Talk:Inspector General report on FBI and DOJ actions in the 2016 election

OR tag
You added an “original research” tag to the article. Could you please identify where in the article this original research occurs, so that we can fix the problem? --MelanieN (talk) 21:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Aftermath section, first para. – Lionel(talk) 08:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Totally exonerates Trump: Fact or Opinion?
Neutrality why do you keep changing the text around? Trump and his allies say the report exonerates him. The links you gave are friendly to Dems so of course they're going to disagree. The LA Times and NBC hate Trump. You can't just say Trump and his allies are wrong without a caveat. It's an opinion. This site isn't for forcing political views on visitors. We can compromise and say Trump and his allies say that the report exonerates him, but the LA Times and NBC disagrees with that. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 01:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * No, that's not a compromise; it's false balance between truth and falsity. If you want to question the reliability of the Los Angeles Times or ABC News, head over to the reliable sources noticeboard to solicit more views. But note that they are far from the only sources to clearly identify Trump's claim as patently false; see Associated Press ("AP FACT CHECK: Trump falsely claims exoneration from report") and FactCheck.org ("The president falsely said that the inspector general’s report 'totally exonerates' him"). Neutralitytalk 01:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing to fact check because we don't know all the facts about this yet, any more than we knew if OJ's glove not fitting totally exonerated him. Trump said the IG report totally exonerates him. Totally exonerates him from what? Collusion? Obstruction? He hasn't been charged with either of those things so there's nothing to be exonerated from. Trump and the Republicans say it vindicates him from any crimes. That's what they say. LA times and the AP falsely claim that the Republicans are wrong, when nobody really knows yet. Wikipedia shouldn't be carrying the AP's water. It's not balanced. I can find a bunch of links that say Trump's wrong when he says he's doing a good job. I can find even more that say FACT CHECK: Hillary didn't send any classified emails on her server, before we found out that Hillary sent classified emails on her server. Until we know for sure, this stuff is just opinions. But you don't want Trump's opinions. Only the media's opinions. Why? Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * If your position is going to be that "all the reliable sources, including the Los Angeles Times, NBC, Associated Press, FactCheck.org, Politifact, and many more, are wrong," there is little point to discussing this with you. Neutralitytalk 02:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if they're wrong. What matters is that it's an opinion, and you want THEIR opinion in this article and not Trump's and the Republicans'. Why? Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 02:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You also used only part of the NPOV rules, only saying "Avoid stating facts as opinions." What you left out was "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice..." That rule you used doesn't apply. Uncontested? Trump, his allies, and three Republicans named in this article all contest what the Democratic links said. Uncontroversial? His tweets raised hell and we're disagreeing about it here. I'll let you respond if you have a different rule since that one doesn't apply, but otherwise I'm changing it back. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 02:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Look, this article is about the Inspector General's report. Trump is making a claim about what the IG's report says. We have the IG's report to look at, so we can tell for a fact whether Trump's claim is true or not. Does the report exonerate him? It does not. There is nothing in the IG's report that exonerates Trump, or even deals with that question. The IG did not evaluate any of the claims against Trump and his agents. There is a list of the six questions the IG looked into; "was Trump guilty or innocent?" is not one of them. It may or may not be true that Trump has done anything wrong; that can still be regarded as a matter of opinion. But that is not one of the issues covered in the IG report. The statement "the report exonerates me" is completely false. The fact that it is false is not opinion; it is an objectively true statement about what the actual report says (or does not say). --MelanieN (talk) 02:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion. I happen to agree that it doesn't exonerate him since there's nothing to exonerate him from, and the IG report doesn't discuss collusion or obstruction anyway. But we're not supposed to put our opinions in the article. That rule that Neutrality cited is actually really clear. "Uncontested and uncontroversial" assertions can be written as if they're a fact. The assertions by the links Neutrality came up with are contested and controversial. Therefore, they can't be put in the article as if they're facts. They're opinions. We can't just do our own research and decide if Trump's right or the LA times is right. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 03:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Apparently you didn't hear a word I said. You are correct in saying the IG report doesn't discuss collusion or obstruction. That's exactly it. The report doesn't say yes, it doesn't say no, it doesn't say anything about it. Therefore it is false for Trump to say the report exonerates him. It does no such thing - because it doesn't look into those questions at all. It is neutral with regard to Trump's actions or non-actions. Trump's claim is a false statement about what the IG report says. It is provably false; just read the report. And the only "opinion" in this discussion is your opinion that "there's nothing to exonerate him from". --MelanieN (talk) 03:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No I read what you wrote, really. We don't see anything in the IG report that exonerates Trump from any potential collusion and obstruction. Trump, his allies, and three Republican congressmen don't agree with us, probably because they're talking about something else...maybe because he was validated for talking about the Deep State and that elements of the FBI and DOJ tried to hurt him and help Hillary. I don't feel comfortable doing my own research by finding media reports that agree with us and linking them in the article as if it's like a fact or something. The rule is clear. We can't say that it's a fact if the media assertions are contested and controversial. There's no gray area in the rulebook. