tarring them with that label? How does the MAJORITY of reliable sources do it? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Rather than weaseling with "some people said", we name three categories of people who criticized Trump's action: media figures, political opponents and legal scholars. That sounds fair. Nobody is getting tarred and feathered, except maybe Trump himself. — JFG talk 23:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Not "rationale" Rationale does not mean a fabricated, after the fact, deflection, and a rationalization.   This is not a helpful suggestion. We need to convey what RS report.  Whether before or after the fact, Rosenstein's memo was a fabrication, an excuse, or an justification that was contrived for the occasion. That should be conveyed in as few words as possible.  SPECIFICO  talk  23:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That Rosenstein's memo was "a fabrication" or "an excuse" sounds like merely your personal opinion. Excuse or not, it's the rationale that was cited by the AG and the President to relieve the FBI Director from his duties. Not for us to judge whether it was an excuse. — JFG talk 23:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No. The English word that most closely fits RS reporting is "contrivance" -- regardless of how it sounds to you. How about contrivance? SPECIFICO  talk  23:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That contrived word is well above my level of English-language mastery! — JFG talk 23:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

"Shifting and contradictory accounts"
Ok, let's cut to the chase with this "say" vs. "quickly" thing. This is really about the fact that Trump/WH offered several contradictory reasons for the dismissal, something which some editors have tried to to best to keep out of the article and lede. The phrase "Trump has offered "shifting and contradictory accounts" for why he fired Comey." was in the lede but it was removed. And this aspect of the story - the "shifting and contradictory accounts" - is VERY MUCH backed by reliable sources. Indeed, that was THE major party of the story as it unfolded.

So that part of the lede needs to be restored.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree Occam's razor. SPECIFICO  talk  23:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Disagree. If we provide the various explanations (which we do), there is no need to take the reader by the nose and tell the reader what kind of crummy, lousy, implausible reasons they were.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Guys, could we please get closure on all of the above before discussing the addition proposed by VM? Pretty please? — JFG talk 23:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Some of the above is basically wrapped up in this proposal.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Disagree – "shifting and contradictory" doesn't sound neutral at all, especially in wikivoice. I could accept "Trump gave several explanations for the dismissal," followed by said explanations as currently stated, and finally "Most commenters gave more weight to Trump's apparent attempt to curtail the Russia collusion probe than to the official rationale provided for dismissing Comey." But we would be back to bludgeoning the lede. — JFG talk 23:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "Shifting and contradictory" is straight from the source. Indeed most sources emphasized the fact that the "several explanations" offered were contradictory.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We could say "arbitrary and contradictory" -- the contradictory part is self-evident. We need to nail down the starter.  SPECIFICO  talk  00:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "Arbitrary" is even less neutral: that would be a value judgment directly placed in wikivoice in the lede of a controversial article subject to BLP. Just no. — JFG talk 00:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "Arbitrary" is by definition neutral. I didn't want to say "random" because this site is g-rated in the USA. Contradictory, self-serving?  Maybe not in all the RS.  It's complicated.  SPECIFICO  talk  01:02, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree. Those words are found in RS. An accurate quote from a source, and even a good paraphrase, cannot violate NPOV. NPOV does not refer to neutral "content", but to neutral "editors". We must stay neutral and not change the meaning of the source. We must preserve its bias. It's all about how editors do not insert their own POV, either by deletion, censorship, or twisting and undue highlighting. See: NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content (essay) -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Oppose "shifting", oppose "contradictory", oppose "arbitrary". Let's skip the editorializing and stick with the facts: "Trump gave several explanations for the dismissal" would work, and in fact I think we used to have something like that as an introductory sentence. But IMO this is the lede and we don't need introductory sentences. Just "he cited this, then he said that, then he said the other." --MelanieN (talk) 03:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think "arbitrary" would indeed be editorializing, "contradictory" and even "shifting", is not. And as I pointed out earlier, this sentence actually does exactly what the lede is suppose to do - it summarizes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Here is more sources on the "contradictory", or something similar. Like I said, this was emphasized across most sources. ... and I could probably keep going for a dozen or two more. Indeed, after reviewing these, I'm of a mind to simply unilaterally restore that phrase since there is absolutely no good reason to exclude it. The contradicting explanations offered by Trump and the White House were almost as big part of the story as the firing itself. You just can't omit something like that from the article or the lede.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Five Contradictions in the White House’s Story About Comey’s Firing
