Talk:Peter Strzok/Archive 1

Material cited to Daily Caller
I removed it; please see diff. I don't think it's RS for these claims. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation of last name
This edit is kind of perplexing to me. Do we not want people to know how the name is pronounced? If there’s no objection, I’ll edit the lede sentence to parenthetically say this:, like "struck” . That follows the example at the article Ait.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Surely we can find a better source for the pronunciation of his name than an article that calls him a "biased FBI operative". Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The pronunciation has nothing to do with any bias against Trump. Regarding the latter, the source refers to him as “the longtime FBI deputy fired by Special Counsel Robert Mueller over his bias against President Trump.”  Do I really have to display similar accurate statements from WaPo, NYT, WSJ, CNN just to get the pronunciation into this BLP?  Dozens of sources quote Strzok as saying Trump’s an “idiot” so you can hardly criticize Fox for saying he was fired by Mueller because of bias.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Why not find a less biased source for the pronunciation of his name? The cited media outlet is railing against him. Countless reliable sources are highly critical of Trump for many reasons, but that has nothing to do with striving for neutrality and credibility in this specific article. As for "fired", the man was reassigned and continues to draw his paycheck and accrue seniority, so any such characterization is a BLP violation. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If you think I’m violating WP:BLP by mentioning at this talk page that Mueller “fired” Strzok from his team, then I urge you to report me to WP:AE, and there we can discuss what the word “fired” means and why ABC News used the same language: “Special Counsel Robert Mueller fired a top FBI investigator from his team over the summer after learning that the agent sent potentially anti-Trump messages to a colleague sources tell ABC News....” I guess I, and Fox News, and ABC News are completely unreliable even about the most mundane things like pronunciation, eh?  Are you aware of any other pronunciation of this particular Peter P. Strzok?  Shall we omit all NY Times or WaPo footnotes from the Donald Trump article since those newspapers rail against Trump?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not interested in escalation. Rather, I am interested in neutral editing of BLPs. So, if you will strive to find neutral sources and avoid BLP violations like saying that someone was fired when they weren't, then all will be well. As for the pronunciation, I have no idea, and would like for you to offer a neutral source rather one that is railing against him. Acceptable sources for the Trump biography should be (and are) discussed at that talk page, not here. Thank you. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The accuracy of the pronunciation from Fox News is confirmed at many locations, including footnote six of the present BLP: Jarrett, Laura; Perez, Evan (December 4, 2017). "FBI agent dismissed from Mueller probe changed Comey description of Clinton". CNN. Retrieved December 4, 2017.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Multiple sources from a variety of perspectives are great in a controversial article. I really appreciate you looking into this. Thank you very much. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Dossier
This edit removed the following material:

The edit summary said, "speculation inappropriate in a BLP". I'm the one who inserted that material, and I wasn't speculating. That source says that Strzok, “reportedly helped push the largely unverified dossier on Trump that was initially prepared by Fusion GPS for the Clinton campaign's opposition research.” So the deleted material was well-supported by the cited source. Moreover, there is also support from other sources. For example:

So, I suggest to insert the following that is based on both of these sources: &#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The NY Times description doesn't seem to back up the "helped push" wording. It just says Stzok's team obtained the dossier, while "helped push" implies that they actively promoted the document. Plus, the NY Times says the document was largely unverified at the time. Perhaps there's some way to write this with WP:NPOV? 128.187.112.3 (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The language I’m suggesting above is: “Strzok reportedly made use of the Donald Trump–Russia dossier, alternatively known as the Steele dossier, which was written as part of opposition research during the 2016 U.S. presidential election.”&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Removed again
This edit removed the following (without talk page discussion):

The edit summary stated: "first source not RS for this info, second source does not say anything close to what this text claims (in fact, why is it being used here when it clearly doesn't support the text?)". The first source says: The second source says:

Notice that the text removed from this article used the word "reportedly" so that we wouldn't use wikivoice, but stil the whole thing was completely removed with no effort to rephrase or comply with WP:Preserve which is Wikipedia policy: "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content." I realize that many editors do not want any trace here of a connection between Strzok and the Steele dossier, but can we please have a semblance of neutrality? Just flushing the New York Times down the toilet does not seem like a rational approach to me.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As explained in the edit summary, the second source doesn't say what you claim it says. This is obvious from the text you quote actually. Second source is not reliable here.  Volunteer Marek   18:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In particular, how does "It took weeks for this information to land with Mr. Strzok and his team" turn into "made use of the Donald Trump–Russia dossier"? It's been public knowledge that the FBI has looked at the dossier for months. And yes, Strzok happens to work for the FBI. So what?  Volunteer Marek   18:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A public Wikipedia article seems like a pretty good place to include public knowledge. The NYT excerpt explains that the unverified dossier landed in Strzok’s hands so he obviously made use of it, unless FBI agents receive things and stash them away without looking at them.  The first source is perfectly valid in combination with the second and abjuring wikivoice.  Are you going to make me suggest a rephrase or would you like to do the honors?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The dossier continues to be one of those tricky items for Strzok's BLP because it centers around politically charged allegations (that it was used by the bureau's CI Division to obtain FISA warrants, allegedly). This is probably why the Fox News reporting says "Strzok reportedly helped push the largely unverified dossier...", etc. (emphasis mine). Great material if this article was a Wikipedia controversy article about Dossier-FISA warrant allegation stuff, but much harder to work into Strzok's BLP as a relevant and credibly sourced item. This leads me to believe that if the Russia dossier is going to be included, it would at best be just a passing reference. I'll add something like that on my next edit, but feel free to revert it and make new proposals here for interested editors to work out. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Reworded POVish subsection header
"Attempt to discredit Mueller investigation and seek new special prosecutor" reworded as POV. Quis separabit? 01:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * That is not even the English language.  Volunteer Marek   01:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And it's not at all what sources say. The "seek new special prosecutor" is your own invention.  Volunteer Marek   01:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

"Questions as to impartiality of the Mueller investigation" versus "Attempt to discredit Mueller investigation"
Fellow editors: which terminology do you believe is more enycyclopedic? And how/why is the former somehow "not the English language". And does the latter constitute POV. Quis separabit? 01:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Fellow editor, the first does not actually summarize what the text says, the second one does.  Volunteer Marek   01:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Specifically, THAT text is not about whether the investigation is impartial or not. THAT text is about the political efforts to discredit the Mueller investigation (whether rightly or wrongly).  Volunteer Marek   01:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Deputy Assistant Director
User:AzureCitizen, do you have any reliable source that says Strzok was a captain in the Army, or that he was stripped of his title as Assistant Deputy Director when he was reassigned to human resources? Moreover, you have listed the following six sources as saying he was chief of counterintelligence:

[1]Jarrett, Laura; Perez, Evan (December 4, 2017). "FBI agent dismissed from Mueller probe changed Comey description of Clinton". CNN. Retrieved December 4, 2017.

[2]"Mueller removed FBI agent from Russia probe for anti-Trump texts: reports", Reuters (December 2, 2017).

[3]Hosenball, Alex. "Special counsel Robert Mueller has assembled a team of 16 seasoned prosecutors", ABC News (September 29, 2017).

[4]Doering, Christopher. "Thieves see ag trade secrets as ripe for picking", Des Moines Register (March 7, 2016).

[5]Bertrand, Natasha (August 16, 2017). "A top FBI investigator has unexpectedly stepped away from special counsel Mueller's Russia probe". Business Insider. Retrieved December 5, 2017.

[6]Price, Greg. "Will Trump Fire Mueller? Democrats Want to Protect Special Counsel Amid FBI Bias Cries", Newsweek (December 6, 2017).

But don't [1] and [2] say he was not chief of counterintelligence, but rather deputy chief? I think we need to be more careful here about being accurate.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The sources tell us that as recently as March 2016, Strzok was the section chief of the counterespionage section (one of the four branches of the counterintelligence division). Separate from that, they also indicate that at least until July 2017, he also served as the deputy head ("Deputy Assistant Director") of the counterintelligence division itself.  I can find a better way to word the details in the lede.  With regard to stripping titles, I don't get the same impression reading the lede as it stands right now.  It is accurate when the first paragraph states that he is an American government official in the HRB of the FBI, then the second paragraph states that he has served (past tense) in various positions.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Strzok was the Deputy Assistant Director of the CI Division, working for Bill Priestap (the Assistant Director of the division, the #1 leader of the CI Division). In his capacity as Deputy Assistant Director, Strzok was the #2 in the division.  It was a promotion for Strzok, stepping him up from previously being the leader of the CE Section.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * He was never the #1 leader of the CI Division, nor the "chief" of the CI Division. The FBI doesn't even have the job title of "chief" for Divisions.  Divisions are led by Assistant Directors.  The director has a deputy, whose job title is (big surprise here) Deputy Assistant Director.  Strzok was the Deputy Assistant Director of the CI Division (the #2 leader).  He was not the Assistant Director of the CI Division (the #1 leader), nor was he the "chief" (which would incorrectly imply he was #1).  I'm sorry, but your edit here creates inaccuracy and you yourself said above that you want to "be more careful here about being accurate."  Read this statement from Senator Grassley's office.  Do you see where he says "Strzok was the deputy assistant director for the FBI’s counterintelligence division..." at the start of the second paragraph?  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

"Deputy assistant director  for  the FBI’s counterintelligence division" is not the same thing as "deputy assistant director  of  the FBI’s counterintelligence division". He was a deputy assistant director of the FBI, working in the counterintelligence division. Saying that he was a deputy assistant director of the FBI’s counterintelligence division is extremely misleading, and implies that he was below the assistant director of counterintelligence, who was below the director of counterintelligence, none of which is remotely true as far as I can tell. Apparently, we need to make a list of what the sources say, so:

[1]Jarrett, Laura; Perez, Evan (December 4, 2017). "FBI agent dismissed from Mueller probe changed Comey description of Clinton", CNN: “Peter Strzok… the No. 2 official in the counterintelligence division..."

