Talk:Richard Grenell/Archive 1

Undisclosed paid editing
This article was extensively edited by who appears was an undisclosed paid editor. Please review the content before removing the UPE tag. SmartSE (talk) 14:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Remarks by Grenell
An account which was created today and which appears familiar enough with Wikipedia policy to both cite policy and link to it correctly removed crucial context to remarks made by Grenell. I subsequently restored it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

NordStream2
It is not quite right to say that the Trump administration has been fighting NordStream2 - without saying that NordStream2 has been fought by the US as soon as it emerged as an idea. The article on NordStream says that the additional pipeline idea became public in 2011. The US has opposed the idea from the word go, obviously, because they want to get these gas sales. 2001:8003:AC60:1400:15D3:AA82:6BD5:3073 (talk) 05:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 21 February 2020
In the subsection Acting director of national intelligence please remove the argumentative phrase Contrary to the White House press release, which violates WP:NPOV. The press release states that Grenell "has years of experience working with our Intelligence Community in a number of additional positions, including as Special Envoy for Serbia-Kosovo Negotiations and as United States spokesman to the United Nations." It is not up to one Wikipedia editor to contradict this statement of fact. NedFausa (talk) 05:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Request Denial The press release and article contradict each other. One says he does have experience in intelligence and one says he does not. That is important to note. Datamaster1 (talk) 07:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC) — Datamaster1 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Mmoates (talk • contribs).
 * ✅ - the source used for this doesn't give a definitive answer to the question of whether he has experience, it simply quotes "critics", including a tweet by a senator, as having claimed that. Since the sources don't themselves say whether he has intelligence experience, we shouldn't either, in Wikipedia's voice. I've reworded so that it just mentions both claims. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Amakuru Thank you, I appreciate the way you included both. Datamaster1 (talk) 11:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC) — Datamaster1 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Mmoates (talk • contribs).
 * Since when have White House press releases from the Trump WH become RS? They are no better, and sometimes worse, than RT and Breitbart. We must base all of our content on RS. Notability (Trump and the WH are obviously notable) does not confer reliability, and Trump is a remarkably notable source of bottomless misinformation and propaganda. To include the WH POV, we must do it by citing independent RS which mention the WH POV, just as we are supposed to do when documenting misinformation found in other unreliable sources. We must not use the unreliable source as our reference. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , fair point. Given that the WH press office is the originator of the term "alternative facts", we should probably deprecate it until it changes hands. Guy (help!) 17:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. Let's go to WP:RS/P. I subscribe to myriad RS, as well as the WH newsletter (not RS), and it's no better than the worst unreliable sources. It is propaganda straight from the source. I sometimes wonder if it's dictated straight from Putin's press officer. We know that Trump shares highly classified info with Putin, and that he obeys Putin, including choice of Secretary of State, so why not? -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Punctuation error
"John F. Kennedy School of Government <" should be changed to "John F. Kennedy School of Government.<" despite the fact I cannot actually do this while the page is under full protection. 08:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- MelanieN (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Kubicki
Wolfgang Kubicki is just listed here as deputy chairman of the FDP, but he is also vicepresident of the bundestag, a highranking office, which should be named here Norschweden (talk) 04:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's the emphasis that the cited source gave it - that he was a high ranking member of the opposition party - so I'm thinking that's enough identifaction for this one quote. People can click on his name for further information. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 21 February 2020: on start dates and successors
I request that the "status = Designate" and "succeeding = Joseph Maguire" both be removed from the infobox on Mr. Grenell; likewise, pursuant to the following New York Times article, I also request that Mr. Grenell's term_start date be changed to today, February 21, 2020. The article, in short, states that Admiral Maguire resigned earlier today; and, as such, Mr. Grenell has become the acting Director of National Intelligence.

