Talk:Dismissal of James Comey/Archive 4

Second paragraph of lead
There's new reporting that Trump's initial draft of the termination letter did not rely almost exclusively on Sessions and Rosenstein, but that the White House Counsel insisted otherwise (which led to the final letter). Moreover, the same NYT report says Trump was aware the firing might lengthen the Russia investigation and he was willing to fire Comey anyway. I am not sure which of this new stuff is leadworthy. Anyway, the second paragraph of the lead now starts like this: Trump sent Comey a termination letter that cited documents and recommendations prepared by Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.[4][5] Trump subsequently gave various explanations for the dismissal, in which he contradicted the termination letter's implication that the recommendations from Sessions and Rosenstein had influenced his decision.[6][7] This seems accurate. Thoughts? Should "implication" be "intimation"?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It should be "claim" or "statement" and it's not "documents and recommendations" it's documents. Just because Sessions, himself a possible target of the criminal investigation, used the word "recommendation" doesn't mean any RS is still calling it that.  And Rosie didn't even pretend it was a recommendation, just a lot of weaseled up gopher balls about unnamed former employees and other mystery meat.  SPECIFICO  talk  18:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO, as I just got through explaining to you, RS such as The New York Times state that not only did Sessions and Rosenstein "recommend" Comey's dismissal, the two men had also been pushing for it long before Trump independently reached the same conclusion, largely due to their concerns about Comey's handling of the Clinton email investigation. That you would continue to make blanket false assertions like those above, while refusing to engage with the arguments against your position or to provide any sources that could substantiate your unsupported claims, is unhelpful to constructive discourse: You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own alternative facts. Also, I realize that the RfC on the second paragraph isn't going your way, but that's no excuse for you to unilaterally inject yet more WP:WEASEL language into the lead. Your contention that the recommendation is merely our collective hallucination has gotten no support from anyone here, including from editors that may be more sympathetic to you than I am, such as, so please do not turn the newest lead dispute into an edit war—let the RfC run its course.