[2]"Mueller removed FBI agent from Russia probe for anti-Trump texts: reports", Reuters (December 2, 2017): “Peter Strzok, the deputy head of FBI counter-intelligence”.

[3]Hosenball, Alex. "Special counsel Robert Mueller has assembled a team of 16 seasoned prosecutors", ABC News (September 29, 2017): “Peter Strzok…chief of the FBI's counterespionage section”

[4]Doering, Christopher. "Thieves see ag trade secrets as ripe for picking", Des Moines Register (March 7, 2016): “Peter Strzok II, section chief of counterespionage at the law enforcement agency.”

[5]Bertrand, Natasha (August 16, 2017). "A top FBI investigator has unexpectedly stepped away from special counsel Mueller's Russia probe". Business Insider: “Strzok headed the FBI's counterespionage division last year.”

[6]Price, Greg. "Will Trump Fire Mueller? Democrats Want to Protect Special Counsel Amid FBI Bias Cries", Newsweek (December 6, 2017): “The FBI’s head of counterintelligence, Peter Strzok”.

So can we please stop saying that he was deputy assistant director of the counterintelligence section or division, which would incorrectly imply that he was many rungs down the ladder at counterintelligence?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, it's obvious that you do not understand the leadership structure at the FBI and need additional explanation to grasp what we're talking about here. The only "Director" at the FBI is the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.  Below him are subordinates with a combination of the word "Director" and sub-ranks in their title like "Deputy," "Associate," "Assistant," "Executive Assistant" etc.  These positions travel down through the organization from the top executive leadership to the six major branches (each of which is lead by an Executive Assistant Director).  Below the branches there are divisions (each of which is lead by an Assistant Director).  As I said before, the #1 FBI agent supervisor who oversees the CI Division is the CI Division's Assistant Director (there is no "Director" of the CI Division).  Meanwhile, the #2 agent who works for him as his deputy is the Deputy Assistant Director of the CI Division.  I already provided a link above; if you didn't look at it, you should look at it now.  Scroll down and you'll see what I'm talking about when you get to the Counterintelligence Division.  Do you see how the Counterintelligence Division is led by Assistant Director Priestap?  And how he works for the Executive Assistant Director for the National Security Branch, which has the Counterintelligence Division in it?  Is the picture coming into focus now on why Peter Strzok, who used to be the #2 leader, was the Deputy Assistant Director of the CI Division? AzureCitizen (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Above you quoted Grassley's office: "Strzok was the deputy assistant director for the FBI’s counterintelligence division". That language is fine with me.  But in your last sentence above, you seem to be insisting on instead saying Strzok "was the Deputy Assistant Director of the CI Division".  Why can't we stick with Grassley's language?  Your language will be very misleading to readers, because readers will assume that the CI Division also has an Assistant Director and a Director.  We need to write clearly for people who do not know the details of the FBI bureaucracy, that's all I'm asking.  We need to say clearly that Strzok was a Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI.  Do you agree that he was an Assistant Deputy Director of the FBI?  If so, can you see why readers will be confused by reading instead that he was an Assistant Deputy Director of the CI Division?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We need to write clearly for readers, but we also need to be accurate, and we shouldn't sacrifice accuracy in favor of perceived or hoped-for reader clarity. Because you were confused, you assume that other people will think that if they read that he was the Deputy Assistant Director of the CI Division, they will mistakenly think he's the #3 in that division.  I get that.  But now you're moving in the direction of wanting to phrase it that Strzok was a Deputy Assistant Director "of the FBI."  That's actually worse, because for people who know very little about the bureau, they will likely assume that someone who is a "Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI" is much higher up in the food chain, i.e., close to the Director himself.  They would be wrong, but it would be easy to make that mistake.  (The positions close to Director Wray are the Deputy Director, the Associate Deputy Director, and the Deputy Associate Deputy Director).  The most accurate, precise, and correct way to word this BLP is to say that  Strzok was the Deputy Assistant Director of the CI Division, because that's what he was.  If you're concerned that will cause readers to be confused about whether he was #2 or #3 in the CI Division, then the solution is to add some additional content after that to explain that makes him the #2 guy in his division, or add it to a note that links to the bottom.  Those are better options than diluting the reader's understanding by calling him a Deputy Assistant Director "of the FBI."  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * While you ponder that, I will fix the article right now so that the lede doesn't continue to incorrectly state that Strzok was the "Chief" of the CI Division. There is no point in letting a blatant inaccuracy like that stand any longer. AzureCitizen (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

You quoted Grassley’s office but you have now refused multiple times to follow that example which is to say “the Deputy Assistant Director for the CI Division” not “of the CI division”. Your proposal also contradicts every one of the five reliable sources that I cited and quoted. Because you’re being unreasonable here, and because other editors especially User:Volunteer Marek are treating this BLP like an etch-a-sketch, I am out of here. I refuse to be party to this kind of messing around with living people’s lives. Wikipedia is really an incredibly lousy place sometimes. So you do exactly what the hell you want.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Take a deep breath and try to calm down. My comments do not contradict the sources you picked.  As Assistant Deputy Director of the CI Division, Strzok was the #2 agent in the division (behind the Assistant Director, who was the division's supervisor).  Your first source states "Peter Strzok... the No. 2 official in the counterintelligence division".  No contradiction there.  Your second source states "Peter Strzok, the deputy head of FBI counter-intelligence (sp)".  The reporter misspelled CI, but again, no contradiction there.  Your third source states "Peter Strzok... chief of the FBI's counterespionage section".  Again, no contradiction, because that's referring to his prior job as Section Chief of the Counterespionage Section (remember, the CE section is subordinate section of the CI Division).  Your fourth source states "Strzok headed the FBI's counterespionage division".  Again, no contradiction because it's the CE Section he headed before he stepped up to the CI Division, but that reporter mistakenly put the word "division" at the end, when he should have written "section."  Your fifth and final source is the only one that is 100% wrong; Strzok was never the head of counterintelligence and you know that.  When you research sources on Wikipedia, you have to read carefully and sort out the inconsistencies that pop up when news organization are rushing out stories on hot trending items.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "because other editors especially User:Volunteer Marek are treating this BLP like an etch-a-sketch, I am out of here. I refuse to be party to this kind of messing around with living people’s lives." - yeah? What I'm wondering is how you square the self-righteous and self-aggrandizing pronouncements like these with the fact that you created this article as a hit piece on a living person in the first place.   Volunteer Marek   18:08, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Political controversy proxy article?
The problem here is that this BLP is arguably just a Wikipedia political controversy proxy article, or in the process of turning into one (as more than three-quarters of the content already is). For one side of the aisle, it's a place to document the suspicious details surrounding a biased "deep state" operative who has possibly tainted the Mueller investigation against the administration. For the other side, it's a partisan farce being pushed to discredit the Mueller investigation to short-circuit it or at least put its conclusions in a questionable light should they go against the administration. That would be fine if it was happening in a political controversy article, but here on a BLP with so little substance on the rest of the subject's life or notability it is unseemly. Is there a way to fix this? Perhaps we could split off the political controversy content to either 1) pre-existing political articles where the content can justifiably be included, such as the 2017 Special Counsel investigation article or the Hillary Clinton email article, or 2) create a new political controversy article with an appropriate name (maybe something like "Mueller Investigation bias allegations"?) In either case, a prominent sentence with an article link back here in the Strzok BLP's lede (and probably the body too) would cue the reader, to ensure that interested readers who land here first would quickly find the controversy content they were looking for there. However, before doing something like that, it would be imperative to first establish a consensus that this is even necessary. Can we discuss that? AzureCitizen (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Should the political controversy content in this BLP be relocated? Please indicate "Move Elsewhere" or "Retain Here" in your response and share your rationale if interested.
 * Move most of the well-sourced controversy details to "2017 Special Counsel investigation". This article should focus on biographical details, not partisan controversies or trying to Right Great Wrongs. For example, it's really hard to see what random "false coup claims" have to do with Strzok as a person. FallingGravity 00:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: The "controversy" also extends to other people involved in the investigation, not just Strzok and Page. This Politico article extends it to recent complaints about how Mueller obtained emails from the Trump transition team. Also, the attacks on Mueller's team aren't a recent invention and started in June, according to this Politico article. FallingGravity 18:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep the political controversy nonsense - If the Peter Strzok page is going to exist (a decision that I thought was ludicrous in the first place - this should of course all be lumped into the special counsel article), then it obviously has to cover the faux controversy that his private correspondence gave rise to. The political controversy of the private correspondence is the sole reason why the Peter Strzok article exists at all. This is eerily similar to the Murder of Seth Rich article where a number of editors fought tooth and nail to introduce right-wing conspiracy theories and hoaxes into the article (that was the faux controversy that right-wing media were up in arms over back then) but then called for the removal of any and all content when the content of the Murder of Seth Rich article started to be about debunking right-wing hoaxes and conspiracy theories. The Strzok page is in a similar phase right now, as reliable sources are covering this as a non-story and are instead covering the ways in which figures on the right are using the controversy to discredit the Mueller investigation. Like with all Wikipedia articles, we go where reliable sources lead us. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Retain The controversy includes the special counsel investigation, the FBI investigation into Clinton’s use of an email server and the FBI’s Russia investigation. I’m happy to leave this article in one piece under this title for now. Perhaps in a year or two we can split large chunks off, once we have a bit of historical perspective, but for now this is the title readers will come to for this information, and sending them all over Wikipedia to sections embedded in other articles would be doing them a disservice. I might support a name change for this article at some point; maybe Strzok text message controversy. But let’s not rush. The current title is adequate. —Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I agree with the spirit of this proposal (I !voted to "Delete & Redirect" at the AfD). Unfortunately, that ship has already sailed. If we're stuck with this article, then indeed it should be more akin to Murder of Seth Rich with the content that would hopefully not besmirch the real-life person we are doing this to. So Keep the relevant material, unless another brave soul nominates the article for AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Retain, except for the completely unrelated "False coup claims" WP:COATRACK Snooganssnoogans added to Fox News and then copy/pasted here, about how profoundly "scary and dangerous" it is to question the federal government in a democracy, according to "experts."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Weren't the false coup claims supported and possibly inspired by what Strzok said in those texts, TheTimesAreAChanging? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email)  18:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Um, can you elaborate on that?  Volunteer Marek   00:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think VOX is the only publication to make a causal link between Strzok and the coup hyperbole. Quote:"Fox News host Jesse Watters criticized Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation at the FBI, suggesting it’s been “crooked from the jump.” “If that’s true,” he said on Saturday, “we have a coup on our hands in America.” Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway appeared on Watters’s show shortly after his comment, and a chyron appeared below her reading: “A coup in America?” “The fix was in against Donald Trump from the beginning, and they were pro-Hillary,” Conway said, referring to the FBI. “They can’t possibly be seen as objective or transparent or even-handed or fair.” Watters and Conway were reacting to revelations that a senior FBI counterintelligence official, Peter Strzok, who had until recently been part of Mueller’s investigation, spent months sending text messages to a colleague in the runup to the 2016 election deriding Trump as a “douche,” “utter idiot,” and “loathsome human.”"
 * Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Copying a paragraph of media criticism from Fox News into this BLP was a mistake. If there is anything to salvage from that WP:COATRACK section, it can be trimmed down to a sentence or two and merged into the rest of the article.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I’m not convinced. Fox News is as responsible for the multi-trillion dollar, massive casualty mess in Iraq as G W Bush. Fox is now calling a normal, legal investigation a coup, laying the foundations for an actual uprising by right wing nut jobs with guns and fertiliser; and it was triggered by the disclosure that Strzok despises Trump. Only time will tell how important this is, so for now we rely on our judgment in the moment. My judgment is that this “coup” call is extremely serious (even if no civil war or uprising flows from it) and warrants the paragraph we presently devote to it. —Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A.) The American political class and establishment media as a whole broadly favored the invasion of Iraq. B.) The Left previously argued that appointing a special counsel to investigate Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server as secretary of state—the normal, expected course of action if the attorney general has a conflict of interest, as Comey alleged Lynch did—was an unprecedented threat to democracy and would turn the U.S. into a "banana republic," using language at least as inflammatory as Fox. C.) Many respected scholars, most notably Alan Dershowitz, have raised the same concerns that Leftists did about investigating Hillary and that Rightists and Fox News now raise about an open-ended, unaccountable investigation of Trump and his associates for "collusion" (which is not a crime) with Russia/Turkey/Israel as well as tax and financial matters stretching back at least a decade—namely, that criminalizing policy differences harms democracy. In any case, Strzok's text messages are only tangentially related to Fox's anti-Mueller coverage, which long predated their disclosure; the texts merely played into an already existing narrative.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that there were some among "the Leftists" (whatever the hey that's supposed to be) that made those criticisms about the investigations of CLinton's emails. So what? Was there a whole news network dedicated to attacking that investigation 24/7? And how long did that investigation go on? 500 days or so. How long did the investigation of Whitewater/Bill Clinton go on 1490 days or so. How long did the Benghazi stupidity go on? 949 days. How long has the Russia/Trump probe started? Not even a year. 280 days or so. So maybe, come back in a year or a year and a half and them just maybe your point will be valid.  Volunteer Marek   05:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * (I could also ask how many arrests per time spent investigating those other investigations produced, compared to this one - which should be a pretty good indicator whether a given investigation was concerned with something real, or just pure partisan bullshit. The answer's sorta obvious).  Volunteer Marek   05:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not helpful to deploy crypto-Marxist weasel gibberish like "political class" or to introduce other facile and faded Euro-zone intellectual categories to a simple set of facts. If we stick to plain English words with real meaning, this "concern" is nothing but hot air. And the suggestion that Alan Dershowitz, at this point in his storied and checkered career, is a "respected legal scholar" belongs more on the Sunday Funnies than an article talk page.  Everything that significantly "plays into" a noteworthy event is worthy of due weight in the article. Any argument against would need to present fact-based arguments readily intelligible to editors not steeped in fin de siecle intellectual jargon.   SPECIFICO  talk  14:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What's not helpful is referring to the writings of other editors as "gibberish" or attacking highly respected public figures such as Alan Dershowitz. Is there a way to get rid of the comments above? We shouldn't be here to talk about our own political opinions or whether or not we think it Americans criticizing the investigation for which they are paying is "bullshit". We're here to improve the article, not bicker. 17.255.232.153 (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, gee, another single purpose brand new account.  Volunteer Marek   23:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