Thank you! &mdash; Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 22:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There have been so many developments - Maguire out, Grenell in, second-in-command fired, a non-intelligence-community partisan named as a top aide - all of which would require reference citations - that it seems like too much new info to be adding to a locked article. This kind of material needs to be debated and vetted by the community. Maybe somebody should request the locking administrator to unlock the page, since the story is developing so fast? -- MelanieN (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

background in intelligence matters
, I disagree with the edit saying the White House claims he has intel experience, but people such as a Democrat disagree. Despite the WH claim, multiple reliable sources (I can OVERCITE them) say he does not have an intel background. Specifically citing Warner makes it sound like it's just a partisan complaint. It isn't. soibangla (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree. Independent RS get more weight than WH propaganda. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * BullRangifer So question, why is a Democratic Congressman more reputable than the White House? All the mainstream media sources cite him. Mr. Awesome, PhD (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC) — Datamaster1 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Mmoates (talk • contribs).
 * soibangla To be clear each media source cited cites Democrats which is the same on the other end of citing the WH. Mr. Awesome, PhD (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC) — Datamaster1 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Mmoates (talk • contribs).
 * Mr. Awesome, PhD, there is a difference between citing opinions, and everyone has them (and we attribute them), and citing a source that is so notoriously deceptive that we have a whole article devoted to the subject: "Veracity of statements by Donald Trump". When nearly every tweet and statement contains enough deception and lies that they are actually tallied, fact-checked, and published by myriad RS, "Let's just assume Trump's always lying and fact check him backward." -- David Zurawik. That is the wisest course to follow. Trump's statements are not unreliable "because he says it," but because so much of what he says is provably counterfactual.
 * Left- or right-wing, we don't care. It is factuality that determines whether a source is reliable or unreliable, and Trump fails miserably.
 * Note that we still cite Trump all the time, but only because he's so notable that actual RS do quote him, so we use those RS. We don't consider his tweets to be RS for statements of fact, nor his other statements. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

"Let's just assume Trump's always lying and fact check him backward." That is not good faith. 47.44.192.245 (talk) 07:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC) — 47.44.192.245 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Say something like, "There has been a debate on if Grenell has the necessary background in intelligence or if his appointment is part of a politicization of the Intelligence Community" linking to reliable secondary sources Therequiembellishere (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We should not give the impression that only Democrats are pointing out his lack of experience. Sources are pointing it out in their own voice - "Grenell's lack of intelligence-related experience" - or citing the fact that he has no background in intelligence to “critics” - "critics have noted that he has no background in intelligence" -  or “current and former officials” - "Current and former officials questioned Grenell’s qualifications to lead the intelligence agencies". We need to say something that shows the weight of reporting, not just "the White House said this and a Democrat said that." However, I think "politicization of the intelligence community" is too POV. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment
A couple of questions have come up:


 * Is a ranking-status member of the cabinet the samething as a member of the cabinet?
 * Is a acting ranking member of the cabinet (unconfirmed by the senate) a official member of the cabinet? Datamaster1 (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC) — Datamaster1 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Mmoates (talk • contribs).