 * All of the White House’s conflicting explanations for Comey’s firing: A timeline
 * "The White House can't get its story straight on why President Donald Trump fired FBI Director James Comey"... "His tweet comes after a week of multiple contradictions by his top aides and advisers"
 * Trump contradicts earlier claims on Comey sacking
 * Trump contradicted himself on the Comey firing
 * Contradicting White House Accounts, Trump Says He Planned to Fire Comey Regardless of Recommendation
 * In interview, Trump contradicts Pence on Comey
 * A comprehensive timeline of all the conflicting explanations for Comey’s firing
 * 3 reasons Trump’s excuse for firing Comey doesn’t add up
 * White House struggles to explain conflicting Comey stories
 * "Aides said Trump does not believe his team gave contradictory stories about his decision to fire Comey, despite the fact that the White House’s explanation changed dramatically over a 48-hour period"
 * Trump v Comey: Truth blurred by contradictions and denials
 * Acting FBI chief McCabe contradicts White House explanations on Comey firing
 * "The White House gave a number of contradictory reasons for the dismissal"
 * Contradictions by Trump create credibility gap for aides "The reliability of White House statements was again questioned after the firing of FBI Director James Comey last week"
 * Week of contradictions: The interview on Thursday capped a week of contradictory statements on Comey. (freakin FOX!)
 * "providing perplexing and often contradictory explanations in the days following the firing. "
 * "Trump’s other top surrogate directly contradicted the White House’s official rationale for the firing"
 * "Mr Trump’s comments run counter to the White House’s original account of why he decided to dismiss Mr Comey" and "a second later appeared to contradict himself " and "Mr Trump’s claim that Mr Comey had lost the support of employees was contradicted by Andrew McCabe"
 * Contradictions by Trump create credibility gap for aides
 * Acting FBI director McCabe contradicts White House statement on Comey dismissal
 * "no warning, conflicting explanation} (National Review!)
 * "The backlash from last week's dismissal of Comey and White House contradictions has carried over in new polls this week."
 * James Comey firing | White House contradictions
 * Suport "contradictory" per Volunteer Marek; oppose SPECIFICO's "arbitrary" as WP:POV editorializing.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * User:TheTimesAreAChanging, AFAIK, not all of the administrations' reasons for firing Comey were contradictory. For example, Trump said Comey had not been doing a good job, and the Rosenstein memo did not say the opposite (i.e. that Comey had been doing a good job).  Since the lead summarizes the reasons, I don't see any need for the lead to also tell the reader that they were contradictory.  Can't the reader use the lead to discern what was contradictory and what was not contradictory, without us trying to force that conclusion upon the reader?  In any event, if we say that the reasons were contradictory, wouldn't we also need to say that some of them were not contradictory?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The sources call the reasons "contradictory". I guess your OR says something else. We go with sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * All the reasons, some of the reasons, or is it unclear which reasons? Were some contradictory while others were mutually consistent/cumulative?  In any event, the sources have said a great deal and we are not obliged to put it all into the lead, especially if the lead already provides the basic information that enables readers to reach conclusions.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Read the sources. The set of reasons offered was contradictory. The text we had in the article, before it was removed, reflected the sources perfectly well. Let's not try to engage in little WP:WIKILAWYER games here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * VM, you have made a good case for including "contradictory" in the body of the text. IMO it does not need to be, and should not be, in the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 15:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Melanie, there's like twenty sources there and more can be provided. These sources strongly establish that the 'contradictory' nature of the explanations given was a BIG part of the story. Indeed, the reason why people called this obstruction of justice is precisely because Trump and his team couldn't even get their story straight. That's not just worthy of inclusion in text. That's lede material, especially if we discuss it in text.