McCarthy
Andrew C. McCarthy is not a part of this story and would not belong in the lead in any case, but Anythingyouwant also misrepresented McCarthy's position by focusing only on his early skepticism. You will recall that The New York Times did not consider Strzok's "insurance policy" text fit to print in its initial December 12 report on this matter, prompting McCarthy to opine: "#Strzok & Page texts look like a big nothing - no hint of corruption in their jobs. Lots of people (me included) speak crudely in private about politics. If you're ok w/ Trump's outbursts, I don't see getting whipped over this BS." After being made aware of the "insurance policy" text, McCarthy changed his mind: [https://twitter.com/AndrewCMcCarthy/status/940989860801929216 "Obviously, this is not political banter. Clearly indicates professional duties infected by political viewpoints, which is disqualifying. I was going on the published accounts I'd seen, which didn't include this one. Should follow my own advice to wait til all facts in."] Anythingyouwant's text also dramatically departs from McCarthy's latest National Review column, "Was the Steele Dossier the FBI's 'Insurance Policy'?," by suggesting that McCarthy believed the FBI's investigation of Hillary Clinton was beyond reproach. In fact, McCarthy states: "The irregularities in the Clinton-emails investigation are legion: President Obama making it clear in public statements that he did not want Clinton charged; the FBI, shortly afterwards, drafting an exoneration of Clinton months before the investigation ended and central witnesses, including Clinton herself, were interviewed; investigators failing to use the grand jury to compel the production of key evidence; the DOJ restricting FBI agents in their lines of inquiry and examination of evidence; the granting of immunity to suspects who in any other case would be pressured to plead guilty and cooperate against more-culpable suspects; the distorting of criminal statutes to avoid applying them to Clinton; the sulfurous tarmac meeting between Attorney General Lynch and former President Clinton shortly before Mrs. Clinton was given a peremptory interview — right before then–FBI director Comey announced that she would not be charged." In the same op-ed, McCarthy dismisses The Wall Street Journal defense of Strzok's text as a "laughable strawman." I have no opinion on whether McCarthy's commentary belongs in this article, but we should not actively distort his views.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I hadn’t realized McCarthy changed his mind. I was going off a news article in The Nation by Carden, which has not been updated.  Anyway, thanks for the correction.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What's the point, really? This reads like it's prelude to a conspiracy theory. We have simple decisions to make, so what is the proposed edit? Or is this ex post?  SPECIFICO  talk  23:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I was explaining my rationale for this deletion.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Apologetics??
This text: Some GOP U.S. representatives cited the anti-Trump messages as evidence of Strzok's bias. In his private correspondence with Page, Strzok had also made disparaging remarks about Eric Holder, Attorney General in the Obama administration, former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley (a Democrat), and Bernie Sanders, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination. appears to me to be an attempt to balance Strzok's purported unprofessional conduct by mentioning alleged (although never produced) badmouthing, in unspecified "private correspondence" of Holder, O'Malley and Sanders -- certainly heavyweight Democrats and polar opposites of the current POTUS and his administration, but none of whom are under investigation or being interrogated under oath or facing charges of criminal wrongdoing. There is nothing proximate or similar between Strzok's interactions regarding Trump, Flynn (and Hillary Clinton), and his purported trivial bitching about three well-known Democrats, two of whom are out of office and, as far as I know, in the private sector. Sanders, of course, remains in the US Senate. Quis separabit? 01:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * With regard to the point in bold above, at the time the disparaging texts were made about Trump he was not under investigation either (nor was he president yet). With regard to "alleged (although never produced) badmouthing in unspecified private correspondence," the two URL sources embedded above show that the badmouthing was in the same batch of text messages turned over to the House Committee in which all were badmouthed, including Trump.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I recommend that we keep that stuff to show Strzok wasn't complientary to some Demcrats, but also add that he was very complimentary to Hillary Clinton and very much wanted her to beat Trump.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you cite some examples of him being very complimentary to Clinton? A TV report that I heard (so I can't find a link, and don't have time to search) said he criticized Clinton as well as the other Democrats named here. The point of including these other tweets is to counteract the claim that his anti-Trump tweets prove a deep-seated bias against Trump in particular. The truth appears to be that he expressed negative opinions (as many of us do) about a lot of political figures, on both sides of the aisle. --MelanieN (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * @MelanieN -- the adjective "complimentary" is questionable so let us move beyond it. Let us say Strzok proved to be HRC's savior by changing the language (which Comey allowed him to do) from "grossly negligent" to "extreme carelessness", ensuring HRC would not face any charges. So he didn't compliment her; he saved her hide. (Comey then passively-aggresively retaliated by announcing the reopening of an investigation in the days before the election, helping HRC lose election.) Quis separabit?  01:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, one of Strzok's messages was "God, Hillary should win 100,000,000-0." It was shortly after Trump became the overwhelming favorite to win the GOP nomination and on the same day that he and Rubio were debating dick sizes. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Is that a compliment to Clinton, or another swipe at Trump suggesting that he should get zero votes? AzureCitizen (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If we include his disparaging comments about various Democrats, then we ought to include that he planned to vote for Hillary and vote Democrat. Otherwise we make it seem like he was totally neutral in disdaining everyone.  On March 2, 2016, Strzok was asked who he would vote for and said: “I suppose Hillary....I would [vote] D.”&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * He also said "Ok I may vote for Trump," so I don't think we can draw any conclusions on how he actually voted. FallingGravity 17:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Rather, the article is missing a ton of information on this whole fake scandal actually being an attack on the Mueller investigation by Republicans and far-right media.  Volunteer Marek  17:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait wait, let me grab my special foil hat. Okay! Now do go on about the grand conspiracy. PackMecEng (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh fridge off. You know damn well that that is exactly what is happening. Yours is not a constructive comment.  Volunteer Marek   21:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The neutral point of view requires that we discuss the full range of his commentary. Holder had been his boss's boss for many years, and O'Malley and Sanders were candidates for the presidency. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  19:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