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 04:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Assertions by Independent Reliable Source media are pretty much unanimous. They have studied the IG report, found that there is nothing in it that exonerates Trump, so they report his claim as false. That's a product of their reporting. Reliable Sources are what we depend on at Wikipedia. Trump, his allies, and the Republican congressman are neither independent nor reliable (in Wikipedia's sense, i.e., having editorial control and a reputation for fact checking and accuracy). On the contrary, they are self-interested sources looking to exonerate themselves, and so their claim that this document does so does not hold up. In fact if memory serves, Trump proclaimed himself exonerated even before he had a chance to look at the report. This is not based on any evidence, just his own wish to be exonerated. Thus, we go with the Reliable Sources and identify his claim as false. --MelanieN (talk) 04:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I see what you are both trying to convey. The rub is that the wording "Trump falsely claimed he was totally exonerated" makes the reader think "Oh, Trump lied again, he's totally guilty." In that sense the phrase is misleading and POV. In reality, as you all noticed and as IG Horowitz spelled out several times during his testimony, the report does not address the Russian interference or the purported Trump collusion at all, and it does not address the dismissal of James Comey (but Trump feels that the IG supports his rationale for firing him). Thus, a more neutral wording would be "Trump claimed that the report "totally exonerated" him, although his actions and his campaign were not addressed at all in this report." Wouldn't that be a way to resolve the dispute? — JFG talk 05:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Compromise with a lie? No. SPECIFICO talk 05:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Explaining why Trump's statements are false says seems reasonable and consistent with Wikipedia's style of letting the facts speak for themselves. I generally try to avoid WP:CLAIM, but here I think it's justified because sources note Trump was disregarding what the report actually says to make his claim. FallingGravity 05:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Trump falsely claimed..." for starters. SPECIFICO talk 06:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:CLAIM: "To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence," (bolding mine). The sources state Trump disregarded the evidence in the report, so that's why I thought "claimed" was appropriate by itself. I'd be fine with "falsely stated" if that's also an option. FallingGravity 07:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Trump claimed" makes sense, but for Wikipedia to just say it's false like it's a fact is against the rules. Why should Wikipedia take the media's side instead of Donald Trump's? I actually had "Trump claimed" there first and "the media said his claim was false" which I think is a good compromise. Neutrality then changed it back to the version he wanted and said NPOV rules back him up because it says "Avoid stating facts as opinion." But the line immediately after that says that only applies if the statement is "Uncontroversial and uncontested", and Trump's statement is controversial and contested. The rule doesn't apply, and we can't take sides and just say Trump, his allies, and congressmen Gaetz, Biggs, and Desantis are full of it. Also MelanieN remember that Trump and his allies are self-interested and want him exonerated, and the LA Times and NBC want to convict him so they're self-interested too. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 12:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "the LA Times and NBC want to convict him". Does this also apply to the Wall Street Journal? Don't be ridiculous. All the sources are unequivocal. FallingGravity 16:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I think JFG's proposal is a good way to handle this and I support it. Maybe a slightly more explanatory wording: "Trump immediately claimed that the report "totally exonerated" him, although the report was entirely about the FBI's investigation of Clinton's emails and did not address Trump's actions at all."
 * Jerry, there you go again: "the LA Times and NBC want to convict him so they're self-interested too". You seem to have totally bought into Trump's claims that the media hate him and are out to get him so we don't have to pay any attention or give any priority to what they say. That attitude is not going to get you anywhere here. As I have said before: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Our articles are based on what published, neutral, reliable sources say. "Reliable sources" means sources that have editorial control and a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. That includes respected mainstream news outlets like the LA Times and NBC. If you can't accept that premise, on which Wikipedia is based, you are not going to get anywhere here. We do not decide what to put in our articles on the basis of your opinions. --MelanieN (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for supporting my proposal. I'm afraid your extended version would look a bit too convoluted for readers. The salient point is that the Horowitz report does not say anything about Trump, that's all we need to convey, and readers can easily see the contradiction with Trump's assertion. Mentioning Clinton emails again does not help, imho. — JFG talk 14:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I am fine with your original proposal. For that matter I never did have a problem with calling his assertion "false" since it clearly is. And if the only person who objects to "false" is Jerry, whose objection is clearly based entirely on his opinions and who rejects the very notion of Reliable Sources, I don't see any need to change it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Melanie I was saying that way before Trump ever burst onto the scene, so I'm not buying into anything. That accusation offends me. That's exactly what I just said. Our opinions don't matter. I'm not going to support adding a bunch of links just because they agree with me. I'm going to follow the rules, instead, which say that you can't make something look like a fact if it's contested and controversial. This is contested and controversial. If you make it look like a fact, you're breaking the rules. We need a moderator here to clear all this up because I'm trying to follow the rules and I keep getting accused of writing based on my opinions which is bullshit, to put it bluntly. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 00:12, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * JFG, this is rather preposterous. "readers can easily see..." As is all too clear, even the editors on this page are unable to see what you or I may think is an obvious deception. Certainly millions of Fox News enthusiasts don't see it. Many millions more of right-wing talk radio fans don't see it. And an encyclopedia really needs to connect the dots, so that everyone sees it. It needs to say Trump falsely asserted the report, which had nothing to do with him or his behavior, completely  exonerated him.  (In more polished English).   