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * MelanieN, Volunteer Marek is right. That word is important enough for the lead. It's one word. The body should go into detail and describe the shifting and contradictory stories. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Why is the word "shifting" less important than the word "contradictory"? Because the latter has a stronger editorial tone?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, because "contradictory" is found in almost all sources that cover this story. I don't know if "shifting" is. But... why not both? That was the original text after all.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Both would be fine, but "contradictory" is the essential one, since "shifting" alone does not necessarily imply contradiction, but "contradictory" already has the idea of "shifting" in it, thus "shifting" is not essential. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm going to cal random rabbit on that one. Just because you draw two of a kind does not mean you have a winning hand. Because... They are both contradicted by other "explanations" or groups of similar explanations that Pres. Trump offered. "Contradictory" is what drew attention to the firing and led to extensive RS reporting trying to get to the bottom of it.   SPECIFICO  talk  17:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I think a strong argument has been made, sources have been provided and there appears to be enough support to include this in the lede. Can we agree to that and then move on to other things? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There's about an even split between supporters and opponents of your proposal, so I wouldn't call it consensus. Why don't you do a quick survey pinging everyone with some exact language proposed? — JFG talk 08:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Look, there's two dozen sources. This is a key aspect of the story. The people I see objecting is you and Anythingyouwant. And MelanieN but I think I can or have, convinced her otherwise. If you can't behind an edit that is so well sourced, and so central to the article's topic then I have trouble seeing how anything is going to get resolved here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't make it personal. I might well support the inclusion if you suggest an exact phrasing that takes into account everybody's remarks. — JFG talk 08:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not. I'm characterizing the current nature of the disagreement. Anyway - we already have the phrasing: ""Trump has offered "shifting and contradictory accounts" for why he fired Comey." which is straight from the source. If we want to tweak that then something like "Trump and the White House have offered contradictory accounts".Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Too long for the lede imho. — JFG talk 08:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Uhh.... seven words is "too long for the lede"? Seriously, that's your last objection? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not my "last objection". The lede dedicates a whole paragraph to listing the various reasons offered for firing Comey. We can certainly call them "contradictory" somewhere in all that prose without adding an extra sentence to point out the obvious. — JFG talk 08:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's about as short a phrase as we can add. How about "Trump has offered contradictory accounts"? The lede is suppose to summarize. This is what a summary looks like. It's hard to escape an impression that you are just inventing spurious objections because you can't argue against it on the merits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Here you go again, making assumptions about my motives, just like many commenters make assumptions about Trump's motives for this and many other issues. Can we leave partisanship at the door please? I'm just looking at the whole paragraph from the perspective of a new reader, and trying to best inform them. How about this:
 * How do you like it? — JFG talk 08:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That's two words shorter.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That's illogical: the contradictions came after the termination letter. We should preserve the order of events. — JFG talk 08:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it's Paragraph Writing 101. State the main point. Elaborate. Conclude. "And then this happened, and then this happened, and then this happened, and then and then, this happened..." is really bad writing. So. It's not too long. It's not "illogical". It's fine. Again I can't help getting the sense that you're just inventing arbitrary objections as a cover for the good ol' WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I do agree that a well-written paragraph should start with the main point. And the main point is "Trump fired Comey." How? "Via a termination letter citing recommendations by Rosenstein and Sessions". Why? "He gave many reasons, some included in the official rationale, some out of his ass." Reactions? "He was lambasted for contradictions, and although he thought that would relieve pressure from the Russia probe, it only made suspicions worse, adding