A Clinton voter
I inserted the following but it was removed:

The first cited source says that he had views typical of a Clinton voter, and the second cited source quotes him as saying he would be voting for Clinton. It is very frustrating to do the work of gathering this info only to have it flushed down the toilet without any effort to improve it or make it better. I can only assume that the edit eliminating this information was intended to make readers think that he did not have any partisan sympathy for Clinton even though he did. I really deplore such editing at Wikipedia which openly defies policies like WP:NPOV and WP:Preserve.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It is clear from the sources that he generally preferred Clinton to Trump, as did a plurality of Americans who actually cast votes. But maybe he was too busy to go to the polls that day. Maybe his car broke down on the way to the polling place. Maybe he decided to vote for Jill Stein at the last minute. We need a reliable source that states unequivocally that he actually cast a vote for Clinton to say he did. That should be obvious, Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  05:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If you see that as a problem, Cullen, then why not just change the proposed sentence to say "The texts also revealed that Strzok supported Hillary Clinton in 2016 and held views typical of a Hillary Clinton voter"? What I object to is editors flushing the whole thing away without the slightest attempt to improve it.  Wikipedia policy is to "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content."  Wikipedia policy is not "Delete without discussion any material that you dislike if you can find a slight flaw or imperfection in how it was presented."&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:05, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not revert the content and have no interest in drafting compliant text,, since I fail to see the encyclopedic or ethical value in speculating about the contents of his secret ballot. It is incumbent on those who want to add contentious material to gain consensus, furnishing reliable sources in support. Please do so. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  06:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Cullen328, I propose this:

We describe various Democrats and Republicans whom Strzok criticized, which leaves the impression that Strzok was completely neutral, when in fact he was a Clinton supporter per the cited sources, so we should correct the misimpression.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * How about "The texts also revealed that Strzok supported Hillary Clinton's campaign in 2016." We have no evidence that the typical Clinton voter shared Strzok's opinions about Eric Holder, Martin O'Malley or Bernie Sanders. Some Clinton voters were enthusiastic about backing her and others held their noses. Some Clinton voters adored Bernie Sanders and others despised him. Can't you see that you need to cite a reliable source saying "held views typical of a Hillary Clinton voter" or equivalent, specifically, to make such a claim? A source that addresses the range of opinion among Clinton voters? <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  07:15, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine with me, User:Cullen328. We can say "The texts also revealed that Strzok supported Hillary Clinton's campaign in 2016."  By the way, the second first cited source says, "Strzok and Page held political views typical of the average Clinton voter".&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I hope that you will forgive me,, but I do not think that we should trust another post in the ongoing frenetic Fox News attack campaign against Strzok for a description of what the views of a typical Clinton voter might be. They despise and revile Clinton and her voters, and have abandoned the pretense of neutrality. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  08:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I fixed my previous comment.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Nothing should be said about how he voted, which we don't actually know. We still do have a secret ballot in this country, and even FBI agents are entitled to cast a vote. Comments like "I suppose Hillary... I would vote D" do not suggest he was some kind of Clinton enthusiast. If anything, they sound more typical of many Clinton voters who held their nose and voted for her as the lesser of two evils. "Held the views of a typical Clinton voter" means nothing; there were tens of millions of Clinton voters and I have seen no evidence to suggest how a "typical" voter felt about her. I am seeing a lot of Original Research in this thread. Let's stick to what neutral, reliable sources say about him rather than trying to interpret this tweet or that. --MelanieN (talk) 15:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Not to mention that in some other messages Strzok and Page express support for Kasich. It's basically inane banter two people exchange in private which is pretty meaningless. Except I guess for this part: ''"I don’t know. But we’ll get it back. We’re America. We rock.".  Volunteer Marek   19:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

A supporter of Clinton over Trump
Overall, Strzok expressed support for Clinton over Trump, and we ought to say so in this BLP, because it's been widely reported. &#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So, um, first, whatever happened to This is my last edit at this BLP or its talk page? Promises, promises.
 * Second, Strzok, like many people, including many many many Republicans, expressed a preference against Trump. That's sort of already covered.  Volunteer Marek   07:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry if you misunderstood and got your hopes up, I didn’t mean the last edit for as long as I live, just for a few days. This article presently does not not say one single word about Strzok supporting Clinton.  Hating Trump is not the same as supporting Clinton.  Many many people supported neither.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So when you said "This is my last edit at this BLP or its talk page", what you actually meant was "This is my last edit at this BLP or its talk page, just for a few days". I wasn't aware that "last" actually the same thing as "for a few days", but hey, wacky world we live in. So you couldn't help yourself and came back. Fine, your right. But please, at the very least don't try to make it out like I "misunderstood" anything.  Volunteer Marek   08:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I was parodying lame apologies of the “I'm sorry for what you think I did​” variety.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I’ll probably be taking this to a noticeboard soon. It’s kind of weird to omit a central fact from this BLP given that its omission makes the controversy appear ludicrous.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Does User:AzureCitizen believe with VM that opposition to Trump’s candidacy implies support for Clinton’s? That idea seems absurd to me (e.g. see Jill Stein, or Gary Johnson, or the tens of millions of people who were so disgusted by the two major candidates that they didn’t even vote).&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with everyone besides Anythingyouwant that we can and should quote some of Strzok's text messages, but there is no reason to engage in mind-reading or speculation about who he voted for in Wikipedia's voice.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don’t recall saying that we shouldn’t quote some of Strzok's text messages. My preference is to use secondary sources, but primary sources can be used with care.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Absent Strzok himself saying "I supported Clinton in the election," I think we should probably stay away from speculating whether or not Strzok supported Clinton in the election. The reporter who wrote the USA Today article wrote that Strzok "expressed a clear preference," but if you read Johnson's article in its entirety, it becomes apparent this is based solely on the "100,000,000 to 0" text message.  People's impressions of what the "1,000,000 to 0" text message meant are going to vary based on their own speculative perceptions; we have supplied readers with that text message so that they can reach their own conclusions.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits
Anythingyouwant - how are your recent edits NOT a violation of the discretionary sanction about consensus required? You changed the text, I challenged, you just changed it again.

(and seriously, how the fuck is anyone expected to edit these articles in this atmosphere???????????????????)  Volunteer Marek   08:03, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven’t edited this BLP in more than 17 hours. Provide diffs if you want to be understood.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Right. It's those edits made 17 hours ago that are problematic - you sort of answered your own question there and showed that you did indeed understand what I was talking about.  Volunteer Marek   21:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Can I just say, this article is coming on nicely. You may both be finding the process stressful, but the result of both efforts is commendable. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

BLP - "raised questions of bias"
Unless this can be extensively sourced - and not just to someone's opinion here or there - it's a straight up BLP vio.  Volunteer Marek  08:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It’s accompanied by four footnotes, none of which you bother to mention or describe or critique. See WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  The material that VM blithely deleted from the lead and from the article body is as follows (quotes added into footnotes):

I am concerned that this article is being edited in a propagandistic way, with dishonest edit summaries, to simply blank all information that causes discomfort or conflicts with some agenda.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit to lead paragraph
I don’t object to this entire edit of the lead paragraph, but do object to some of it. “In 2016, Strzok was Deputy Assistant Director of the Counterintelligence Division (i.e. number two official in that division)….” was changed to “Strzok rose to become the Deputy Assistant Director of the Counterintelligence Division ….” Readers unfamiliar with FBI structure will assume that there is a Director of the counterintelligence division, and some number of assistant directors, and that Strzok was one of the deputies to one of those assistants. Actually, of course, Strzok was the second highest ranking official in the division. So, I intend to either restore the previous language, or maybe rephrase it to avoid the parenthetical, e.g. like this: “Strzok rose to become the Deputy Assistant Director of the Counterintelligence Division, which is the number two position in that division….”&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * It's covered in the article body, and I felt it would be better to avoid adding interpretative explanations like that in the lead. However, other editors may see it differently.  Would someone care to give us a "third opinion"?  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:Lead, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic." The reader shouldn't have to read the whole article to discover that Strzok wasn't a peon in the counterintelligence division. And I think you know very well it's not an interpretive explanation:
 * Jarrett, Laura; Perez, Evan (December 4, 2017). "FBI agent dismissed from Mueller probe changed Comey description of Clinton", CNN: “Peter Strzok… the No. 2 official in the counterintelligence division..."


 * "Mueller removed FBI agent from Russia probe for anti-Trump texts: reports", Reuters (December 2, 2017): “Peter Strzok, the deputy head of FBI counter-intelligence”.