 * When his name was announced as DNI, I put into the article “He would be the first openly gay Cabinet member.[47]” User:Datamaster1 removed it saying that “he is not a member of the cabinet. He may hold cabinet-rank status but that is not the same thing”. Most reliable sources have said he is the “first openly gay cabinet member”; one even said "cabinet secretary”. In an abundance of caution, when I restored it I said "He is the first openly gay person to serve in a cabinet-level position." What do others think about this? -- MelanieN (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it is important to note that just because one news source says something like "cabinet secretary" does not make it accurate. Furthermore, I think you have to take multiple things into consideration. 1) He is not a member of the cabinet. 2) He is not a confirmed member of the cabinet-ranking staff. Just my 2 cents but I'd love to hear what others have to say. I want to thank User:MelanieN for being so kind because even though we disagree you have been respectful and communicated with me on this matter and I am grateful for that. Datamaster1 (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC) — Datamaster1 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Mmoates (talk • contribs).
 * What do you think about the wording "serve in a cabinet-level position"? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m still not a fan as he is not a member of the cabinet nor a confirmed DNI. Datamaster1 (talk) 03:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC) — Datamaster1 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Mmoates (talk • contribs).
 * I support the present wording: Grenell is the first openly gay person to serve in a cabinet-level position. First, with The Gray Lady's standard abundance of caution, The New York Times reports that he is "apparently the first openly gay cabinet member." Typically throwing caution to the wind, Fox News calls him "the first openly gay Cabinet member in history." To me, this establishes beyond dispute that he is both openly gay and a groundbreaker. Second, Wikipedia itself lists Director of National Intelligence among the Cabinet of the United States. To me, this establishes beyond dispute that the position Grenell has been designated to temporarily fill is cabinet-level. Slam dunk. Why are we even discussing this? NedFausa (talk) 03:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * NedFausa Your statement "Wikipedia itself lists Director of National Intelligence among the Cabinet of the United States" is false Wikipedia lists him as Cabinet-level which is very different and I encourage you to go relook at the page. Also, please note he is only 1 of 3 acting members of the cabinet. He is not a confirmed member of the cabinet. He is simply acting in a role. Datamaster1 (talk) 03:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC) — Datamaster1 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Mmoates (talk • contribs).
 * I Wikilinked Cabinet of the United States, not Director of National Intelligence. Here is a more specific Wikilink to that same page, listing Director of National Intelligence in the Office column. The offices shown are those of the Cabinet of the United States. NedFausa (talk) 04:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes you did but you failed to differentiate the different sections of the article. If you look at the article it clearly states they are not members but ranking members. Their participation can be revoked at any time. They are not members of the cabinet but rather members to participate in cabinet activities. I would encourage you to look at the difference and why they're not included in the list of secretaries. Your statement saying they are the offices of the cabinet is false even the article lists them differently. Go look again. Datamaster1 (talk) 04:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC) — Datamaster1 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Mmoates (talk • contribs).
 * I would be okay with “He would be the first openly gay acting ranking-member of the cabinet.[47]” or some language that includes both acting and ranking member as not to confuse being confirmed by the Senate and also not being a member of the cabinet. Datamaster1 (talk) 04:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC) — Datamaster1 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Mmoates (talk • contribs).
 * In its lede, Wikipedia's Director of National Intelligence article identifies the DNI as a United States government Cabinet-level official. If you are seriously contending that the office of DNI is not part of the Cabinet of the United States, I leave you to argue that arcane point with someone else. NedFausa (talk) 04:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Cabinet-level being the keyword... not simply cabinet and it is important to not that to make the statement accurate. Datamaster1 (talk) 04:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC) — Datamaster1 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Mmoates (talk • contribs).
 * I urge you to not muddle the language as Datamaster1 suggests. You hit upon the perfect turn of phrase—to serve in a cabinet-level position. Please keep it as is. NedFausa (talk) 04:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Datamaster, the phrase "ranking-member of the cabinet" is not a term I have ever heard anywhere but here. It is a phrase, and a description, that you invented. But we rely on what Reliable Sources say, and Reliable Sources are unanimous that he is serving in a cabinet-level position. He is "acting," because he has not been confirmed by the senate, but he is filling a cabinet level position and is the first openly gay person to do so. There really isn't anything more to say. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN I disagree with your assessment and I believe that it warrants outside commenting from the community. I have attempted to do this multiple times and you keep reverting my edits so if you're not going to allow an Rfc then we can proceed to arbitration. The idea is to get a general consensus and you're not allowing that to happen. Datamaster1 (talk) 05:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC) — Datamaster1 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Mmoates (talk • contribs).
 * Amazing . You only started editing Wikipedia yesterday & immediately, you know how to contact other editors, how to create an Rfc, how to file an Arbcom request. Truly impressive. GoodDay (talk) 06:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have done a lot of reading. But this is not the place for insinuations about me if you have something to say please take it to my talk page. Datamaster1 (talk) 07:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC) — Datamaster1 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Mmoates (talk • contribs).

I agree with. I think Grenell is the first openly gay person to serve in a cabinet-level position is great phrasing and should be kept. I do think it is important to distinguish cabinet-rank positions from cabinet positions. Among other differences, cabinet-rank positions are not in the presidential line of succession for example. MarginalCost (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

BTW I would not object if you now want to make this discussion into an RfC. I removed the RfC tag at first because of WP:RFCBEFORE: We are supposed to start by discussing at the talk page, not jump immediately to RfC. Now that we have had some initial discussion and have defined the issues, if you wish to get additional input via an RfC that is OK with me. Don't start a new discussion; just add the RfC tag, and place "RfC:" at the beginning of the title (or your preferred title) of this discussion. And be sure that your opening paragraph defines exactly what you are asking, since that paragraph will appear as the issue that needs to be discussed. See Requests for comment/Biographies for examples. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN I appreciate that. I am sorry to all I promise I just want things to be accurate and I don't mean to be difficult. I don't want to come off rude. I felt attacked by the comments accusing me of being a sock and I have no objections to someone checking that out as I have nothing to hide. It just upset me a bit especially given the personal accusations being made on the talk page. Thank you for being so kind. Datamaster1 (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC) — Datamaster1 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Mmoates (talk • contribs).