allegations of obstruction of justice." Putting the "why" before the "what happened" and "how" is placing the carriage before the horse. — JFG talk 13:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And for the last time, please stop with WP:ASPERSIONS; you should know better than stoop that low. I could very well assume that you "don't like it" as well, but I'm not saying that. — JFG talk 13:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no horsies here no aspersions, only equivocal POV language. It was not a "recommendation" it was only a "rationale" in a certain inferior 7th level  meaning of that English word. If the text is to convey the RS account, namely, that a series of fabrications and misrepresentations were offered, then the wording must clearly and accurately convey that. WP can't push the very Trump-words that RS tell us were disingenuous or false. And it's not a theory or interpretation that they were false. They were shown false by PoTuS own explanations and his administration's own summary of the no-American-press tete-a-tete with the Russians.  SPECIFICO  talk  13:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We could say "not found in the official rationale" instead of "not found in the recommendation letters". Which of your numerous sources would you recommend to back up that statement? — JFG talk 09:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no horsies here no aspersions, only equivocal POV language. It was not a "recommendation" it was only a "rationale" in a certain inferior 7th level  meaning of that English word. If the text is to convey the RS account, namely, that a series of fabrications and misrepresentations were offered, then the wording must clearly and accurately convey that. WP can't push the very Trump-words that RS tell us were disingenuous or false. And it's not a theory or interpretation that they were false. They were shown false by PoTuS own explanations and his administration's own summary of the no-American-press tete-a-tete with the Russians.  SPECIFICO  talk  13:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We could say "not found in the official rationale" instead of "not found in the recommendation letters". Which of your numerous sources would you recommend to back up that statement? — JFG talk 09:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Excellent short form:

SPECIFICO talk 13:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC) Again, if the lead gives Trump's reasons (which it does), then I don't see why we need to tell readers what we (or what opinion journalists) think about them. But for the sake of compromise, I could go with something like this: &#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The memo was not a recommendation. It was a memo Trump instructed them to write so that he could cite it as if it were a recommendation. This is all RS verified. Also we know that Rosenstein nearly quit over this compromising his professional integrity. Calling the memo a "recommendation" is POV against amply documented facts.  SPECIFICO  talk  23:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 * That "excellent short form" isn't too bad.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

RE And MelanieN but I think I can or have, convinced her otherwise. That is incorrect, and I can't imagine where you got that idea. What I actually said was VM, you have made a good case for including "contradictory" in the body of the text. IMO it does not need to be, and should not be, in the lede. I think that's pretty clear. --MelanieN (talk) 18:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes I know that's what you said that's why I wrote "I can or have". Come on, I gave more than a dozen sources above and there's a ton more. That's more than just including in text, that part shouldn't even be under discussion. This was a huge part of the story and it belongs in both the lede and the body.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have picked one of the best sources you provided (the ThinkProgress full summary and timeline) and included the "contradictory explanations" sentence. Hope this settles the debate. — JFG talk 19:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Think Progress is a partisan website, not a reliable source.. Try again.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * JFG's version made things worse. It changed the meaning, suggesting that the various conflicting rationalizations of the dismissal were "also" rather than "conflicting". And any new text should not adopt in WP's voice that the Rosenstein document was a "recommendation" rather than an instrument solicited to support the false narrative that Comey was terminated for misconduct.  SPECIFICO  talk  21:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You could have just picked another source among the 20+ that VM provided, instead of reverting the whole text.
 * the Rosenstein and Sessions memo are recommendations, whether you like it or not. We go out of our way to explain that they were by far not the only reasons, but they are still recommendations. Besides, the word "recommendations" was already in the prose before my edit, so I don't see how I "made things worse" from your point of view. If you don't like "also", then remove "also", leaving He offered contradictory explanations not found in the official rationale.