 * To reiterate, because this is important: Anythingyouwant, JFG, and myself have all provided numerous sources that use the word "recommendation" and make clear that Sessions and Rosenstein had been planning to oust Comey literally months in advance. You, SPECIFICO, have ignored several requests to back up any of your comments with any sources at all. Until you are able to do that, you are simply derailing the conversation.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * " the two men had also been pushing for it long before Trump independently reached the same conclusion, largely due to their concerns about Comey's handling of the Clinton email investigation" -- Times, read the source again. That's not why they "independently reached the same conclusion". Rather they were pissed about Comey's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee the week before. And there's no "long before" in the source either. And the overall point - that Trump had one reason for firing Comey but gave another - remains, and is reinforced by the existence of the Miller memo.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No,, you're going to have to read the source (and my comment) again. Comey's May 3rd testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee was devoted to his handling of the Clinton email investigation, and was not a distinct topic: "The two men were particularly angry about testimony Mr. Comey had given to the Senate Judiciary Committee the previous week, when he said 'it makes me mildly nauseous' to think his handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation might have had an impact on the 2016 election. Mr. Comey's conduct during the hearing added to concerns of Mr. Sessions and Mr. Rosenstein that the F.B.I. director had botched the rollout of the Clinton investigation and had overstepped the boundaries of his job." As I explained previously, Comey also falsely testified "that Hillary Clinton's deputy chief of staff at the State Department, Huma Abedin, 'forwarded hundreds and thousands of emails, some of which contain classified information' to her husband Anthony Weiner's laptop for him to print out"—a whopper that prompted the FBI to issue a formal correction and that, by all accounts, raised very serious questions about whether Comey was competent enough to retain his position. Finally, I provided a separate source for the "long before" claim, but you skimmed right past it: "Sessions and Rosenstein discussed firing Comey last winter," Politico, May 19, 2017: "Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and then-Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) first discussed removing James Comey as FBI director last winter, even before Sessions was confirmed as attorney general, Rosenstein told lawmakers Friday." Let me know when you realize your error.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what Huma Aberdin has to do with any of this. You appear to be just throwing her into the mix for good measure. Is this related to the letter Mueller has in his possession? Is it relevant to Rosenstein's memo? No? Rosenstein's name does not even appear in your source? Well, why bring it up then?
 * As to the Politico article and "last winter" Politico makes it very clear that 1) the possibility of firing Comey being discussed last winter is a *claim* made by Rosenstein (and this was published right after the firing, as Rosenstein came under intense criticism and Trump got called out on his shifting and contradictory explanations) and 2) the reasons which might have been discussed "last spring" - and sure, Sessions might very well have wanted to have Comey fired - were likely NOT THE SAME REASONS as those that were provided by Rosenstein prior to the dismissal. Indeed, the source goes out of its way to emphasize how these reasons were ... EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what Rosenstein's memo claimed. This is a blatant contradiction and a gaping hole in this "oh but we've always wanted to fire him" narrative that is being spun.  Volunteer Marek   23:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * (*still* being spun. I thought people gave up on it cuz it's so ridiculous but apparently not). Do you really think Trump and Sessions wanted to fire Comey because he was unfair to Clinton???  Volunteer Marek   23:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, Volunteer Marek, you have inaccurately parsed the Politico source. Rosenstein confirmed that he and Sessions discussed firing Comey months in advance for precisely the same reasons that the two men outlined in their recommendation letters: "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." What Politico notes is that this contradicted Sessions's campaign rhetoric. Of course, Trump had his own reasons for accepting the Justice Department's recommendation and dismissing Comey long after these concerns were initially raised—the most important being that Comey had refused to confirm that Trump was not personally under FBI investigation, and had failed to push back against The New York Times's inaccurate reporting in "Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence"—but that doesn't negate the fact that Sessions and Rosenstein had been advocating the same course of action far earlier, on their own initiative and in good faith. More broadly, Wikipedia follows the sources, and the sources do not WP:WEASEL their way around the inconvenient fact that Sessions and Rosenstein really did "recommend" Comey's ouster.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * A heady brew of OR, denial, V-fails and personal disparagement. I'd say less than a dozen living humans now believe that Trump fired Comey acting on a recommendation from Rosenstein. The fact that half of the 12 are here active on this talk page doesn't make it worth anything.  Fake news with fringe fries.   SPECIFICO  talk  02:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO, snarky replies like the one above are really not helpful to collaborative discussion. Trump drafted his own letter citing his own rationale for firing Comey, but McGahn suggested that the official justification for the dismissal should be Sessions's and Rosenstein's long-standing concerns about Comey's handling of the Clinton email investigation. Those are the facts, as reported by The New York Times et al., and they have not been disputed by any reliable source. Let's not conflate the facts with opinion, analysis, or moral judgement. Once we agree on the facts, we can debate how best to convey the relevant information to readers. You should have retracted your unsupported assertion that "Plenty of RS say [Rosenstein] was instructed to cite that [rationale], none say he was motivated by it" long ago.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO, please quit changing the subject. Nobody here thinks that Trump actually fired Comey because of the Justice Department recommendations, so please stop pretending we do. What we do know is that Trump initially SAID it was because of the DOJ recommendations. We also know that was a pretext, and that he soon abandoned the claim. But it is what he said, and that's what our article reports: what he said initially, and what other reasons he gave later, and (we now know) what he said and thought BEFORE firing Comey. I would appreciate it if you would quit these phony arguments that it wasn't a recommendation (it was) and that it wasn't the real reason (of course it wasn't, we all know that). --MelanieN (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * MelanieN, it's not "changing the subject" to insist that WP reflect RS reporting. 1) Rosenstein pointedly did not say he was making a "recommendation" - RS report that he was deeply troubled by his role in the whole affair, and that was too much for him to swallow. Sessions went along but Sessions is himself tainted in the entire Russian interference matter.  2) Since RS tell us the Sessions/Comey documents were created to provide a pretext, a rationale, or a legally or politically  conforming "cause" for a decision President Trump had already reached and documented in a problematic way, WP should not call them "recommendations" when they were not recommendations, they were pretexts, rationales, or legally or politically conforming "causes" for Trump's action. I've stated that clearly many times here but the dogged opposition, which you appear now to have endorsed, has repeatedly declined to "address the central point", choosing instead to attack me personally. There's nothing phony about my expecting that the article not state in WP's voice that these documents were "recommendations".  If you think recent RS, after more and more of the story is now revealed, are predominantly calling these documents recommendations, you could resolve the matter by showing us all the many RS accounts, since the latest revelation on Friday, that call the Justice Dept. documents "recommendations. Wouldn't that be a simpler resolution than biting me and disparaging my thoughtful "arguments" as "phony"?   SPECIFICO  talk  16:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO: If I do, will you drop it? I'm not inclined to do the work of finding half a dozen sources if it's not going to change anything. BTW since you ask for sources from just the last three days I will see what I can find, but IMO that kind of time requirement is unreasonable. RS have been calling it a "recommendation" all along, and RS are RS; they don't expire like last week's carton of milk. And your apparent insistence that the Sept. 1 revelation changed everything is new; you have been arguing against "recommendation" (and rejecting any RS people showed you) long before that --MelanieN (talk) 17:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "Carton of milk?" Is that really the tone of discourse you wish to exemplify here?  RS accounts expire? Straw man.  RS accounts reflect current knowledge, and current knowledge does expire. It's fresh every day.  And so, if we look at the very first accounts, the Administration's spin was more or less reported straightfaced.  And over time, as information as increasingly become available from President's own words, from the words of other principals, and from investigative reporting, the RS narrative has changed. So yes, it expires.  In fact, the use of stale sources is one of the most widespread devices of POV-pushing and non-policy compliant editing on Wikipedia. Because it's possible to choose dated accounts that are written in the authoritative style of an RS based on what was known as of the fresh date but which has been superseded by more recent facts and developments.  Not all editors form a coherent view at the same pace.  Very often some will understand an issue before others. I cited Sept. 1 because it provided overwhelming fresh details that I reasonably expect will clarify the issue for some of the editors who may previously have thought I was splitting hairs.  So in this case, those of us who saw this earlier may have been ahead of the curve, but additional RS evidence is offered to be helpful, not as you appear to suggest, to change the tune.   SPECIFICO  talk  17:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see my revised comment, suggesting a change of focus of the conversation, below. --MelanieN (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) SPECIFICO is moving the goalpost again: Virtually all RS do use the term "recommendation," and she has been provided many such sources, but they've all been invalidated "since the latest revelation on Friday" (i.e., three days ago), so we need "many RS accounts" from just the past three days to satisfy her.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO is mistaken and MelanieN is entirely correct about the crucial question of when RS "expire." Ignoring SPECIFICO's personal aspersions against any editors that contributed anything prior to last Friday and without the benefit of a time machine ("In fact, the use of stale sources is one of the most widespread devices of POV-pushing and non-policy compliant editing on Wikipedia"), the burden of proof is actually on the person claiming that there has been a seismic shift in the treatment of a given issue by RS to demonstrate that this is the case. Otherwise, longstanding RS are reliable on their face, and can't just be arbitrarily purged or ignored. I would certainly welcome SPECIFICO making her case with sources; that said, three days is probably too short a time to make such a determination. Wikipedia can't be "ahead of the curve," if by "the curve" you mean contemporary reliable sources.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Look, SPECIFICO, let's cut to the chase. We are supposed to talk about what the article should actually SAY. Here's what the article lede currently says: Trump dismissed Comey by way of a termination letter citing recommendations from Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. That is unequivocally true; his letter did cite the two memos as "recommending your dismissal" and said "I have accepted their recommendation." We would be false to the source if we removed "recommendations" from our sentence.

