Talk:William Barr/Archive 1

Vital Statistics
Age/D.o.B. would be good here? 172.97.207.7 (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 7 December 2018

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

The result of the move request was: moved (closed by non-admin page mover)  SITH   (talk)   15:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

– (after moving William Barr to William Barr (disambiguation), per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Yes, he was just nominated to be US AG (again), so there may be some WP:RECENTISM concerns, but given the page view counts all the other uses are so obscure it's clear that this nomination alone establishes this William Barr as primary topic for the foreseeable future. В²C ☎ 17:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * William P. Barr → William Barr
 * William Barr → William Barr (disambiguation)
 * I have changed this to a multi-move.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - likely a good idea. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Per nom.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support in agreement with the nomination statement.--Bob from the Beltway (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support is my inclination, but I would like to know if there is any potential confusion involving other similarly named people with or without middle initials. (However I should be regarded as rather ignorant and I don't even know where to look for Wikipedia's policies on article names or middle initials. Notwithstanding, my personal preference would be to go with the person's own preference about the name.) Shanen (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * WP's policy is to follow usage in reliable sources. For example, the singer Cat Stevens has gone by Yusuf Islam for decades, but we keep the article at Cat Stevens because that's how he is most commonly referred to in reliable sources. All of the reliable sources that I can find don't refer to this William Barr with his middle initial, so his WP:COMMONNAME is "William Barr". But, then, there are other William Barrs who have the same COMMONNAME.  So prior to this nomination we had no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "William Barr", and thus it was appropriate to have a "disambiguation page" at William Barr. That's no longer the case; the nomination changes everything.  --В²C ☎ 18:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Clearly the primary topic. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  18:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support w1n5t0n (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:F8D2:1EE7:484D:EC37 (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. – Braxton C. Womacktalk to me! 23:11, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support this logical suggestion per reasoning in the nom. – Athaenara  ✉  04:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Question: it was moved and then moved back again? (Log.) – Athaenara  ✉  16:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support, primary topic. --  Wikipedical (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 02:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


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

"Succeeding" Whitaker
As he has not yet been confirmed, I would rather he was called the "nominee", not "succeeding" Whitaker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.166.102.21 (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Columbia University Degree
As far as I know, Columbia doesn't offer an undergraduate degree in government, nor has it in the past. It does offer a major in political science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.204.153 (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Trump-related Issues
As Mr. Barr has recently been nominated to high office, it would be useful if those with access to his speeches and writings could put together any positions he may have taken with regard to divine right of kings, high crimes and misdemeanors, rape, sexual assault, incest and presidential immunity. NRPanikker (talk) 13:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * While it may be arguable that those topics are relevant for Trump's presidency, this is still clearly a trolling recommendation of something for inclusion Workster 03:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Workster (talk • contribs)

The section pertaining to Trump and the 2016 campaign reads like a condemnation. Having sources doesn't mean what you write isn't wholly biased to one side of the isle or the other. Whoever worked on that section: don't you think Barr has done one single thing in 2016, 2017, 2018, or 2019 that wasn't "running cover" for President Trump? I think the section needs reworked to at least have some semblance of balance. AnonElectricSheep (talk) 05:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2019
I have found errors in your description of Barr's letter regarding the Special Counsel findings. Your report that their is "no evidence" is incorrect. Barr actually wrote that Mueller "did not establish" a prosecution level, which means that the evidence does not rise to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" level but it does not suggest "no evidence". We need to get this right! Thank you. 66.241.81.241 (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done a few days ago by  ~  Amory  (u • t • c) 14:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2019
Barr could not have received his MA from Columbia College. CC does not award MAs. It would have had to have been awarded by the School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA), or (less likely) the graduate school of arts and sciences. Consider changing "Columbia College" to "Columbia University" to make it technically correct. 160.39.142.173 (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Source just says Columbia College. NiciVampireHeart</b> 20:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Photo of Barr receiving oath of office: Do we know for sure that the pictured book is a Bible?
Seriously, I do realize that some Bibles have (Oh, what do you call those fingertip-accessible impressions, in the page edges of dictionaries and some other books, to serve as shortcuts, external bookmarks of a kind, to certain locations...? —In a dictionary, they often subdivide individual letters of the alphabet; e.g., Ai, Aq, Ba, Bh, ...). However, the book on which Mr. Barr has his left hand really does look like a dictionary to me. Does anybody have actual evidence (rather than just general knowledge of what is customary) as to the nature & identity of the book? Thanks in advance. --IfYouDoIfYouDon&#39;t (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