SPECIFICO talk 00:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Gee if only we could all be as smart and educated like you, so we could all see what you see! Those Fox News viewers are just too dumb to turn on CNN and find out what's REALLY going on. Pass the wine. Or maybe we could just follow the rules and stop trying to state opinions as fact that are contested by the president, Congress, and millions of Americans who don't see it the way that NBC sees it. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 00:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. You confirm my reply to JFG's wishful view that we could lead the horses to water and they would drink up the evident truth. You have shown beyond any doubt why this article needs to explain, explicitly, that Trump falsely referred to a report that was nowhere about him and falsely claimed that this report exonerated him.  SPECIFICO talk 01:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure it does. Any other articles that you feel "need" to express your point of view? Do you think Obama's article expresses your views to a satisfactory level or should we tweak it to be even more laudatory and really drive his Messianic stature home? Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 01:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll give it some thought, Jerry, and I'll get back to you on your two-week anniversary here.  SPECIFICO talk 01:12, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Just to note that Trump says “I’ve been exonerated” all the time. Not as often as he says “No collusion”, but whenever some new report or action comes out. It's gotten comical. Here’s one I had forgotten: when Mueller announced the indictment of a dozen Russians for interfering in the 2016 election, Trump said the indictment proved that his campaign did not collude with the Russians! --MelanieN (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point. I think we need to form more of an overview for all of these politics articles. The day-to-day details -- each obstruction, each false statement, each impairment of international alliances, racially-charged slur, etc. are noteworthy insofar as they represent the implementation of a considered agenda. RS discuss this and WP should convey this. It will obviate lots of discussion of whether today's or yesterday's drama was noteworhty. That distinction is difficult. But it's not difficult to identify and describe the patterns of the Administration's behavior.  SPECIFICO talk 15:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Politics can be hilarious I'll give you that. I remember when Obama told Bill O'Reilly (with a straight face, mind you) that there wasn't a "smidgen of corruption" at the IRS, shortly before Lerner started taking the fifth and eventually resigned in disgrace. I'd love to hear some evidence of the above conspiracy theories, and I think Bob Mueller might be interested too since news broke that he's...gonna start looking into collusion, now. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 27 June 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not done. Mahveotm (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Inspector General Report on FBI and DOJ's Actions in the 2016 Election → A Review of Various Actions by the FBI and DOJ in Advance of the 2016 Election – The title should be closer to the report's official title. FallingGravity 04:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose עם ישראל חי (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Inspector General report" is the WP:Common name. WP prefers common names over official titles. See WP:Common name: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the criteria listed above." --MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Inspector General Report on FBI and DOJ's Actions in the 2016 Election" only appears on Wikipedia, meaning it's a made-up title by Wikipedians. The current article title gives the false impression this is a title of the report. "Inspector General report" is ambiguous. FallingGravity 18:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * that's why the title includes "on FBI and DOJ's Actions in the 2016 Election" and since as per MelanieN above there is no impression it's the official title. עם ישראל חי (talk) 19:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I see a synthesized title masquerading as an official title, a mash-up of "Inspector General Report" and the official title. It's like seeing the article Nunes memo with a title like "Nunes Memo on FISA Abuses at the DOJ and FBI". You either go with the actual common name or actual official title, not some forced combination of both. FallingGravity 21:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * it's an Inspector General Report hence the title and "on FBI and DOJ's Actions in the 2016 Election" tells you what it is about as there are other Inspector General Reports there is only one nunes memo if there were more than that's probably what the title should be עם ישראל חי (talk) 22:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Support + add a redirect from a shorter title, such as "2018 Inspector General DOJ report". — JFG talk 18:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that this isn't the only report by the OIG in 2018 (the one on Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe comes to mind). But hey, redirects are cheap. FallingGravity 18:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose I agree with the WP:Common name argument above. The current title is descriptive and will appear in searches for "Inspector General Report".  The actual report tile should be redirected to it.  "A Review of Various Actions by" is vague and implies the article includes scope not related to the report.  Websurfer2 (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * So the actual title of the report is "vague" and doesn't cover the report's true "scope", while Wikipedia's fabricated title is more "descriptive"? Should I assume you've read all 568 pages of the report to reach this conclusion? FallingGravity 19:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I am talking from a "search results" perspective, which is how many people will come across it. Websurfer2 (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose: people looking for info on this topic will type "inspector general report" into their Google search bar. Noone is going to type in "a report of various actions." WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMINGCRITERIA apply. Nothing in COMMONNAME says use a redirect. – Lionel(talk) 02:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Switching to Oppose per WP:OFFICIALNAMES. What was I thinking? — JFG talk 03:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm surprised by the level of opposition to this proposal, but I'd also support removing title case from the current title to indicate it's a descriptive title, like "Inspector General report on FBI and DOJ's actions in the 2016 election". FallingGravity 03:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, definitely. That is uncontroversial per MOS:TITLECAPS, I'll just do it. — JFG talk 05:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose per COMMONNAME and PRECISE. jamacfarlane (talk) 23:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.