In the body of the text we say Sessions, in his letter to Trump, cited Rosenstein's memo as the reason for his own recommendation that Comey be dismissed. In the dismissal letter, Trump cited the recommendations by Sessions and Rosenstein as the reason for Comey's dismissal.[4][44]Immediately after Trump's termination announcement. Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Sessions and other administration associates stated that Trump fired Comey solely on the recommendations of Sessions and Rosenstein.[45] That again is entirely and unequivocally true; that's what they said. We are reporting what they said.

So what exactly are you recommending (there's that word again) that we should say instead? --MelanieN (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please review the history of the article. Several editors, myself among them, edited text after the new reporting on Trump's initial firing document. So I wrote a very neat, succinct summary, even using the word "recommendation" where appropriate, and it was edit-warred out of the article. I would hate to think that, in your frustration over this point, you are enabling those who pointy-removed my improvement to the article. If you have a specific criticism of what I wrote, please share it and it will be easy to hash out.  Those who reverted it did so with no policy-based objection.  SPECIFICO  talk  18:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I repeat my request to see what wording you want to put into the article, in place of what. --MelanieN (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Melanie, that's not a repeat request. It's a different request. You asked what I proposed so I took that to mean you'd forgotten that I'd already proposed language in my edit of this section. Therefore I replied by pointing out that I had not joined this thread without any proposal. Now you're asking for something different, AKA "the link" so I can show you the link. It's right here at this link {corrected link: it is right here at this link. Of course there's no such thing as language that cannot be further improved, but nothing is improved by POV insinuations and weasels like "by way of".  SPECIFICO  talk  19:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Huh? That link doesn't show any suggested language for this article. I am done here unless and until I see an actual proposal for actual improvements or modifications to the article. I have found from long experience that discussions on a theoretical plane (like this one up to now) often go on forever and get nowhere - whereas discussions about actual wording often find consensus surprisingly quickly. If you have such a proposal, please put it in a new section and let's talk about it. --MelanieN (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My mistake - Wrong linkie. Please do not be upset.  Here is the right one... . Please don't continue to mischaracterize my participation just because of an obvious error cutting and pasting a link.  Peace.  SPECIFICO  talk  19:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have used that link to start a discussion, just about the actual language, below. --MelanieN (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * TTAAC, I haven't seen any evidence that McGahn was the one who actually proposed using the Clinton emails as the main reason, much less that he told Rosenstein to use that as the basis of his rationale. He just didn't like the reasons Trump had given in his draft (we don't know what those were) and he definitely did not like the tone of the draft. In fact, as a good civil servant McGahn didn't TELL them anything; Trump was the one who told them to come up with a written justification. I don't think he or Trump cared what it was, as long as it was somewhat credible and politically acceptable. (They apparently actually believed that firing him on that basis would be uncontroversial, since Democrats had been vocally unhappy with Comey's handling of the matter.) I'm just responding to your comment here; our article doesn't say, and shouldn't say, that McGahn suggested that rationale. --MelanieN (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Snarky or not, in this instance SPECIFICO is right - TTAAC is trying to push their own interpretation of events which don't quite match up with the sources. Sessions wanted Comey fired because he was pissed Comey didn't persecute Clinton. At some point Rosenstein and Sessions had a talk about firing Comey. Then Rosenstein wrote a memo which claimed that Comey should be fired because Comey was too unfair to Clinton. ... You can't square this circle Times. You can put in stuff up about "restore the credibility of the FBI, respect the established authority of the Department of Justice, limit public statements and eliminate leaks" but all of that is basically like when a politician resigns for "health reasons" or "to focus on their personal life". It doesn't mean anything. Whenever somebody gets fired anywhere the person doing the firing says stuff like that. It's boiler plate. It has nothing to do with the actual reasons for the dismissals - and that's what sources say.  Volunteer Marek   15:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) "Sessions wanted Comey fired because he was pissed Comey didn't persecute (sic) Clinton." Respectfully, Volunteer Marek, you have provided no sources that state this was Sessions's motivation, and your claim is contradicted by other reporting on the matter, including the aforementioned Politico report on Rosenstein's testimony. I suspect this is merely a case of confirmation bias causing you to assume facts not in evidence, but if you can substantiate your assertion, by all means do so. If you really didn't know, "respect the established authority of the Department of Justice" and "limit public statements" means that the FBI director should not go around the attorney general to release derogatory information related to the subject of an FBI investigation, even if the FBI director thinks that the attorney general has a conflict of interest.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "During the presidential campaign, Sessions criticized the then-FBI director — but for the opposite reasons cited by Rosenstein in a controversial three-page memo laying out the rationale for firing Comey. Sessions said Comey was going too easy on Hillary Clinton, whereas Rosenstein wrote last week that Comey had treated her unfairly in his handling of the FBI's investigation into her emails." There. Do you honestly expect me to believe that Sessions in particular wanted Comey fired because "Comey treated Clinton unfairly"? I'm sorry but in this case, it's you who's having trouble with the source (which you yourself provided!). So, confirmation bias, yeah.  Volunteer Marek   18:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * People say all kinds of things on the campaign trail. Rosenstein testified that he and Sessions discussed firing Comey for similar reasons to those outlined in their recommendations several months in advance. Campaign rhetoric aside, we have no reason to believe that Rosenstein lied to Congress, as you previously implied.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "People say all kinds of things on the campaign trail." is original research - please read the linked page there. SPECIFICO  talk  19:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Marek is asserting (as far as I can tell) that Sessions's recommendation wasn't sincere and, therefore, shouldn't be called a "recommendation" (the sources notwithstanding) based on Volunteer Marek's own interpretation of Sessions's campaign rhetoric and without any sources explicitly lending credence to his rationale. If Volunteer Marek were to edit this article based on his own interpretation of Sessions's campaign rhetoric, that would, indeed, constitute original research; however, the policy doesn't apply to take page discussions. It is certainly not OR to explain on the talk page that Volunteer Marek's assumption that Sessions expressed his true thoughts on the campaign trail but acted disingenuously in his official capacity as attorney general is not axiomatic, and that the opposite could just as easily be true. In point of fact, that is what the OR policy is all about: Wikipedia editors are not mind-readers; we merely report what RS say.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, except the part which you're not getting is that the Politico article which you yourself introduced into this discussion, pretty much says what I said, just in more "journalistic" language. It explicitly states Sessions reasons for wanting to fire Comey - whether or not that was "just campaign rhetoric" is YOUR original research - and explicitly contrasts those reasons with the ones Rosenstein provided in his memo. In fact, the article explicitly states "That appears to conflict with Rosenstein's statement to House members on Friday that the two discussed the need to "respect the established authority of the Department of Justice" and "limit public statements."" So your "If you really didn't know..." above is quite inappropriate - the source itself suggests it was just empty rhetoric.
 * I mean, look, it's not like I'm the only person who thinks its ridiculous to believe that the reason Comey was fired was because "he was unfair to Hillary Clinton". That immediately sets of the bullshit detectors and doesn't pass the smell test. And that's why this contradiction is noted in the sources - and should be reflected in our article.  Volunteer Marek   06:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Turning to the source, it is clear that the reference to campaign rhetoric is not my original research: "The discussion raises questions not just about President Donald Trump's decision to oust Comey, but Sessions' public statements about Comey's performance. During the presidential campaign, Sessions criticized the then-FBI director—but for the opposite reasons cited by Rosenstein in a controversial three-page memo laying out the rationale for firing Comey." Sessions may well be a hypocrite, but that has no obvious bearing on whether or not Wikipedia should follow the RS in calling a recommendation a "recommendation." In fact, the version of the lead you recently reinstated did not even eliminate the term "recommendation"—I think you need to make a new proposal!
 * "This contradiction is noted in the sources - and should be reflected in our article." Is it not?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I really think we're engaged in makework here that isn't helping anything. The 2nd paragraph is good enough as it is and doesn't look at all POV to me; an avowed Trump-hatin' lib'ral SJW. Can we please move on to something more constructive? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I certainly hope so...TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Getting back to the actual wording
OK, we are talking about the first two sentences of the second paragraph of the lede. Let's focus on that, can we? Currently in the article is: "Version 1 Trump dismissed Comey by way of a termination letter citing recommendations from Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.(Haberman reference)(Reasons reference) He then gave various explanations for the dismissal, in which he contradicted the impression that Sessions and Rosenstein had influenced his decision.(Yehee reference)"