 * It's impossible to get consensus with attitudes like this. You guys duke it out; I'm outta here. — JFG talk 04:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your effort. However I do like the short version better.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * User:JFG, please see Talk:Dismissal_of_James_Comey. I am not sure what the best source would be for us to use, as explained at that wikilink.  But I'm sure it's not ThinkProgress.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I made an edit to restore previously-agreed text and simplify/improve the "contradictory" part, taking into account remarks by several editors. Hops this helps come to an agreement by all participants. — JFG talk 16:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The lead now says: "He then gave contradictory explanations for the dismissal.  Contradicting what some staff member said is far different from Trump contradicting himself.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, so are we set to put my short version in the article? SPECIFICO  talk  10:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That appears to best represent the sources IMO, I'm in favor of it. ValarianB (talk) 13:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I think it's too short to capture the nuance of this situation. See subsection immediately below.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

So it appears that Anythingyouwant has decided unilaterally not to just go against the current consensus for the short version but in fact to go ahead and substitute his own preferred (and highly POV) version, the one version that basically nobody agrees with. And he's willing to edit war to enforce it. Man, this is going to turn into HiddenTempo all over again - one person obstructing on talk page, and edit warring on article itself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

What was purportedly contradictory
Trump's first public explanation was in his letter of dismissal. As best I understand, none of the reliable sources say that the letter of dismissal contradicted any earlier public explanation, so I think it's worth being clear about that. It was the later public explanations that purportedly contradicted the letter of dismissal. Additionally, it's also worth being clear about how they purportedly contradicted the letter of dismissal. The sources say that later explanations contradicted the dismissal letter's reliance upon Rosenstein, but those sources do not say that Trump ever contradicted the reasons given by Rosenstein (as opposed to supplementing them), and this is a significant distinction. Additionally, do any of the sources listed above (or other sources) indicate why they think the dismissal letter purported to rely only upon the Rosenstein memo? After all, when someone accepts a recommendation, that does not normally imply that the recommendation is not being accepted for reasons other than (or additional to) the reasons given by the recommender. If a source explains this, then that would be the preferred source for us to use, IMHO.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. As I pointed out earlier, we follow the flow of events: first he sends the termination letter with the memos, then he fumbles on TV about the "Russia thing", everybody calls his contradictions, and finally we learn about his "enormous frustration" over Comey's silence. — JFG talk 16:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Bring me up to date, JFG. Been out fishing. Did you shortcircuit talk page discussion and put your rejected version with all the POV problems into the article (erroneously claiming it was endorsed on talk) while the above thread was ongoing but converging to endorse my excellent short version alternative? Or am I just confused again, missed something, etc. ?  SPECIFICO  talk  22:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I keep working constructively towards article improvement; you keep complaining about anything that is not your own "excellent" point of view, that's enough of an update. — JFG talk 23:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's try again. You proposed some text. I pointed out the problem with it and proposed text that resolves that problem and is also better-written English. Editors in the tread above are saying they prefer my alternative suggestion.  You ignore this, you go ahead and put your own text into the article and say "per talk" -- If that's correct, you shouldn't have done that, so please undo it and see whether you can either endorse what appears to be my shorter better consensus version or see whether you can do even better.   SPECIFICO  talk  00:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The "problems" you pointed out are unfounded: you said I changed the meaning when I only changed the sequence to clarify, you said the Rosenstein and Sessions memos were not recommendations whereas that's what it says on the tin and RS call them the same. Besides, you blissfully ignore everything that has been discussed and agreed earlier. Several people offered comments, there was one last sentence to build in order to introduce the "contradictory explanations" properly. Please look at the latest version of the middle sentences in this paragraph, resulting from efforts by VM, Anything and myself: He then gave contradictory explanations for the dismissal.[6][7] Trump publicly stated that he had already decided to fire Comey,[8] and it emerged that he had solicited the Rosenstein memo the day before citing it.[9] Please focus your comments on that section; I'm not interested in re-litigating settled issues. — JFG talk 01:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The settled issue is that editors on this page in the thread above preferred my suggestion to yours. So I'm sure one of them will place it in the article unless you can do even better.  SPECIFICO  talk  01:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Some people liked your version, some people didn't. I think we have collectively done "even better" already; care to comment on the present version specifically, which I just quoted for your convenience? — JFG talk 01:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thought you were "done with this" and were leaving? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And seriously, Anything, reverting to your preferred version, which has the least consensus out of all the proposals here, because ... "bare urls bad". Come on! If you're gonna WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT you'll need to come up with better excuses than that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * JFG you've reinserted the same flawed version that prompted me and others to prefer the solution I wrote above. Yours is poorly-written English "by way of" e.g. It takes Trump's false assertion that the memo was a "recommendation" and insinuates this POV in Wikipedia's voice. And there's no possible benefit to your having edited it into the article while it's rejected by an active talk discussion. And to assert that this POV version, rejected, is "per talk" beggars the imagination.  I'm not going to repeat this any further, as it cannot be stated more clearly.  Why not stick to your oath above and step away from this for a while? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 02:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I should probably sleep instead of trying to work with you. There is no POV in explaining events to the reader in the order they happened or were revealed. There is no POV in stating that a recommendation is a recommendation. There is no POV in stating that Trump had solicited this recommendation after he had already decided to fire Comey. There is no POV in stating that he offered contradictory explanations. There is no POV in writing that Trump believed this would ease the Russia pressure. There is POV, however, in trying to make the whole paragraph only about Trump contradicting himself. Oh, and there is no "insinuation" when telling the reader that Trump fired Comey with a dismissal letter referring to recommendations. Then we explain how these recommendations came about and that Trump also had Russia in mind. It's very simple and straightforward, really; I don't understand what disturbs you in the current prose. — JFG talk 02:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

This edit summary makes no sense. It complains about absence of the word "contradict" which was not absent, and makes a bunch of other edits that disrupt chronological order. There was no public report about any contradiction until after the dismissal letter. Even then, the reported contradiction was often about a difference between comments by Trump versus those of his staff, and never about any disagreement by Trump with any of Rosenstein's rationale; often the reported contradiction between Trump's own statements was based on the inference that the dismissal letter entirely blamed the dismissal on Rosenstein and Sessions.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Marek vs JFG versions
You just reverted to your version and wrote "you can't weasel out of having the "contradictory" in there." Have you read before reverting??? I'm not weaseling out of anything; the text you erased says it clear and loud: He then gave contradictory explanations for the dismissal. so that your edit summary is in bad faith. Everything your version says, my version says it too, only the ordering is a little different, as mine follows events whereas yours follows what? Let's compare line by line: I don't see what's the big deal here: we are saying exactly the same thing, just a few words differ, and the order of events (points 1 and 2 are swapped). Can we finally close this debate? — JFG talk 02:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * "My version" is the one that several editors have agreed with (indeed, it's not even the version I proposed - someone else did). Anything's version has no support. You - you said you were done with this article (in fact it appears that you said that in frustration at Anythingyouwant inserting his own preferred version into the article). Likewise, if you think "it's not a big deal" then, rationally, you should be indifferent (so stop making it a big deal) and you should be fine with the version that other editors support.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not "my version", but rather the version immediately preceding your strange edit/edit summary in which you falsely claimed that "contradictory" wasn't in the lead. I don't like the lead how it is now for the reasons I've already explained above.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, no, it is your version, rather than the version others supported (which would be the short version). As to the "contradictory" - you're right, I missed that it was later on in the para. But that's sort of the point. Your version tries very very hard to bury the nature of these explanations. Because I presented a ton of sources to show that the contradictory nature of the explanation was indeed a major part of the story you guys can no longer argue in good faith that it should not be in here. Rather, you switched tactics to try and bury it where many readers will miss it. That is why the short version is better - it states right at the outset what the information is suppose to convey. This point has been made several times and never actually addressed by you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * FYI, here's the difference between my version and the present version.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Yesterday, after my initial edit and Anything's revert, several people made changes in turn: VM, Anything, JFG, MPants at work, VM again, and reverted by Anything. Then an IP block evader came crashing the party and was reverted by TheTimes. I think everybody is trying to improve the wording and we are actually very close to consensus. I compared the latest Marek and JFG/MPants versions above, showing that they convey exactly the same information to readers, so we should not quibble further on that. The only differences are the turn of prose and the order of sentences (1) and (2). Marek thinks that the paragraph should start by noting Trump's contradictions, whereas I think that it should start with the first event, i.e. the termination letter. I don't think that is "burying" the information about contradictions, and there is no "tactic" behind this, simply we are improving the paragraph step by step, and I'm the one who introduced wording for "contradictions" after VM insisted in a prior thread. Oh, and I also never said I was "done with this article", I just had had enough for the day, and yes frustrated that my edits were attacked from both VM and Anything after I had tried my best to reconcile their antagonistic views.