New York Times: How Barr’s Excerpts Compare to the Mueller Report’s Findings
Have a go at this if you want. I'm also posting this at Mueller Report and Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019) so CTRL-F "How Barr’s Excerpts" over there before you start so you see if someone's already done some work. Or see Talk 1 and Talk 2. starship.paint ~  KO   08:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election.pdf
 * FYI this is not a joke. There is a chance that the report cannot be hosted on commons due to a handful of images with unknown copyright status present in the report. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 19:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

This Assertion By Somebody is Patently Not True.

 * I'm not finding that in the article. It must have been removed already. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

During Barr’s first appearance before Congress in April, Sen. Chris Van Hollen asked the attorney general out right, “Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion?” Barr looked the Maryland Democrat in the eye and responded, “I don’t know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion.” That was a straight-out lie. He knew exactly how Mueller felt because Mueller had told him in the letter the month before.

Bar admission
In what jurisdictions has he been admitted to the bar and therefore is licensed to practice law?
 * Prior to his appointment by President Trump, Chicago law firm, Kirkland & Ellis employed him (an international law firm and arguably the most influential law firm in existence today). He graduated with a JD degree, with highest honors, in 1977 from George Washington University Law School. Hope this helped. B'H. 69.113.157.12 (talk) 08:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The lede should cover his actions as AG
An editor removed this paragraph from the lede:


 * Prior to his appointment as Attorney General in the Trump administration, Barr had publicly criticized Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, and criticized the probe for purportedly examining alleged obstruction of justice by President Trump. In March 2019, when Mueller concluded the investigation and submitted a report on the probe's findings, Barr had become Attorney General. Barr released a four-page summary of the Mueller report and held a press conference; when the full report was published, fact-checkers and news outlets noted that Barr had mischaracterized several aspects of the probe. Mueller himself had sent Barr a letter shortly after the release of the four-page summary, where Mueller said the summary "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance" of the probe's findings.

The argument for removing it was "This shouldn't be added to the lead, unless consensus is reached on the talk page (or unless the lead is significantly expanded to include other important parts of his political career)." However, this is the issue that's covered at greatest length in the body of his Wikipedia article, and clearly an issue that will define his life and career (if he does more notable things in his career, then the lede can be updated), and which has long-term encyclopedic value. The only other single issue that's covered at any length other than this in the body is Barr's advice that GHW Bush pardon actors involved in the Iran-Contra scandal while the investigation was on-going. Perhaps we can add a sentence on that. Are there any other issues that should be in the lede?

At the very least, it's absurd that the AG only has ONE lede paragraph. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * A statement was added to the lead without any consensus. I found errors and reverted the statement by Snooganssnoogans claiming that:


 * "Prior to his appointment as Attorney General in the Trump administration, Barr had publicly criticized Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, and criticized the probe for purportedly examining alleged obstruction of justice by President Trump. In March 2019, when Mueller concluded the investigation and submitted a report on the probe's findings, Barr had become Attorney General. Barr released a four-page summary of the Mueller report and held a press conference; when the full report was published, fact-checkers and news outlets noted that Barr had mischaracterized several aspects of the probe. Mueller himself had sent Barr a letter shortly after the release of the four-page summary, where Mueller said the summary "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance" of the probe's findings."