SPECIFICO proposes changing this to "Version 2 Trump sent Comey a termination letter that cited documents and recommendations prepared by Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.(Haberman reference)(Reasons reference) Trump subsequently gave various explanations for the dismissal, in which he contradicted the termination letter's implication that the recommendations from Sessions and Rosenstein had influenced his decision.(YeHee reference)" Version 2 is also the exact version that was cited at the beginning of this thread by User:Anythingyouwant as what was currently in the article, as of September 2 - and SPECIFICO immediately began arguing with it. But that does appear to be the version SPECIFICO linked for me, above, as what they recommend. Anyhow, apparently that September 2 version was changed at some point to the version currently in the article, which I have called Version 1. Let's forget all about the history and who-said-what, and just discuss what to say without a lot of dissertation. These seem like fairly minor wording differences that can be worked out without a lot of dramah. In fact please take any dissertations elsewhere (I'm going to be tempted to strike or move any extended commentary, we've already had way more of that in this thread than we need) and just say here what actual wording you want to see.


 * My opinion: For the first sentence, I prefer the second version since it is active rather than passive. For the second sentence, I prefer the first version; IMO "termination letter's implication" is awkward and unnecessary, and adds nothing to the simple word "impression". And there's no need to say "recommendations" twice in two sentences. But I do agree with addition of "subsequently". What do others think? MelanieN (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Is there a reason we can't just say fired? The media uses it. Newspaper articles use it. Hell, Trump became famous firing people. The phrase "You are fired!" made him a television superstar. Is fired a dirty word? Trump can say it like it is but we can't? What is good for the goose isn't good for the gander?

If this is hurting someone's feelings how about the truth version} "Trump terminated Comey in a letter citing rationales from Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. He then gave various explanations for the dismissal, in which he contradicted the impression that Sessions and Rosenstein had influenced his decision."

The politically correct compromise version for overly sensitive readers} "Trump dismissed Comey in a termination letter that cited documents and recommendations prepared by Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. He then gave various explanations for the dismissal, in which he contradicted the impression that Sessions and Rosenstein had influenced his decision."