&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "No. 2 Official" and "deputy head" are interpretative explanations by reporters, aren't they? His official (and correct) job title was Deputy Assistant Director, wasn't it?  With regard to WP:LEAD as you quoted, it's supposed to be a concise; adding interpretative explanations isn't very concise.  I think they are better explained in the body, where they help give that context.  I even expanded that point in the body a few hours ago to a full sentence to give it emphasis, but you changed it back.  Nonetheless, you would have me genuinely concerned if I felt the lead was making him sound like "a peon," but I struggle to see how readers would get that impression.  Right now, the lead says that he lead the FBI's investigation into the 2016 Russian election interference as the Deputy Assistant Director of the bureau's Counterintelligence Division.  Plus the Clinton email server thing.  That doesn't sound unimportant to me, but that's just my perception.  Is anyone else here concerned that omitting those interpretative explanations in the lead might make Strzok sound like a peon?  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * AzureCitizen, it's standard lingo at Wikipedia that "analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claims require secondary sources" so I assumed (perhaps incorrectly?) that you were using the words "interpretative explanation" to indicate some need for further secondary sources. "No. 2 Official" and "deputy head" is standard reporting for readers who would not otherwise understand what "Deputy Assistant Director" means in this context.  You seriously want to oppose writing “Strzok rose to become the Deputy Assistant Director of the Counterintelligence Division, which is the number two position in that division….” in the lead, even though reliable secondary sources say that this kind of extremely brief explanation is advisable?  I don't think any reader would think "Well, he ran the Clinton investigation, therefore he must be number two in the Counterintelligence Division".  I said this was the only part of your edit that I object to.  I try to accept as much as I can, hint, hint.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that a reader who read that he ran the Clinton investigation would therefore think he must have been the number two in the Counterintelligence Division; please re-read what I wrote above if you're confused on that. With regard to objecting to other parts of the edit, by all means bring up your objections here if you perceive there are problems.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I would rather concede points that I do not view as very important, in the hopes that other editors will do likewise. I really have no clue why you think it's important to not follow reliable sources by saying (in the lead) "which is the number two position in that division….".  You seem to concede that a reader who reads the lead right now will not think he must have been the number two in the Counterintelligence Division.  Is it important to you that readers not think he was number two in the Division?  And why would that be?  Why are you declining to allow clarity here?  I am indeed confused about that.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to "not follow reliable sources," nor am I trying to prevent readers from reading something, nor am I trying to dis-allow "clarity" here. Instead, I think it's better to keep the lead very concise and straight forward on those relevant points, with explanatory items saved for the body (and fully explained there).  Obviously, you see it differently.  In any event, I need to turn in for the night here now, so this is my last comment for the evening... perhaps someone else will help us out and provide additional perspective.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 05:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "number two position in that division" is extremely straightforward, clear, supported by reliable sources, and concise. If you like, we can use that language instead of "Deputy Assistant Director" or include both, whatever you prefer.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What I prefer is that we keep the lede concise and straightforward by using his correct and official job title, and save additional explanatory content for the body. I think that's a better way to write anyone's BLP; you state the person's official position, then you expand on that in the article body for greater understanding.  In the body, I tried to use a full and independent sentence to emphasize that ("In this capacity, he was the number two official within the division.")  Why did you fold that point inside the other sentence? AzureCitizen (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This talk page section is about the lead, but feel free to start another talk page section if you like. What you say about the lead makes no sense.  We explain how to pronounce his name, but you don't object to that.  We explain lots of other things in the lead too.  That's what a lead is for, to explain basic information about the BLP subject's life.  We explain that the text messages were personal ones, for example.  Yet you refuse to explain that he was number two in the intelligence division.  I will start an RFC about this, so that more Wikipedians can waste vast amounts of time here just like you are having us do.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Rubbish in lead paragraph
I strongly object to this POV-pushing stuff that has just been reinserted into the lead paragraph:

Where to begin? The text messages were not even in the lead, so who is emphasizing them by putting them in the lead? Someone who is complaining about emphasis, that's who. In any event, it is atrocious writing to discuss “the emphasis” without first describing what is allegedly emphasized, namely the text messages. And who is being quoted here? Why quote someone in the lead paragraph without saying who is speaking. This whole sentence is POV-pushing bullshit but not unexpected I suppose.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Volunteer Marek continues to edit-war about this, whle ignoring the talk page. Per WP:BLP, "The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material."&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You say "VM continues to edit-war" yet you're the one who broke 3RR on this page by making four reverts. And how many times now have you tried to abuse WP:BLP as an excuse for your edit warring? And how many times has that worked?
 * There was nothing to discuss either. You claimed the sentence was unsourced. Bullkaka. It was sourced, just in the text, not the lede as is the usual practice. Which you are familiar with.
 * I also don't appreciate my edit being called "POV-pushing bullshit" - per both WP:NPA, and WP:ASPERSIONS - particularly since it's almost verbatim from sources.  Volunteer Marek   04:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And you REALLY have some nerve crying "BLP!" when most of this whole article, at least in the form you created, was nothing but one big BLP smear itself.  Volunteer Marek   04:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Bull-oney, and you know it. The lead of the article that survived AfD was not a partisan rant like it is now.  Am I forbidden to ever mention BLP or ask anyone to abide by it?  Your addition of a few footnotes does not change that there is no inline attribution for the quote, no context about text messages so the reader will know what you're talking about, etc.  The GOP emphasis on the text messages has been described many ways, but you put in the lead the one you like best, because that's how POV-pushing is done.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what the AfD is suppose to have to do with the lede of this article.  Volunteer Marek   19:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, can you please explain how anything here is a BLP vio? You keep throwing that term around but afaict the only one violating BLP here - and "here" is after all an article about Peter Strzok - is YOU, by omitting pertinent info. And the article is much more neutral now. Before it was essentially a Seth Rich 2.0 hit piece.  Volunteer Marek   19:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Anythingyouwant, we should stick to biographical details in the lead, not info about how their private texts are being used by conservative media to discredit an ongoing investigation. FallingGravity 07:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The only reason this person is notable is the text messages and the campaign to discredit him and Mueller. Of course this belongs in the lede.  Volunteer Marek   08:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You say you have "no idea what the AfD is suppose to have to do with the lede of this article" but you also know that "the only reason this person is notable is the text messages and the campaign to discredit him and Mueller"? Actually the AfD's purpose was to determine if the article was notable, and the anti-Trump text messages wasn't the only reason, or even one of the listed reasons. If it was, then we'd have the article Peter Strzok and Lisa Page's text messages per WP:BLP1E. FallingGravity 08:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ummm... yeah, it was one of the "listed reasons" (to the extent I can guess what you mean by that). No text messages, no notability.  Volunteer Marek   08:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * He's notable because of coverage of him in Reliable Sources, not because of a partisan smear campaign. I'm okay with mentioning the text messages in the lede, but the most recent "campaign to discredit Mueller" is tangential to the article's subject. The partisan campaign deserves a mention in the body, but main coverage should be in 2017 Special Counsel investigation. FallingGravity 18:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The "coverage of him in Reliable Sources" IS about his text messages and the smear campaign. There's no difference between the two here.  Volunteer Marek   19:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I mean look, this guy was piddling away in happy obscurity and non-notability until his text messages came out, then BOOM! within hours if not minutes, somebody creates an article about him. And you're sitting here claiming with a straight face that his notability has nothing to do with the text messages..... ???  Volunteer Marek   19:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is is that if all he did was send anti-Trump text messages, then he wouldn't be notable per WP:BLP1E. He's also notable for being involved in two high-profile investigations. It's only recently that RS have given him enough coverage to meet GNG, though The New York Times covered his involvement in Clinton's email investigation back in April 2017. FallingGravity 21:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And what I'm saying is that before this kind send the text messages, nobody thought he was notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. The "only recently that RS have given him enough coverage" part is actually a different way of saying the same thing. The proof is in the pudding. The only reason he's notable is because of the controversy and fake scandal.  Volunteer Marek   00:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * And while we're piddling away on an FBI guy who sent text messages, more crucial articles are still underdeveloped. If only Vileshchay reservoir were "controversial"... Drmies (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * To be fair it is a fairly poorly sourced article with controversial labels applied to a reservoir BLP. PackMecEng (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That’s a dam not a reservoir. Those reservoirists are pushing this shit all over this project. —Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If either one of you think there is a BLP violation in this article then please 1) specifically state which text is a BLP violation and 2) how this text violates BLP by attacking or misrepresenting a living person.  Volunteer Marek   00:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any BLP violations at the moment. (My comment was a joke about the reservoir article.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I have removed most of the disputed sentence per WP:ONUS: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Also per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE: "If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first." The sentence can be restored if consensus to include in the lede is met here. FallingGravity 16:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The lede summarizes the article main text. The main text already includes this information (and no one's objecting to it being there). Therefore WP:ONUS has already been made. Please stop trying to WP:GAME Wikipedia policies.  Volunteer Marek   04:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Consensus was not been reached, so WP:ONUS has not been made. In addition, the article's sanctions requires consensus, not just the opinion of one editor. Try letting other editors offer their opinions, though I see the sentence in question has currently morphed into something quite different. FallingGravity 21:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1. Let me repeat my request. Can you specify WHICH "living person" does this material potentially offend, per WP:BLP?  Volunteer Marek   21:31, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 2. The material is already in the article, with consensus, and the lede just summarizes this consensus having material as it should.
 * 3. Please don't try to dismiss me or my edit as "opinion of one editor" since very clearly that's not what it is.  Volunteer Marek   21:31, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, since you invoked WP:BPLREQUESTRESTORE - please explain 1) how the sentence potentially violates BLP and 2) who exactly is the living person who is being potentially hurt by the insertion of this sentence? Otherwise, quit bullshitting. Adding the sentence FIXES a BLP problem, which exists WITHOUT it. Wikipedia policies aren't just cute little acronyms that can be chanted like magic incantations - they actually mean something, so please treat them with some respect and stop using them in a cynical manner.  Volunteer Marek  05:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