 * MelanieN has this right at its core. If we want to make emphasis on his non-permanent status (de rigueur in this administration), it could read: "He is the first openly gay person to serve in a cabinet-level position, albeit in an acting capacity." This is a lot over relatively nothing and opening the article back to editing (at least bringing it down to semi-protected) should happen quickly. Therequiembellishere (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see any need to add that. Does it almost imply that there have been, or will be, others who serve in a non-acting capacity? The Reliable Sources who point out his "first" status don't qualify it with "first acting". For that matter they don't qualify it with any other language; they just refer to him as a cabinet member (one even said "cabinet secretary" which is just plain wrong). But if "cabinet-level" rather than "cabinet member" is preferred by folks here, I don't have any problem with that wording. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * MelanieN After giving this some thought I am withdrawing my objections assuming we leave it the way it is now. I'm not sure how I missed the fact that the entire section is titled "acting" director. My apologies. I have removed the Rfc. Mr. Awesome, PhD (talk) 14:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC) — Datamaster1 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Mmoates (talk • contribs).
 * Just so that others don't get as confused as I was: Mr. Awesome, PhD is Datamaster1, just using a different signature. MelanieN alt (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * MelanieN alt Oh yes sorry I recently updated! Mr. Awesome, PhD (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC) — Datamaster1 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Mmoates (talk • contribs).

MelanieN alt MelanieN NedFausa - I renew my objections... since the comment "and the highest-ranking openly gay official in U.S. government history" has been added. He is not a ranking member of anything. He is not in the line of succession he would never have the power of the executive branch. The comment is misleading and stems from Log Cabin Republicans which is clearly a biased source. See NBC coverage. https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/openly-gay-u-s-ambassador-germany-makes-republican-history-n869641 In the meantime, I have reverted pending consensus. Highest ranking implies that he is going to be at the top or is in the succession of one of the top branches of our government. This includes the presidency in the line of succession, the speaker of the house and president pro tem of the Senate, and members of the judiciary. Not random individuals who are not even in the line of succession to any branch of government. Keep in mind ranking member of the cabinet and ranking member of government are not aligned as one cannot have rank until formally confirmed by the senate. Mr. Awesome, PhD (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC) — Datamaster1 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Mmoates (talk • contribs).
 * The disputed content in this instance is sourced to the New York Post, which does not mention Log Cabin Republicans. The NBC coverage you cite quotes the Log Cabin Republicans president saying of Grenell, "He has now officially become the highest ranking openly gay official ever in a Republican administration." That is not the same as the highest-ranking openly gay official in U.S. government history. The United States has had numerous administrations that were not of the Republican persuasion. It's time for you to understand that your opinion, based on violating WP:NOR and enforced by violating both WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, is not what counts here. At Wikipedia, we must rely on verifiable sources. There is no consensus regarding the reliability of the New York Post, but since it has not been deprecated, it may still be cited. Please discontinue your disruptive editing of Richard Grenell. NedFausa (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I am going to ask you one time to please not assume my motives. Please see No personal attacks. You are to assume good faith and my motives are purely about accuracy. Now we all came to a consensus here and then you made edits after the fact knowing very well we were talking about this here. Making comments like " under whatever name, you are obsessed with depriving a gay man of his due" are unproductive and defamatory because they are not based in fact. If you're going to argue highest ranking government official I would ask you to show where he is in the Chain-of-Command to the presidency, to the Speaker, or to the Chief Justice. He is not. He is not confirmed in the cabinet, not a member of the US Congress, nor is he a member of the judiciary. He is simply a man employed by the United States government that is an advisor to the president. You're comments about me being a "obsessed with depriving a gay man of his due" imply that I am homophobic which could not be farther from the truth. This needs to be a productive debate and not mudslinging with rude, degrading, and inaccurate comments. Please discontinue your edit warring until consensus has been reached. We are discussing this here on the talk page as required. Mr. Awesome, PhD (talk) 17:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC) — Datamaster1 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Mmoates (talk • contribs).