The mainstream media prefers fired.

The New York Times even has as its headline Mueller Has Early Draft of Trump Letter Giving Reasons for Firing Comey and the lead in for the article is WASHINGTON — The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, has obtained a letter drafted by President Trump and a top political aide that offered an unvarnished view of Mr. Trump’s thinking in the days before the president fired the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey.

Wikipedia's rules are based on journalistic integrity and standards. Why is the tale of deeply partisan members wagging the dog? By dog I mean wikipedia articles hoping to emulate good articles like the New York Times I listed.

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


 * Oppose You need to have a discussion that is longer then 48 hours. These memes, in and of themselves, are likely important enough pieces of evidence that need an article. Undoing based on lack of notification to page created (myself) and lack of a longer discussion. Casprings (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. The repetitiveness is unnecessary, and having it all in this article seems apt, especially since leaking one of the memos to the presss was done by Comey in direct response to being fired, and designed to prompt appointment of a special counsel.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Comey memos is independently notable as evidenced by 43 references and 1891 words of prose. This (target) article should mainly discuss the firing and aftermath. I'm stunned to see that some of the same people supporting this were recently complaining about this article being too long, including who added this to the top of the page:. This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: Excessively long, no organization. Please help improve this article if you can. I also see that some important material (coincidentally unfavorable toward Donald Trump) has been removed from this article under false pretenses. Sad.- MrX 11:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Which material do you contend has been "removed from this article under false pretenses"? — JFG talk 21:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Source citations; portions of source citations; massive portions of the lead; material verifiable in sources but critical of Trump; etc.- MrX 15:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You'll need to be more specific and actually quote things that were removed and would deserve restoring without being redundant; only then can we have a healthy editorial debate about such content. I performed the merge very carefully, I gave structure to a messy hodge-podge of content and I gave no preference to positive or negative views of the facts. I'm really curious about your bad-faith assumption of "false pretenses": please clarify what you mean or strike the aspersions. — JFG talk 13:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I would strongly suggest that this is re-listed and allowed to run for the full amount of time.Casprings (talk) 12:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Reality Whatever the outcome, the merge mustn't be used as a pretext for insinuating twists of language, juxtaposition, and emphasis. A heavily involved editor should not do the merge. #NPOV  SPECIFICO  talk  14:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Was there an issue you saw with the text that was in the article for the past few weeks? PackMecEng (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, I wasn't aware it had been done, but the principle remains the same. Uninvolved merger is a good first approximation. If it's ultimately decided I will read whatever text is proposed. SPECIFICO  talk  23:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, sounds like a good plan. PackMecEng (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Support merge - the merge discussion should have been open longer, but I support the merge. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support but give time for people who oppose the move to have their say. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment It looks as if this discussion was reopened August 26. Thus IMO it should remain open until Sept. 2, and then someone other than JFG should close it. It doesn't have to be someone completely uninvolved in the discussion, just someone else - since it was JFG who made the first, too-quick decision to proceed with the merge. No offense intended to you, JFG, just wanting to ensure a non-controversial outcome this time. --MelanieN (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the timing. As per WP:Merge, the normal time period is 30 days. This was closed 48 hours after it opened. It should be allowed to run for 30 full days and closed on September 26th, if there is consensus.Casprings (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, WP:Merging says the opposite: "There is no required 30-day discussion period. If a consensus in favor of the merger is formed in less than 30 days, then anyone may perform the merger whenever they want." I tend to favor a week as a minimum discussion time, because not everyone is online every day, and in fact some people only log on to Wikipedia on weekends. A week has been recommended to me by more experienced editors as a good way to make sure everyone interested has had a chance to comment, without dragging things out forever. --MelanieN (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I should have waited a week before performing the merge instead of relying on the unanimous support received in the early comments. 30 days is overkill, this was not an RfC. Waiting 3 weeks for somebody to contest the merge and revive the WP:CFORK is not optimal either. — JFG talk 23:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment See relevant discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Comey memos. --MelanieN (talk) 19:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per MrX - DN (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm inclined to think that a merge would promote the POV that there's "nothing to see there" in the memos by minimizing them and to promote Trump's false narratives concerning the dismissal. The memos are a separate subject and either one of the memos or the dismissal could have occurred independently, without the other.  SPECIFICO  talk  18:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that SPECIFICO's argument is logically inconsistent—she says both that the memos and the dismissal are entirely "separate subjects" and that not having an article on the former would tend "to promote Trump's false narratives concerning the" latter. Moreover, SPECIFICO does not affirmatively state that readers are well-served by the existence of Comey memos or that a merge would not be feasible or even (in the long-term) desirable: Her primary concern is only that, given current political considerations, "a merge would promote the POV that there's 'nothing to see there' in the memos by minimizing them." Several editors, both here and at AFD, have espoused variations of SPECIFICO's insinuation that merge proponents are not acting in good faith, but rather simply dislike the content of the article in question, but none have refuted 's central point that "Almost all content was duplicated, and everything was WP:PRESERVED during the [previous] merge." Instead, we have seen aspersions cast absent any evidence—see MrX's unsupported aspersions, and his failure to respond when challenged by JFG, as well as SPECIFICO's unsupported aspersions. SPECIFICO alleged that JFG had used the merge "as a pretext for insinuating twists of language, juxtaposition, and emphasis," but when asked "Was there an issue you saw with the text that was in the article for the past few weeks?" she replied: "As a matter of fact, I wasn't aware it [the merge] had been done, but the principle remains the same." Casual personal attacks of this kind make collaboration more difficult, but there is a more fundamental problem with ad hominem reasoning: Even if merge proponents are motivated by WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, merge opponents still need a better rationale for retaining Comey memos than WP:IJUSTLIKEIT.