As a further elaboration on my comment above,, you can either answer the question posed above, or you stop trying to use BLP or ONUS as an argument. But you sort of have to do one or the other.  Volunteer Marek  21:32, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1. Most of the "controversy" has nothing to do with Peter Strzok as a person beyond his removal from the Mueller investigation. Strzok isn't responsible for people taking his personal text messages and make them into a secret plot to overthrow Trump, as much as John Podesta or James Alefantis are responsible people making up a child sex ring based on their emails.
 * 2. The current sentence is a lot different than the previous sentence we were discussing. There is currently an ongoing discussion about "the material" so it baffles me that you think consensus has already been reached, though it probably shouldn't really baffle me at this point.
 * 3. If you want to believe that, that's fine with me. Of course your opinion is a lot more important than mine or 's. FallingGravity 23:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "Most of the "controversy" has nothing to do with Peter Strzok as a person beyond his removal from the Mueller investigation." - lol. That's like saying that Lord of the Rings has nothing to do with a magic ring beyond it being transported to a volcano.  Volunteer Marek   23:31, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This seems like a discussion for a different section, so I'll start that one up. FallingGravity 23:44, 25 December 2017 (UTC) Never mind, I think it's mostly been addressed per WP:Controversy sections. FallingGravity 00:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

so much nitpicking about his title and trivialities. Heres whats important. AS mentioned, he saved Hillarys ass. His level in the DOJ was high enough to personally overwrite James Comey's Hillary letter. Yes it was a "team effort" they claimed but anyone who uses Word understands that the electronic record shows that Strzok made the edit. Thats what makes him significant, he killed the Hillary investigation. 2nd, he opened the initial Trump investigation. Dont care what his title was, he was high enough level to be listed as the guy who "signed off on the investigation". In light of these actions, his emails to Lisa Page are troublesome. No I dont need a Republican conspiracy or Rush Limbaugh to tell me this is a big deal. It's a major conflict of interest. So much about how highly his coworkers think of him but very little about the poor judgement he showed by having an extramarital affair with a fellow Mueller team member, and using his company phone. I resent the tone that its all a vast right wing conspiracy to discredit Mueller and "save" Trump. God has anyone else actually read this page?. I swear team Hillary herself wrote this whole page. Stwischu (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Insertion of material that’s not about BLP subject
The following material has just been restored:

The cited source does not even mention the BLP subject. See WP:SYNTH.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreee that this is improper synthesis. We can't do that. Politrukki (talk) 11:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You removed the sentence in violation of discretionary sanctions. It's been in there for weeks. Please put it back in and get consensus for removal.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also this could easily be reworded to include the subject's name. Anyway, it needs to go back unless there's consensus to remove. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It could be easily reworded to include your name too, but neither your name nor Strzok's are in the cited sources, right?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Cite me a talk page consensus for including this material and I shall self-revert. If you cannot cite a consensus, please report yourself to nearest admin and tell them that you made a boo-boo. Politrukki (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed it should be completely removed. Including the sentence before it "The text messages were featured in the Fox News Channel's rhetoric criticizing Mueller's investigation and urging President Donald Trump to fire Mueller." which is poorly sourced to a blog. PackMecEng (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Uh, that's sourced to New York Magazine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Wrong! Daily Intelligencer is a column or, sometimes, a WP:NEWSBLOG. If you'll read the piece, you'll notice from the language that the piece is written as an opinion, not a news article. Opinions can't be cited as fact and this particular opinion piece is not noteworthy (unless proven otherwise), so it fails WP:WEIGHT. Politrukki (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what I meant. Daily Intelligence is a blog. PackMecEng (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The material was removed clearly without getting WP:Consensus (while there was previously a de facto consensus for this material to be included - it was on the page for a long time), i.e. this is a violation of "consensus required" restriction. The material is also well sourced and relevant to the controversy which directly involves the subject of the page. This is key controversy the subject is known for. Hence it should be restored. My very best wishes (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

There's enough consensus here to remove it. 104.185.79.23 (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * How come? Three people tell is should stay and three people tell it should go. First removal without obtaining consensus was made by Anythingyouwant . Second removal was made by Politrukki . So, by the letter of the restriction Politrukki should be reported to WP:AE unless he/she self-revert. I do not like this editing restriction, but rules must be respected for as long as they exist. My very best wishes (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My very best wishes, this is not just a vote about who likes it. Do you think that the source mentions the BLP subject?  See Samuelsohn, Darren (December 19, 2017). "The real reason Trump allies are attacking Mueller", Politico.  If not, why is that not a violation of WP:SYNTH?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

IMO both sentences should be removed. --MelanieN (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps they should, after an appropriate discussion, but my point was that people must respect editing restrictions currently on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually the source DOES mention the subject although not by name. But I agree, sourcing could be better. However, the material itself is relevant and if better sources can be provided should be kept.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Feel free to provide more sources, including Raw Story if you also provide a more reliable source. :-)&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Redundancy
This BLP says: While referring to Strzok's messages, the Fox News Channel intensified its anti-Mueller rhetoric....The text messages were featured in the Fox News Channel's rhetoric criticizing Mueller's investigation and urging President Donald Trump to fire Mueller.[47] Let's remove the redundant stuff following the ellipsis.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Should the lede reflect Strzok's anti-Trump AND anti-Democratic messages or none?
Should the lede reflect that (1) Strzok's anti-Trump messages have given rise to serious efforts by congressional Republicans and conservative talking heads to discredit the 2017 special counsel investigation (and/or investigate the 2017 special counsel investigation), and (2) that Strzok has (like most people) made disparaging remarks about various Democratic politicians (such as Eric Holder, Martin O'Malley and Bernie Sanders)? I added that text to the lede but it was removed. Isn't #1 precisely a key reason why this Wikipedia article exists in the first place? Isn't #2 necessary context? Context that all reliable sources provide when covering #1. I think the lede should contain both #1 and #2. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the article should make clear that he was critical of various people on both sides of the aisle, including Clinton herself, in his tweets. I have no suggeted language and don't have time today to work on it. --MelanieN (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Suggesting that Strzok's criticism of politicians was balanced "on both sides of the aisle" is not supported by the facts. Strzok's criticism of Trump and other Republicans is disproportionate compared to Democrats.  This is the reason why he was removed from Mueller's team.  To suggest otherwise is misleading. Omniscientest (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there more to life than editing Wikipedia??? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Melanie is correct, and that can be accomplished in the article body. So, I think it's premature to put anything about the text messages into the lead, for several reasons.  First, only a small fraction of the messages have been released yet, and many more are expected.  Second, if this is a faux controversy that is quickly fading away (as Snooganssnoogans said in an edit summary), then it is best left out of the lead.  Third, this article includes lots of footnotes to reliable sources that pre-date any public knowledge of the recently divulged text messages, so there's no reason per WP:Recentism to give the text message so much prominence in the lead.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Who gets to determine whether something is a "faux controversy" and when it is "deflating", and how are the determinations made? Omniscientest (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:Consensus. I'm not agreeing that it's a faux controversy that is quickly fading, but rather am merely referring to another editor's characterization.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

So now more messages have been released and there is no question that this guy believed his mission in life was to oppose Trump. Read the messages. To say that this is a republican conspiracy is to ignore the fact the it is the very purpose of these Congressional intelligence committees to investigate wrongdoing in these beuraus, regardles of who is in office. Also the idea of a Republican controlled department of justice is utter nonsense. The very existance of this Stzrok guy proves there is no control of these bureaucracies. If the Republicans truly controlled the DOJ, this guy and Page would be fired the day Trump was inaugurated. Very opinionated wording "Republican controlled"Stwischu (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

A NYT article is inaccurately characterized as an editorial
One editor changed:


 * The New York Times noted that Mueller, "a registered Republican appointed by President George W. Bush to direct the F.B.I.", had come under growing criticism after Mueller's investigation "delivered a series of indictments to high-profile associates of the president and evidence that at least two of them are cooperating with the inquiry".

into:


 * The New York Times editorialized that Mueller, "a registered Republican appointed by President George W. Bush to direct the F.B.I.", had come under growing criticism after Mueller's investigation "delivered a series of indictments to high-profile associates of the president and evidence that at least two of them are cooperating with the inquiry".

The editor's rationale was "tweaked wording for less POV". What the editor did was not to tweak the wording for less POV but to introduce inaccurate WP:OR into the Wikipedia article. The NYT article was a news report, not an editorial. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I condensed the material, and that issue disappeared. Neither version you quote is about Strzok.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As you tried to "condense the material", you effectively removed the entire text about how Republican congressmen are saying that Strzok's messages (the sole reason why this Wikipedia article exists) are (1) evidence of the 2017 special counsel investigation's bias and (2) grounds for Rosensetein to create a second special counsel investigation into Mueller's team. And you also removed (3) Rosenstein's rejection of the requests where he noted that there is zero evidence of a potential crime in all of this. This is pertinent information. You also removed (4) NYT's note that these requests and attempts to discredit the Mueller investigation come in the wake of high-profile actions taken by the Mueller investigation. All four points are crucial context and are all related to Strzok and his messages. This is now twice in the last few hours that you just scrub reliably sourced and directly related material out of the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You then removed (6) some GOP Senator's defense of the Mueller investigation after other GOP figures attacked the investigation over Strzok's messages. The WaPo piece directly relates Strzok to (A) the attacks on Mueller and (B) the defense of Mueller. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Mueller removed Strzok from the investigation instantly upon learning of the text messages. Since Mueller did that, we would have to explain why a small number of GOP congressmen think Mueller acted too slowly, and it’s all undue weight, of no lasting significance.  You plucked out a couple tangential things from a recent congressional hearing, and could have plucked out a lot more.  The stuff that’s most relevant to Strzok I left in, such as Strzok’s criticism of Democrats.  The issue of whether Mueller’s investigation is stacked with partisan Democrats is best addressed in the Wikipedia article about Mueller’s investigation. &#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

After Anythingyouwant's absurd edits, the text changed from:


 * Some Republican congresspersons have used Strzok's anti-Trump messages to question the impartiality of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.[39] In a December 2017 hearing, several Republicans called on Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein to disband the Mueller investigation or create a second special counsel to investigate Mueller.[39] Rosenstein rejected both requests, saying that he could not appoint another special counsel as there was no credible allegation of any potential crime.[39] The New York Times editorialized that Mueller, "a registered Republican appointed by President George W. Bush to direct the F.B.I.", had come under growing criticism after Mueller's investigation "delivered a series of indictments to high-profile associates of the president and evidence that at least two of them are cooperating with the inquiry".[39] Some GOP U.S. representatives cited the anti-Trump messages as evidence of Strzok's bias. However, later that month, it was revealed that Strzok had, in his private correspondence with Page, also made disparaging remarks about Eric Holder, Attorney General in the Obama administration, former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley (a Democrat), and Bernie Sanders, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.[40][41] In response to criticism of Mueller from some Republican congressmen, several Republican Senators defended Mueller and the 2017 Special Counsel Investigation

to:


 * Some GOP U.S. representatives cited the anti-Trump messages as evidence of Strzok's bias. However, later that month, it was revealed that Strzok had, in his private correspondence with Page, also made disparaging remarks about Eric Holder, Attorney General in the Obama administration, former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley (a Democrat), and Bernie Sanders, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.