aka "Mr. Awesome" has been blocked indefinitely. Accordingly, I have reverted his most recent disruptive edit to Richard Grenell. Given Mr. Awesome's history of sockpuppetry, however, editors should be alert to his possible reappearance here under some freshly minted guise. NedFausa (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Disputed reference to "clean house"
On February 21, 2020, The New York Times reported second-hand that one of Grenell's first hires, NSC staffer Kashyap Patel, will have a mandate to "clean house." That apparently alluded to a tweet the previous day by CBS News Senior Investigative Correspondent Catherine Herridge. However, CBS News itself never reported Patel's mandate to "clean house." Accordingly, I have removed that sentence from the Acting director of national intelligence subsection pending consensus to restore. NedFausa (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This falls into a grey area predicament: if a reporter for a reliable source tweets something that her employer has not published/aired, can it be considered a reliable source? Generally I'd vote yes, except, ironically, in the specific case of Herridge. For whatever reasons, including space/time constraints, the reliable source might choose not to publish/air every nugget of information they become aware of, despite its reliability. soibangla (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. When you say except Herridge, do you mean you oppose restoring this disputed content without a more definitive source? NedFausa (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

add Lev Parnas & Dmytro Firtash item
Lev Parnas told The Daily Beast that he was told to ask Grenell for advance notice if the DoJ were to move to extradite indicted Ukrainian oligarch Dmytro Firtash, per example (The DB). X1\ (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

X1\ (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Foreign Agents Registration Act potential violation, add?
Potential violation of Foreign Agents Registration Act regarding Vladimir Plahotniuc

X1\ (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

major removals
, in the past day you have made numerous removals of significant content, in what could arguably be construed as whitewashing. I suggest you self-revert and seek consensus for these major chamges. soibangla (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have also wondered about that. We need very good explanations. Otherwise, the content should be restored. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * soibangla, the article needed a lot of work. Most of my edits consisted of cleaning up wording. I also corrected some facts and worked on sources. I did remove some content that was not relevant to Grenell (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Grenell&diff=prev&oldid=942749847 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Grenell&diff=prev&oldid=942750174). I also removed a sentence that did not make any sense (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Grenell&diff=prev&oldid=942754893). Otherwise, the substance of the article is largely unchanged, and the article is much improved. Your characterization of my edits is totally off base. The accusation isn't appreciated, and I see no reason to self-revert anything. Rather than firing an (unjustified) shot across the bow, why not identify which specific edits you found problematic and ask for clarification? SunCrow (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I strongly disagree that the substance of the article is largely unchanged, and the article is much improved. soibangla (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * soibangla, please retract your baseless accusation of whitewashing. The article contains quite a bit of information that does not reflect favorably on Grenell. (In fact, it seems to me that the article has an anti-Grenell tone, and the only reason I am not complaining about it is that I don't know enough about the subject to be able to accurately assess POV and balance.) To the best of my recollection, I didn't remove any negative content about Grenell from the article. So I have no clue what you're even talking about. You're out of line. SunCrow (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , if you don't know enough about the subject then I fail to understand why you feel qualified to make such sweeping removals of content that has been extensively reported by an abundance of reliable sources (which I can OVERCITE), including removing his known outspoken loyalty to the president (a vital piece of information you removed from the lead) as well as the circumstances surrounding his appointment. By making such major removals, despite acknowledging you don't know enough about the subject, you are effectively inserting your own POV — just subtractively rather than additively. If you detected an anti-Grenell tone despite not being well-informed about the subject, I suggest the proper approach would've been to enumerate your concerns on Talk rather than preemptively making a series of major removals without soliciting input from others. soibangla (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * soibangla, you are totally out to lunch on this. The material I removed on the circumstances surrounding Grenell's appointment read as follows:
 * ...The next day, February 21, Maguire and his deputy, Andrew P. Hallman, resigned from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Hallman was a three-decade veteran of the intelligence community. Republican Senator Richard Burr, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, issued a statement praising Maguire and Hallman, but did not mention Grenell...
 * ...Six days prior to Grenell's appointment, Maguire deputy Shelby Pierson—the intelligence community's top election security official—advised members of the House Intelligence Committee that Russia was interfering in the 2020 election in an effort to get Trump re-elected. Trump chastised Maguire for allowing the briefing, concerned that Democrats might "weaponize" the information against him...
 * ...Patel was the lead author of the Nunes memo and was interviewed extensively in a book that, according to The New York Times'', "claims without proof that journalists, diplomats, law enforcement and intelligence officials engaged in a vast plot to undermine Mr. Trump's campaign and then bring him down as president"...
 * I don't have to be an expert on Grenell to see that the material isn't relevant to Grenell (with the exception of Sen. Burr not mentioning Grenell in a press release, which is relevant to Grenell but totally inconsequential).
 * The circumstances surrounding his appointment are important in understanding who the man is. soibangla (talk) 02:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, the sentence on Grenell's loyalty to the president is still in the article. It's just not in the lede.
 * It certainly belongs in the lead. soibangla (talk) 02:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding POV: The point I was making above was that the article seemed POV to me, but that I did not feel comfortable making that conclusion because I don't know enough about the subject. Therefore, I did not make any edits based on POV concerns. As I stated above, I believe that every negative piece of information about Grenell that was in the article before I edited it is still in the article. You are totally out to lunch on this. SunCrow (talk) 02:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not make any edits based on POV concerns You removed a massive amount of content, some of which does not reflect well of Grenell, despite acknowledging you don't know much about him, which is why you should have brought your concerns to Talk first. But by acting preemptively instead, you place the onus on others to explain to you why the content should remain. You're out of line, and even more so now with the personal attack that I'm totally out to lunch on this soibangla (talk) 02:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Bologna. SunCrow (talk) 07:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Having perused 's revisions as of 17:25, 26 February 2020, I oppose reverting them wholesale. To me, these edits are constructive and well executed. Perhaps others could, as SunCrow suggests, cite specific diffs with which they take issue, and we can reach consensus on those. NedFausa (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, NedFausa. SunCrow (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