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge per my more detailed statements at the relevant AFD.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * All I see there is disparagement of our colleague, for his good faith analysis.  SPECIFICO  talk  20:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The equation of the Nixon White House tapes with the alleged Comey memos in terms of established, long-term historical significance and independent notability is, indeed, ludicrous—obviously so to anyone familiar with the former topic—but I do not see how explaining that constitutes "disparagement" of any kind. If you have a response to my substantive arguments, please post it at the relevant AFD.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "obvious" and "ludicrous" and "I don't see..." are not policy-based refutations of the points articulated by comrade X. Please review WP:TPNO. SPECIFICO  talk  22:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO, you really need to stop trolling.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You're entitled to your opinion, but I think it lacks perspective. Although this scandal is unprecedented in US History, there are striking similarities to Watergate, especially in in the obstruction of justice aspect. This is not the time to be removing, burying, or significantly condensing content just as the scandal in its many forms is unfolding. - MrX 22:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Asserting that "Trump-Russia"—whatever that may be—constitutes the biggest scandal in American history does not actually establish a policy-based rationale for a dedicated article on a minor detail like Comey memos. "This is not the time"? See WP:RECENTISM.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Merge Only notable in relation to dismissal of James Comey. If it ends up being a white water situation then it should have its own article. Until then its nothing but WP:CRYSTAL. PackMecEng (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - seems like these are independently notable. This is an extremely important event in historical context. I may revisit following the special prosecutor's report, but see no reason for a hasty merge. Neutralitytalk 00:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a key point. We should not be in any rush to conclude that these two events are collinear.  That would unnecessarily limit WP's content for our users and it's a clear POV tilt toward what RS describe as the Trump Administration's self-serving spin on the subject.  SPECIFICO  talk  00:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * From a policy perspective, you've got things exactly backwards. No secondary sources so far have even seen, much less analyzed, Comey's alleged memos. Therefore, we should not create an article entirely devoted to these alleged memos on the theory that they may ultimately turn out to be hugely historically significant and independently notable in their own right. It's not about "minimizing" the possibility of Comey memos contributing to future earth-shattering developments; there is no "rush to conclude" anything. Editors should merely wait until sources have made that determination.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * One need not "see" an object in order to analyze it. . Suggest you read more widely.   SPECIFICO  talk  15:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - independently notable. The memos are part of this story but also a part of a different story.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as per User:Neutrality. --Chris Howard (talk) 03:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment – Several opposing editors insist that the memos are "independently notable" from the dismissal of James Comey. Even if that were the case (it's mostly speculation at this point), that doesn't automatically grant them a separate article. Duplicate content is not good for the encyclopedia. — JFG talk 05:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to propose an AfD for the other article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Admin note: I've closed Articles for deletion/Comey memos with a result of redirect to this article. I have to leave it up to editors how to reconcile this result with this still-open discussion.  Sandstein   10:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Sandstein. I would say that settles it. That discussion was done at AfD which is a more general venue than an article's talk page. And looking at the current discussion, which now has been open for a week, we have 10 in favor of merging and 7 opposed. Based on that result plus the AfD closure, I am going to close this discussion as "merge". I believe relevant material has already been merged here so it is only necessary to do the redirect, which I will do. Anyone who believes additional relevant material should have been merged is welcome to bring it here from the redirected article's history. Be sure to attribute it to that article if you copy it directly. --MelanieN (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. I was about to close and archive this discussion but decided not to just yet, as people may want to make additional comments. --MelanieN (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And I see that Sandstein already carried out the redirect when he closed the AfD. --MelanieN (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "That discussion was done at AfD which is a more general venue" - except far more editors participated here than at AfD. Many editors who participated here were not aware of the AfD. Hell, I *suggested* that JFG start an AfD unaware that he had already done so. And how do you explain JFG carrying on over here while at the same time pursuing AfD and not even bothering to mention it here. Multiple users who opposed the merge here did not participate in the AfD. This appears like a particularly WP:GAMEy instance of WP:FORUMSHOPPING.  Volunteer Marek   23:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Re "not even mentioning": See my Comment from August 27, above. Five of the seven "oppose" !votes commented AFTER that was posted here. --MelanieN (talk) 23:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes I see that now but it's really easy to miss. Honestly, even looking at it now my first thought is "oh there was an AfD about it once". You should've made a formal notification. BTW, the fact that "Five of the seven 'oppose' !votes commented AFTER that was posted here" sort of shows that lots of editors may not have been aware of the AfD. Why waste your time commenting here when it's all getting decided at AfD?  Volunteer Marek   04:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Here are multiple further wikilinks at this talk page to the afd from August 28. WTF, VM?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Anything, don't read every single one of your comments, so I missed that. Especially since your links to the AfD where buried within diffs which commented on something else.   Volunteer Marek   04:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - independently notable. Gandydancer (talk) 13:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Summary of reasons for dismissal