The edits remove all mention that Strzok's messages have been the basis of GOP requests to fire Mueller or to start a special counsel investigation into Mueller's investigation. The sources cited for the old version of the text (WaPo, NYT, WSJ, the Hill) all explicitly connected Strzok's messages to those requests. The editor fighting tooth and nail to keep this Wikipedia article because it's so notable is now fighting tooth and nail to remove any mention of how Strzok is being used as a basis to discredit or disband the 2017 Special Counsel Investigation (the Wikipedia article's greatest claim to notability at this point!). This reminds me of how the same editor fought tooth and nail to include Fox News's erroneous reporting on the Murder of Seth Rich but then fought tooth and nail to keep reporting on Fox News's errors out of the article when it was clear that the Fox News story was false. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What you call “the basis of GOP requests to fire Mueller or to start a special counsel investigation into Mueller's investigation” are based on many things, including Weissman’s email to Yates, the sketchiness of the Steele dossier, campaign donations by Mueller’s present staff, etc., etc.  You choose to omit the main GOP response to the text messages, which is to ask if Strzok carried over his personal viewpoints into his professional conduct, nor do you point to the specific text messages that raised that suspicion.  This isn’t The article about the Mueller investigation.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "What you call “the basis of GOP requests to fire Mueller or to start a special counsel investigation into Mueller's investigation” are based on many things". The reliable sources connect the GOP congresspeople's requests to Strzok's messages. That the Sean Hannitys and Matt Gaetzes of the world have called to disband the Mueller investigation since forever and for hundreds of reasons does not change the fact that various GOP congresspeople sought to discredit/disband the Mueller investigation over Strzok's messages in the last week. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If you think Strzok is the first thing that GOP congresscritters have found questionable about the Mueller team, you just haven’t been paying attention. Or perhaps you want to portray the GOP congresscritters that way.  In any event Congressman Jordan said this week: “appoint a second special counsel to look into this, to look into Peter Strzok, Bruce Ohr, everything else we have learned in the last several weeks.”  Not just Strzok by any stretch.  And as to Strzok, you haven’t quoted the particular text messages that raise GOP suspicions that he was more than opinionated.  Almost like you’re trying to paint the GOP complaints as baseless.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree 100% Stwischu (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2018
Not done:

Append the text "with whom he was engaged in an affair with. Both Strzok and Page were informed of the US Government's duty to retain records when they received their official FBI phones which were used to generate these text messages." to the following:

During the IG's investigation, it examined thousands of text messages exchanged using FBI-issued cell phones between Strzok and Lisa Page, a trial attorney on Mueller's team

Source:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/two-senior-fbi-officials-on-clinton-trump-probes-exchanged-politically-charged-texts-disparaging-trump/2017/12/02/9846421c-d707-11e7-a986-d0a9770d9a3e_story.html 107.77.230.129 (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Involvement in Clinton Investigation and Irrelevancy of Fox News
The lead now identifies who this associate was. The fact that it was a fellow Mueller team member, Lisa Page, is a critical piece of information that belongs in the upfront summary. Coupled with the affair, it explains why Mueler was so quick to dismiss Strzok. Reader shouldnt have to dig down 2 paragraphs to figure this out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stwischu (talk • contribs) 22:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I found this page to have some bias in suggesting every negative about Strzok or Mueller was Republican driven or Fox News, followed by counter opinions of unnamed sources. The most unbiased format is to just keep it about Strzok, his actions, and immediate consequences. Going into the whys becomes speculation and debate and then it's no longer factual.Stwischu (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Therefore I deleted the entire paragraph concerning Fox News since it did not specifically relate to who Peter Strzok is or what his actions were. Discrediting a specific news organization shows bias and opens a can of worms. One could add a paragraph on CNN inaccuracies and retractions, or the NY Times reversal of what they claim initiated the investigation. Plenty of sources to cite but not relevant to this subject.Stwischu (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I added some background on the part Mr. Strzok played in both the closing of the Clinton investigation and the opening of the Russia Trump investigation. No speculation as to why. Let the reader draw his/her own conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stwischu (talk • contribs) 22:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Stwischu (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well of course. That's standard for Wikipedia now - most news outlets outright ignore newsworthy items that are unflattering to their political agenda, leaving only Fox and smaller web based news outlets by Daily Caller etc. to report these things. Wikipedia then uses this to paint Fox as some kind of conspiracy theorist kooks because their news does not align with the rest of the progressive borg. Anything in the News Ltd. stable is generally regarded as unreliable but stuff from snopes and other places that have been frequently shown as either untruthful or biased is treated like the gold standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.132.10.250 (talk) 07:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked that much into other changes, but I agree that the Fox News stuff is irrelevant to this BLP, and fits better in the Fox News controversies article. FallingGravity 05:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Seeing as how the story got spread it most certainly is relevant.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Snooganssnoogans copied and pasted the text in question from Fox News, and it shows: It's the very definition of WP:COATRACK. Anything relevant could be trimmed down to a sentence or two. TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not what a coatrack is, and there's actually nothing wrong with that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The fact that Judge Napolitano and Shep Smith debunked the conspiracies from their fellow Fox News staff isn't mentioned. search -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Of course it belongs in the article. This Wikipedia page, which should not exist in the first place, is only notable in so far as it has given rise to yet another faux controversy on the right. This is eerily similar to discussions on Murder of Seth Rich where a number of editors (some of the same editors) fought tooth and nail to introduce right-wing conspiracy theories and hoaxes into the article (that was the faux controversy that right-wing media were up in arms over back then) but then called for the removal of any and all content when the content of the Murder of Seth Rich article started to be about debunking right-wing hoaxes and conspiracy theories. The Strzok page is in a similar phase right now, as reliable sources are covering this as a non-story and are instead covering the ways in which figures on the right are using the controversy to discredit the Mueller investigation and advocating purges of the government. Like with all Wikipedia articles, we go where reliable sources lead us. The accusations of WP:COATRACK are nonsense: every single sentence I've added to this article has a source that directly and explicitly connects to Strzok. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting how you refer to "right wing media" - do you also refer to CNN, Guardian, MSNBC, ABC, CBS etc. as the "left wing media"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.132.10.250 (talk) 07:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of leaking allegation
The following was deleted just now:

The edit summary says this is a smear. Give me a break. Per WP:BLP, “If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.” See also WP:NOTCENSOR.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The edit summary seems specious, but I'll let Specifico explain how they were not crying BLP. I would like to remind everybody that in cases where the alleged BLP violation is not obvious, the one who reverts should be able explain how the material violates BLP policy. If they can't do it in the edit summary, they must do that on the article talk page or appropriate noticeboard.
 * Claim about "Undue" might be due. Anythingyouwant, are you able to estimate how widely the subject has been connected to leak investigations? Politrukki (talk) 11:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Politrukki, nothing in the article in The Hill cited above has been contradicted by any reliable source, or even any unreliable one, as far as I can tell. On the contrary, the quotations used in that Hill article have been confirmed by other sources, which is a fairly menial task that even Fox News can reliably perform.  "One set of texts -- confirmed by Fox News -- in late October 2016 suggests they knew about a Wall Street Journal article in advance."  Aside from The Hill (neutral and reliable) and Fox News (conservative and only reliable for the basics), there's also Raw Story (which describes itself as progressive): “When those texts were revealed to the public late last year, they became a major GOP talking point that 'proved' bias against Trump within the bureau, leading to a new congressional probe into whether Page and Strzok were 'leaking' to the press."  Etc.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Raw Story is a news aggregator. Not RS, although whatever it is they're aggregatin' might be.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Per Wikipedia, Raw Story "covers current national and international political and economic news and publishes its own editorials and investigative pieces." Certainly they can be cited, e.g. with in-text attribution.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Check WP:RSN.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Raw Story" is very often used as an RS at Wikipedia, both with and without in-text attribution. I oppose using it without in-text attribution unless it merely supplements another more reliable source.  Here, it supplements another more reliable source.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a problem with Wikipedia. It's not RS. It's SPS. Like I said, check WP:RSN.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I did check RSN, and didn't see any discussion about using "Raw Story" with in-text attribution or merely to supplement a more reliable source.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The two sources (The Hill and Fox News) seem solid – I'm unable to comment Raw Story – but I'm not convinced that's enough for us to add innuendo about potential crimes. If the allegations – or allegations of allegations are noteworthy – more reports will come to us. We don't have a deadline. Meanwhile, more and more sources are reporting about Trump's comments on treason... Politrukki (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