this is not "minutiae"
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Grenell&diff=943142570&oldid=943142227

This is the Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which has oversight of ODNI, not even acknowledging Grenell in his statement, let alone praising him. Not a "Mr. Grenell is a suitable appointee for DNI," not a "I welcome Mr. Grenell and look forward to working with him" — not a word about him, despite praising the men who were shown the door. One does not have to know much about how Washington works to know this is a tacit vote of no confidence, and coming from the Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, it is highly significant. If wants to remove "minutiae," then s/he should consider the Susan Collins statement instead, not the statement from the Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. The sentence should never have been reverted and it should be restored. If there was ever a no-brainer, ''this. is. it.'' soibangla (talk) 03:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * soibangla, I stand by my edit. This is far from a no-brainer. Is there a reliable source that supports the significance of the omission? If not, the sentence shouldn't be here. SunCrow (talk) 04:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

New German Ambassador
One cannot serve as both ambassador to Germany and DNI. In an interview with CNN, Donald Trump indicated a formal ambassador was to be announced soon and that EU Ambassador Sondland was to take over duties in the interim. AmericannIdiot (talk) 01:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * AmericannIdiot, I see no indication anywhere that Grenell has relinquished his ambassadorship. I can't find anything suggesting that Sondland is taking over the German ambassadorship on an interim basis; given that Sondland was fired from his EU ambassador post on February 7 (see ), I find this assertion extraordinarily far-fetched. I have reverted your edits. Unless and until you provide a reliable source for these assertions, they need to stay out of the article. SunCrow (talk) 03:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sondland bit may be off, but did you miss the CNN interview indicating Grennell had left his post? Per this article here -- https://www.axios.com/trump-nominates-rep-john-ratcliffe-for-intelligence-chief-3dd01d84-8114-4df0-aa89-86a18dc0e4c3.html -- he is definitely a *former* ambassador. Illogical to suggest someone could be both DNI and ambassador to Germany.. AmericannIdiot (talk) 06:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * AmericannIdiot, the Axios source doesn't say what you think it says. What it actually says is: "If confirmed, Ratcliffe would eventually replace Richard Grenell, a staunch defender of Trump and former U.S. ambassador to Germany who was installed as the acting DNI only a few weeks ago. Grenell would have had to leave the post on March 11 unless Trump formally nominated someone else to oversee the U.S. intelligence community, the New York Times reports. Ratcliffe's nomination will allow Grenell to remain as acting intelligence chief as it winds its way through Senate confirmation." SunCrow (talk) 13:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, while you may think it's illogical for a person to hold two posts at once, that doesn't make it impossible. For reference, see Mick Mulvaney, who has served as OMB Director since Feb. 16, 2017 and as White House Chief of Staff since Jan. 2, 2019. SunCrow (talk) 13:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The Axios source says Grenell's the "former U.S. ambassador to Germany". The quote above literally confirms that. Read your own quotes carefully before reverting facts in the main article. AmericannIdiot (talk) 15:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * AmericannIdiot, you are right about the quote, but the Axios source is wrong. See the website of the U.S. Embassy in Germany (https://de.usembassy.gov/our-relationship/our-ambassador/), which reads: "Richard A. Grenell is the Acting Director of National Intelligence. He serves concurrently as the U.S. Ambassador to Germany and Special Presidential Envoy for Serbia and Kosovo Peace Negotiations". He's still the ambassador. SunCrow (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There is an ongoing dispute about whether Grenell is still ambassador to Germany or not, and if not, when he departed that post. AmericannIdiot and 96.239.60.166 believe he is out. I believe he is still in. The discussion above, along with recent edit summaries, summarizes the dispute. Frankly, I'm not convinced either way. Right now, the lede and the infobox contradict each other regarding Grenell's date of departure from the ambassadorship. I have added "disputed" tags. If anyone can find a clear, reliable source indicating that Grenell is no longer the ambassador, I will concede the point. I believe that the two sources that have been cited are mistaken. SunCrow (talk) 04:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Newest sources clearly indicate Grenell is *former* ambassador. In an interview at joint base Andrews, Trump himself indicated he was looking for a new / full time / actual German Ambassador. Unless a new quote from Donald Trump contradicts his previous statements, Grenell's not the current ambassador. Requiring admin edit only seems excessive - Donald Trump's statements are the most pertinent relating to this issue; Mike Pompeo's are also quite relevant. Anonymous outdated bios are less relevant. I agree that it's not entirely clear the exact date Grenell ended his term as ambassador, only that he does not serve in that role today. Powerrranger (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Grenell's appointment is pursuant to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 -- under the act, he continues to hold the position that the Senate confirmed him to even as he temporarily fills in for the vacant position. He has not resigned from his ambassadorship, so he's still currently ambassador. Once his tenure as DNI ends, he'll go back to being ambassador full-time, unless he chooses to resign, which he hasn't (in fact, I don't know if it's even legal for him to resign from his Senate-confirmed position and remain in his "acting" position). Additionally, we have both the State Department and DNI explicitly stating he holds both positions concurrently.