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

How should we summarize the reasons for Comey's dismissal in the lede section? — JFG talk 09:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

In a previous thread, various editors have worked to improve the lede section. The second paragraph of the lede attempts to summarize the reasons offered by Trump and others to dismiss Comey from the FBI directorship, and we have reached a blocking point in the discussion where two versions are on the table with no agreement between two sets of editors about which one is more neutral. This RfC aims to gather input from a wider audience and pick the most appropriate wording. Note that both versions refer to the same sources, most of which are already cited in the article body.

Version A –

Version B –

Survey
''Please select Version A or Version B with a short rationale. Longer arguments go to the section below.''
 * Version A - as the means of dismissal should be started first and clearly. While I don't think the two versions are significantly different, I am bothered by B referring to the termination letter wording as stating an actual motivation (a termination letter will, obviously, mention some cause however such letters are crafted for legal compliance / relationship mgmt and are not, typically, an actual rationale - they are often sugercoated and/or padded with legal compliance).Icewhiz (talk) 10:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Version A It reads a little smoother, by starting with a description of the firing and working forward from there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Version A per MjolnirPants. It reads and flows a lot smoother, and the phrasing and order of the sentences (corresponding with the order of the events) is also much better. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 02:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Greetings, SPA. Per your comment, could you clarify what you believe "by way of" means in this version. Could you give a synonymous phrase or paraphrase of those words? SPECIFICO  talk  02:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "Via" or "through", meaning "Trump dismissed Comey [insert one of the previous words mentioned] a termination letter..." NoMoreHeroes (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand that's the ordinary language of "by way of" but how does via or through relate to the dismissal? Did the letter effect the dismissal, did it inform Comey of the dismissal, did it provide a public explanation of the dismissal, did it provide a required legal basis for the dismissal?  The sense of "via" does not explain anything essential to the facts. Please compare this version A with the version at Comey's own article here:  -- Isn't that a much more informative and better-written, encyclopedic statement of the facts?   SPECIFICO  talk  16:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It informed Comey of the dismissal (it's a termination letter, after all). To me, that is quite clear in the lede suggested, but feel free to suggest a change to it if you think there is a more straightforward way to word it. For the record, yes I think the version on Comey's article is more clear, so maybe we could adapt that here. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I think option B is more clear. Remember this sentence comes in the lede where the fact that Comey was terminated has already been stated directly above. So really, the first sentence of B could be removed and it would still be clearer than A.  After all, we don't know via how Truman fired McArthur, Nixon fired Cox, or thousands of other dismissals. So the "by way of a termination letter" is only noteworthy for the fact, revealed a few days hence, that the termination letter was false or misleading.  SPECIFICO  talk  17:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Neither, because the existence of this article is itself absurd, and a classic example of WP:RECENTISM. The content in question should be covered at the main pages for the topic, ie Trump's administration/white house and James Comey. Vanamonde (talk) 05:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I concur. But I'm aware that an AfD on this article would almost certainly result in a keep or no consensus close. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Ultimately this article will be trimmed down to the essentials and merged into the James Comey bio, just like the infamous Comey memos were merged here. Events are still a bit too recent and controversial to suggest this now. Let's see in a year or two. — JFG talk 19:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Version A because it's more chronological. Talk about contradictions did not start until after the dismissal letter was followed by other news about the dismissal.  I also point out yet again that the quote in footnote 3 refers to Trump contradicting his staff, not contradicting himself, so that either needs to be clarified in versions A & B, or else a better quote needs to be included in footnote 3.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice try, but it's not more chronological, because the dismissal is stated immediately preceding the place where either A or B would be inserted. Read the lede up to and including A then up to and including B.  SPECIFICO  talk  03:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Version A - it's just better written. There's something vaguely awkward about the wording of Version B. Cjhard (talk) 03:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Version A because it flows better. However, I am unhappy that both versions have eliminated the OTHER reasons Trump gave. These proposals say he gave "contradictory reasons" (plural) but then cite only one other reason. What happened to "he wasn't doing a good job" and "the FBI was in disarray and poorly led"? Note that this is a side comment and does not affect my preference for Version A out of these two versions. --MelanieN (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * MelanieN, are you comfortable calling the Rosenstein memo a "recommendation"? Do you think this reflects the current weight of RS.  SPECIFICO  talk  20:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am comfortable with the word "recommendation" - relating to the Justice Department letters, not the Rosenstein memo specifically - because the Sessions letter says in so many words, "Therefore, I must recommend that you remove Director James B. Comey, Jr." --MelanieN (talk) 23:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, but the proposed A cites Rosenstein, so that seems to be inconsistent with your analysis. If you don't mind, have a look at the NPOV version I linked from the James Comey article in the discussion bin below.  It's hard to understand why a POV version would be preferable in this article.  SPECIFICO  talk  23:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Version A- First of all I'd like to congratulate everyone who worked on this article for their great success on creating the monstrosity that is this article! I also concur with Vanamonde93 and MPants that the article should be deleted and only remain a section in James Comey! Alas, who amongst us has the power to slay such a beast, I know not. As for the rfc, I don't see much difference in these two choices, but I too agree that version A reads a little better. Ultimately, don't care either way(which would make me one of the best to decide, ironically.) both conveys pretty much the same information.Darwinian Ape talk 07:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
''Debate goes here. Please read, and  before commenting.''

See here for an NPOV version without the defects of JFG's proposal A above. SPECIFICO talk  16:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you contending that "...by way of a termination letter citing recommendations..." is less neutral because it doesn't indicate that the recommendation was solicited by Trump? I'm just trying to understand your position, here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello MP.
 * There are two problems with "...by way of a termination letter citing recommendations...". First, "by way of" is weaselly language that signifies nothing in particular. Each reader will interpret it differently. Does it mean that the letter was how he informed Comey to vacate his role?  Does it mean that the substance of the letter was a legal justification for the firing? Does it mean that this letter communicated the meaning and significance of the firing to the public?  Or is it one of many other possible interpretations that readers may bring to this undefined "by way of"?  It's at best subpar writing for an encyclopedia.  Do we have "by way of" language either in the press, in historical narratives or in WP to describe the dismissals of other officials?  Or for that matter are any other human actions accurately and unambiguously described as "by way of" this or that?  Second, this sentence uses WP's voice to call the memorandum a "recommendation" when it became clear shortly after the event that the memo had been solicited by Pres. Trump only as a pretext that he could call a "recommendation" after his mind had already been made up.  And this is not interpretation,  or speculation about Trump's intention -- this is what he told a TV interviewer and what his administration's official account states he confided in hsi Russian visitors within days of the event.