 * Now, please, let's get to the only remaining disagreement: must we start with the termination letter or with the contradictions? I say dismissal first makes more sense, and the next three sentences are dedicated to explaining all the statements that Trump has been criticized for, in the order they happened. I think that's fair and balanced. What say you? — JFG talk 17:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

As is clear from this page, the version you are fighting to suppress is not VM's, but rather my excellent short version. And in addition to dealing with English literacy issues, it removed the POV problem that the other version insinuates "recommendation" in WP's voice when RS tell us Trump solicited this documentation to support a decision he'd already made. Nothing's going to be resolved with illustrations, tables and whatnot if they don't' address the central flaw of your many versions and the simple improvements that my version and others have crafted so that we can move on to other improvements in this article. SPECIFICO talk  18:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Good, sorry for attributing to VM a version that you had written. The arguments remain the same: both your version and mine say the same thing, notably they explain that Trump solicited the Rosenstein memo after he already had made his decision. I won't comment on whose English prose is "excellent", we can leave this choice to uninvolved editors. The only point remaining in debate is how to start the paragraph: dismissal then contradiction, or contradiction then dismissal. — JFG talk 09:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, VM's and mine are not the same thing. Frankly, if you really think it's all the same then no worries. Please what? WP:OWN. Address the central point, to wit: No POV pushing Trump's deprecated talking points into WP. Details above. Several times 'round. Or, in the alternative, drop it on this one and move on to other improvemsnts.   SPECIFICO  talk  11:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 1/ "VM's and mine are not the same thing"? You just wrote above "the version you are fighting to suppress is not VM's, but rather my excellent short version". So is it VM's or yours??? Following your comment, I gave you attribution over VM, should I revert to giving attribution back to VM? As I see it, VM inserted in the article the exact text you had suggested on Talk, so I have no idea what you are complaining about here.
 * 2/ I am addressing the central point. The only difference we have is about mentioning the contradictions before the termination letter, or the termination letter before the contradictions. You think it's POV to just state the facts of how Comey was terminated? Well, I think it's POV to make it all about the contradictions and to claim that the DAG and AG recommendations were, as you say, "a series of fabrications and misrepresentations". — JFG talk 22:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Your POV is bright and shiny and it is fine indeed, but RS do not portray the Justice Dept. memos as "recommendations" after the first 24 hours or so i.e. when Pres. Trump told the TV interviewer + Lavrov the true sequence of events and motivations behind his actions. So basically if "it's all the same" to you, let's go with the me-and-VM, better-written short text without the mushy "by way of" etc. so that we can accurately represent the thrust of RS accounts. SPECIFICO  talk  01:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously you and I disagree on which of the versions is more neutral. That's fine. Let's both step aside and let other editors evaluate the merits of both versions. — JFG talk 07:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC open below to let the community pick the most appropriate wording:. — JFG talk 09:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I took my name off that table because I don't think I should be listed as an author of that version. All I did was add a single source. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Great. Thanks for your contribution! — JFG talk 18:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC of interest
There's an RfC at WT:NOT that would change that policy, and I think would have wide implications for all articles relating to recent events, including this one, which has come up in the discussion. See Coretheapple (talk) 12:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)