Lastly, Senate-confirmed officials who are "acting" in another vacant position (like Grenell) often work full-time in the latter position and designate someone else to perform their duties in the former position even as they still officially hold that position. For example, Patrick Shanahan remained Deputy Secretary but had David Norquist perform his Deputy Secretary duties. Robert Wilkie remained Under Secretary of Defense, but someone else performed his duties while he served as Acting Secretary of the VA. Mick Mulvaney is still OMB director, but Russ Vought is fully performing the OMB Director duties while Mulvaney devotes his time as Acting Chief of Staff. Bottom line: this is normal. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, this article is more than just a lazy side-mention, and it affirms that Grenell is still U.S. Ambassador to Germany: --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Grenell stated in an interview yesterday that he notified the White House he would resign as ambassador if Ratcliffe is confirmed as DNI -- for the editor(s) pointing out a vague comment by President Trump, this explicit comment by Grenell should have at least equal weight: --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 14:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that helpful clarification, 1990&#39;sguy. This should put the dispute to rest. SunCrow (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

avoid redirect to Trump–Ukraine scandal#Kashyap Patel
Restore Trump–Ukraine scandal for "Kash Patel" (Kashyap Patel also a redirect, from this edit, with the misleading ES of "Filling in 6 references using Reflinks").

X1\ (talk) 00:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ X1\ (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

violate foreign lobbying laws, such as FARA; keep or rewrite?
1) per example excerpts: "Potential FARA problems One Washington, DC, attorney who handles Foreign Agents Registration Act cases told CNN that investigators at the Justice Department regularly look in the press for evidence of improper foreign influence. ... It's unclear whether Grenell was directed by any Moldovan officials to publish the op-eds in US outlets, and it's not clear if his activities violated FARA. ... Engle made similar comments to the Washington Post on Monday, telling the newspaper Grenell had never been paid to express a foreign policy opinion."

- Marshall Cohen, CNN

or this per that: 2) X1\ (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I strongly prefer #2. As both I and User:SunCrow have stated in our edit summaries, the mention of FARA and his Grenell's security clearance is speculative. We could do the same for many political figures. While these concerns might be valid from a concerned citizen standpoint, this speculation is not valid in an encyclopedia, unless Grenell is formally investigated, indicted, or charged for this. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, we do have this currently:
 * "Grenell did not disclose this payment under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) prior to his work in the Trump administration."
 * so that will be useful to the concerned citizen. X1\ (talk) 06:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a big difference between the way that sentence is worded and implying that his security clearance could be revoked or that he could go to jail. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It is true there is difference, but is also true his security clearance could be revoked or that he could go to jail. X1\ (talk)