First off, as you know -- anything that refers to official actions of the current "investigating committees" in Congress is really referring to Republican obstructions cloaked and enabled by the committees they control. So this bit that I deleted is, yes, a smear based on no evidence, using an irrelevant bit of incidental nothing to insinuate criminal acts by 2 living peoples and then giving it legitimacy by deadpan reporting to us that -- gasp -- thisorthat is being invstigated by a Congressional Inquiry. Sounds bad. Leave it out. Just in case they find something you will have eternity to source the facts to RS accounts of the whole sordid mess. And you'll have nice stable RS to give depth and perspective that go beyond Beltway gossip-blog filler. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * SPECIFICO, if it would make you happy, we can say "Republican obstructionists cloaked and enabled by the committees they control in the House and Senate are also investigating whether the text messages refer to alleged leaks by Strzok to the press during the 2016 election campaign.[1] A text message to Strzok in October 2016 said, 'Article is out, but hidden behind paywall so can't read it', and Strzok replied 'Wsj? Boy that was fast'." How's about that?  More neutral?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I bet you thought that we'd figure that was just another one of your haha-nonsense screeds. But actually, it shows you either don't understand or are denying the central point. To wit: They're not investigating anything. They're promoting a conspiracy theory by claiming to be investigating. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. What say you?. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I got your point, but please be less soapboxy and less personal attacky. You can't falsely accuse someone of "smearing" a biography. Politrukki (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi. "BLP Smear" is common usage on these articles, right? But obviously I don't think my concern is false, and the smear should not be in the article. We went through this for months at Murder of Seth Rich where all the fake news about "investigations" and clues were pushed into the article as if they were big deal encyclopedic facts. It took nearly a year to get all that garbage cleaned up. And now here we have smears against a career FBI agent and his sweetheart who was not even involved in any of this (unless you assume Fox's conspiracy theories are all true and verified the day they air on the morning show.) Anyway, it was truly a smearing. I think. Do you really disagree with the above? <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you're the only one, or one of the few, who cries "BLP smear". When you use that, are you casting aspersions against the alleged smearer (the editor who added the content) or objecting material on BLP grounds? I said "falsely accuse" whereas someone else would have said "make unsubstantiated allegations" because when you had a change to substantiate your allegations, you didn't.
 * Everybody knows that US congressional investigations tend to be very partisan, and hence we as Wikipedia editors should be cautious. However, "They're promoting a conspiracy theory by claiming to be investigating" is soapboxing because you posited a conspiracy theory of your own. Politrukki (talk) 12:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * a)no, b)no, c)no. With all due respect. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Right. Then what the heck does "BLP smear" mean? Politrukki (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to find more information about this alleged media leak, but it doesn't appear other mainstream outlets have covered it yet. As the Wall Street Journal's Dion Nissenbaum has noted on Twitter that the texts appear to reference the WSJ article "Clinton Ally Aided Campaign of FBI Official’s Wife". This is just my WP:SYNTH, but the article quotes "FBI officials" who could have been Peter Strzok or Lisa Page (hence that's why they knew about it in advance). It's also possible that they leaked the anti-Andrew McCabe article to the press, which seems to be what these committees are investigating. FallingGravity 07:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Update: HuffPost has recently published an article which reaches similar conclusions. FallingGravity 03:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. This only further confirms that the material should not be kept. Politrukki (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

"Insinuation"
We have a header now titled "insinuation about leaking". The cited source says, "The theory Trump and others have been pushing insinuates that Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, two current FBI employees who were having an affair, were at the heart of an FBI conspiracy against Trump during the 2016 election campaign." So the word "insinuate" is used by the cited source in a different way, not with regard to something done by John Solomon's article. We should change the header to say "Contested report" instead of "Insinuation".&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Contested" ?? Try again. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you give me a hint? Contested report about leaking? Disputed report about leaking?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think current title is fine. "Contested" and "disputed" are both POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the previous discussion that the accusation of leaking should be removed, per WP:BLPCRIME: "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." FallingGravity 09:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

How about something completely neutral like "Wall Street Journal article"? --MelanieN (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable and inline with the subject of the section. PackMecEng (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that would also be problematic, because we have no reason to believe that he has any connection to the Wall Street Journal article other than that it's being used to defame him. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And section titles with "insinuation" or "allegation" aren't being used to defame him? --MelanieN (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Who's defamed by "allegation", and how? Insinuation is per source.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Insinuation", "allegation", "accusation", "claims" - all of these are defaming. If we cannot have a neutral subsection title, one that doesn't accuse him of something, I would suggest removing the entire subsection. It's a pretty minor item anyhow. --MelanieN (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

This new subsection consists of criticism of Solomon's article. All based on one source, inserted into Strzok's biography. That's totally undue. This time the congressional investigation is not mentioned, but there are still allegations of possible leaking, citing only two sources. That's not cool. I'm going to remove this subsection as there is clearly no consensus to keep the material. Politrukki (talk) 12:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Is Justice Dept controlled by Republicans?
Since high level, non-pres. long-term appointed staff in all government agencies are an entrenched power, which may see politically appointed leaders come & go after short periods, while the entrenched stay; there is the potential and probable reality that these staffers really control things. And what their parties are would make an interesting survey, but likely to be Democrat as in DC. I have deleted the qualifying terms "Republican controlled" before "Justice Dept" in the article, based not only upon the dubiousness of the claim, but also the fact that the 2 citations for the statement did not say that Justice was Republican controlled. Probably the truth would be on a scale of 0-10 how much each party controls anyway, instead of one party or the other controlling. (PeacePeace (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC))
 * No, actually that's wrong. The Justice Dept. is part of the Executive Branch of the US Gov't and it reports to the Atty. General who nowadays serves at the pleasure of the Republican POTUS and Congress.Suggestions that the individual party registrations of the civil servants are influencing policy sounds like you're scraping some conspiracy stuff off a website. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Lisa Page
I redlinked 'Lisa Page', since I was curious about her backgrounds and of course her motives, since she is currently - unwanted or not - an important player in a political and judicial issue. My edit was reverted by a fellow Wikipedian, who thinks it is unlikely that she will ever get a personal wiki page. Any thoughts on this subject, anyone? Greetings from the Netherlands, Jürgen Eissink (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jürgen Eissink for discussing here on the Talk Page and greetings from across the ocean. As stated before, I'm thinking that WP:BLP1E will likely mean that Lisa Page will probably not have her own independent BLP, but I'll refrain and let other editors comment here on whether or not they think a Lisa Page red link is appropriate.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with AzureCitizen. She is a minor player in this story, and without that Strzok connection no one would ever have heard of her - just a mid-level employee in the FBI. IMO she would not be eligible for a separate page at this time. There's no telling what might happen in the future, but for now there is no point in having a redlink. --MelanieN (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

RFC about describing his FBI position in the lead
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * 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.

Should the lead say that "Strzok rose to become the Deputy Assistant Director of the Counterintelligence Division, which is the number two position in that division....” instead of only saying that "Strzok rose to become the Deputy Assistant Director of the Counterintelligence Division"?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support, because we should include in the lead that he rose to the number two position in the Counterintelligence Division. Incidentally, I started the RFC.  Per MOS:JARGON, “Minimize jargon, or at least explain it“, and this is a case in point.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Edited17:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I don't see the necessity of deviating from the norm of job title in the lead and expounding in the body. Any possible ambiguity in the job title is marginal. Pincrete (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - for clarity, as otherwise the job title "Deputy Assistant Director" sounds like an assistant to the assistant to the director. Markbassett (talk) 01:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support I think it reads like PEACOCK, but I find myself convinced by the MOS:JARGON argument.&thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 17:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 05:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Support I think it fine either way, and that it isn't jargon, but it does provide clarity. L3X1 Happy2018!  (distænt write)  15:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
[1]Jarrett, Laura; Perez, Evan (December 4, 2017). "FBI agent dismissed from Mueller probe changed Comey description of Clinton", CNN: “Peter Strzok… the No. 2 official in the counterintelligence division..."
 * Here's what three reliable sources say about his position in the Counterintelligence Division (emphasis added):

[2]"Mueller removed FBI agent from Russia probe for anti-Trump texts: reports", Reuters (December 2, 2017): “Peter Strzok, the deputy head of FBI counter-intelligence”.

[3] There's no dispute that he was a Deputy Assistant Director when he was in the Counterintelligence Division, and no dispute this meant he had the number two spot in the Counterintelligence Division. The only dispute here is whether we should mention the latter fact in the lead. Obviously, by only saying he was a Deputy Assistant Director, readers will not be able to conclude that he had the number two spot in the Counterintelligence Division. Per WP:Lead, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic," and the argument that the lead shouldn't explain anything would mean we should delete almost the whole lead; the reader shouldn't have to read the whole article to discover that Strzok rose this high in the counterintelligence division. I suppose the reason why this mundane edit is the slightest bit controversial may be because omitting this information from the lead helps to suggest that his position in the FBI was too low to warrant a Wikipedia BLP (see AfD closed earlier this month); at the time this article was "kept" as a result of the AfD, the lead clearly stated that he rose to be "second in command of counterintelligence". Note for bureaucracy nerds: Sen. Grassley calls him "the deputy assistant director for the FBI’s counterintelligence division" (emphasis added) rather than "of" the Counterintelligence Division, Fox News calls him "Deputy Assistant Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation", and Rachel Maddow at MSNBC calls him "deputy assistant director of the counterintelligence division at the FBI" as well as "Deputy assistant director at the counterintelligence division of the FBI" (emphasis added). &#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can I add this as the last sentence to the lede?
"The text messages furthermore showed that Strzok had been critical of a number of Democratic politicians, and that he wrote the original draft of the Comey letter which was damaging to the Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign; this complicated Republican narratives of a conspiracy against Trump and for Clinton." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The lede is supposed to be a summary of the article per WP:LEAD. Is this analysis covered elsewhere in the article? If not, it should be added there and possibly summarized in the lede. FallingGravity 20:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, the goal here is to add text to the body as well, but due to FloridaArmy's baseless revert, it's being held up by the consensus required restriction. So, I guess what I'm asking for here is permission to both add text to the lede and body. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)