 * Finally, JFG has repeatedly claimed that "his" version has been decided upon at the talk thread above and he has insinuated that others, including yourself MP are co-owners of his POV version. Then finally he claimed that both versions are the same, while nevertheless apparently feeling so strongly about his that he mounted this RfC in the hopes of salvaging the longer weaselly and POV version which supports Trump's deprecated initial talking points.  Anyway, I linked to the treatment of the same event at the James Comey article here to show that nothing like JFG's version was used by the different group of editors at that article, where their text raises none of the weasel POV concerns.   SPECIFICO  talk  19:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response.
 * I don't really agree that "by way of" is weasely, as I see it just as synonymous with "through" or "via". However, if one of those (or some other synonym) would ease your concerns, I'd be quite happy with such a change.
 * I also disagree that this is using wikivoice to indicate that the recommendation was legit. Instead, I look at the events: Trump fired Comey claiming it was due to a recommendation that actually did exist in the GA/AGA letter. It later came to light that Trump solicited this recommendation. Now, reading the termination letter, I can see that Trump actually referred to the recommendation in the letter. I can see where you're coming from, but I just believe that the POV problem you're seeing in that is an artifact of the English language. I would, however, be okay with putting "recommendation" in scare quotes, or rearranging the next sentence in JFG's version to mention that Trump solicited the memo before mentioning that he contradicted himself.
 * As to the nature of the dispute thus far, I think we're more or less in agreement. I think if this really was no big deal, JFG might have simply resigned themselves to your version. I'd say this applies to you, as well, but you haven't been claiming that it's a non-issue. As for my own involvement, I described it above: I have absolutely nothing to do with JFG's version of this paragraph beyond adding a single source to better support the "Trump contradicted himself" claim. A claim which, it is notable, appears in both versions. I feel that attributing any more support than a "meh"-level of personal preference for the prose to JFG's version from me is disingenuous. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the alternatives, via, through, or others also relate to physical travel and at best imply some sort of analogy or image which is needlessly and confusingly WP:VAGUE. I don't say the two are identical and then go on and on (and on) disputing the consensus for a version that I say is identical, just that somebody else wrote it.  Actually, of course it's always good if somebody else writes the best version. Less work for momma. Anyway thanks for the note, I think this little bit is a big deal because it reflects a recurring issue on these American Politics articles. There's no reason to accept fake news or POV language in politics edits or to establish a false equivalence between fact and fake news.  If we just apply site policy and the accumulated wisdom of the community we can curtail these time-sump ring-around-the-rosie discussions.  I think the good NPOV treatment in Comey's own article shows that there's no excuse for anything less.  SPECIFICO  talk  22:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't have strong feelings either way, but I do object to the "Trump was reportedly 'enormously frustrated'" language, for two reasons. First, the word "reportedly" should be removed; if it was reliably reported, then we should state it outright without the qualifier. Second, we either need to make clear who said said "enormously frustrated," or we need to remove the quotation. (I favor the latter.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

This should change some people's minds. Probably won't, but should.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , sometimes it can be fascinating to see how two different people can read the same source and latch onto completely different parts of it depending on their personal biases. When I read "Mueller Has Early Draft of Trump Letter Giving Reasons for Firing Comey," I saw it as conclusively disproving SPECIFICO's unsupported assertions that Sessions and Rosenstein had not truly "recommended" that Trump fire Comey or that Trump had provided them with a ready-made rationale. To the contrary, Trump drafted his own termination letter that was completely open and forthright about his motivation for the dismissal, but this more transparent approach was overruled by White House Counsel Don McGahn: "Mr. McGahn met again that same day with Mr. Trump and told him that if he fired Mr. Comey, the Russia investigation would not go away. Mr. Trump told him, according to senior administration officials, that he understood that firing the F.B.I. director might extend the Russia investigation, but that he wanted to do it anyway. Mr. McGahn arranged for the president to meet in the Oval Office that day with Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Mr. Rosenstein, who he knew had been pursuing separate efforts to fire Mr. Comey. The two men were particularly angry about testimony Mr. Comey had given to the Senate Judiciary Committee the previous week, when he said 'it makes me mildly nauseous' to think his handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation might have had an impact on the 2016 election. Mr. Comey's conduct during the hearing added to concerns of Mr. Sessions and Mr. Rosenstein that the F.B.I. director had botched the rollout of the Clinton investigation and had overstepped the boundaries of his job. Shortly after that hearing, Mr. Rosenstein expressed his concerns about Mr. Comey to a White House lawyer, who relayed details of the conversation to his bosses at the White House." Note that Comey's May 3rd testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee included the allegation "that Hillary Clinton's deputy chief of staff at the State Department, Huma Abedin, 'forwarded hundreds and thousands of emails, some of which contain classified information' to her husband Anthony Weiner's laptop for him to print out"—a whopper that prompted the FBI to issue a formal correction and that, by all accounts, raised very serious questions about Comey's competence. Therefore, it seems to me that The New York Times corroborates the accuracy of 's analysis, and definitively debunks SPECIFICO's false claims. What parts of the article, specifically, do you think "should change some people's minds," and why?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


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