 * There are no citations for this description and I reverted this edit and want to confirm that there shouldn't be any non-neutral political statements that relate with William Barr's career in the lead section. This distorts his profile on the page in terms of important parts of his career. My rationale was that: "This shouldn't be added to the lead, unless consensus is reached on the talk page (or unless the lead is significantly expanded to include other important parts of his political career)." This issue is not covered at greatest length in the body of the article. Snooganssnoogans added extraneous information that is not considered in the body paragraphs. The term "long-term encyclopedic value" is an opinion that doesn't mean it should be used to defame the lead of a political figure. The editor should cite their sources and then keep this under a section other than the lead. Can I get consensus from other people to agree that the article should remain at a one paragraph lead? Thank you! Kozak4512 (talk) 04:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * (1) The citations for this are all in the body. A lede doesn't require cites if they are already in the body, but I'd be happy to add them to the lede if that's your true concern.
 * (2) Please point out what parts of the lede are "not considered in the body paragraphs".
 * (3) This is the subject that's covered at greatest length in the body of the article, as it encompasses the whole "Mueller investigation and report" sub-section and half of the "Comments about the Trump administration" sub-section. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with . 84percent (talk) 23:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate? Do you agree with Kozak's false claim that the content was unsourced, his false claim that this is not the issue covered at greatest length in the body and/or the false claim the text didn't mirror anything in the body? Or do you agree with some other aspect? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , you've been warned and previously banned for your uncivility. I recommend you work on your communication skills. As I said, I agree with -- it's implied that I agree with his points in whole. 84percent (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much 84percent for your agreement on this consensus. Much appreciated. Kozak4512 (talk) 06:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you intend to respond to the points I made? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Iran contra
The subsection on Iran Contra, under the U.S. Attorney general section, seems unnecessarily harsh. and a bit pointless. It all comes down to the idea that Barr may have advised the president to make a pardon, but it reads like "Let's get revenge for whatever we wanted to complain about," especially since Barr was unanimously approved by the judiciary Committee the first time. I will leave it intact and let others read it and see what they think.Princetoniac (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , I took "controversy" out of the section header per WP:CSECTION and cut out a little bit of the WP:PUFFERY. That should help some. Do you have any specific suggestions? Barr's confirmation was prior to this, so it's not at all relevant. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your edit,. I just now noticed that much of the section is based on footnotes retrieved in the last two weeks, which means the section may not have existed at the start of the year, before Mr. Barr became attorney general a second time. Thus, I will just say the Iran contra section could be condensed to a sentence or two, considering how long ago the incident took place. I will give it a try without deleting the whole thing and see if it works.Princetoniac (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

My edit was quickly reverted by, who stated that I did not explain the edit, which implies he/she did not read this section of the talk page. I do not want to start an edit war but if a revert should occur only after reviewing the discussion.Princetoniac (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , you should have at the least used an edit summary to make your edit's purpose clearer. You can't expect that every reader will read every section of every talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

You have a good point Moboshgu  Princetoniac (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , also that's not the right way to ping another editor. You're using brackets, the way we would link to articles. Use u or ping, which will ping the editor you want to ping. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

My original edit was appropriate and should be restored, and anyone can see my contributions on Wikipedia have been on a wide variety of subjects. A look at the contributions page of u|Soibangla shows that every edit he makes is related to Donald Trump. Princetoniac (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you've also noticed that very few of my edits are reverted. Would you care to guess why? Just include an edit summary and there will be no drama. soibangla (talk) 23:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit reverted and need consensus per discretionary sanctions...
My most recent edit was reverted with two minutes by with no explanation whatsoever and since the page has discretionary sanctions, I am here.

This is the edit that I made compared:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Barr&type=revision&diff=895255657&oldid=895255435

Aviartm (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Your text removes Mueller's POV and insert's Barr's. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 01:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it does not.


 * My edit:


 * On March 27, Mueller sent Barr a letter describing his concerns of Barr's letter to Congress and the public on March 24. In it, Mueller complained that the summary "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance" of the Special Counsel's probe, adding, "There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations". The letter prompted Barr to call Mueller to discuss about his letter. Barr clarified on the intention of his letter in both his phone call with Barr and in another letter to Congress that his letter was not intended to be a summary of the report, but rather serve as a description of the principal findings of the report. On April 10, 2019, in one of his testimonies before the House Judiciary Committee, Barr said "I don’t know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion."


 * Currently:


 * On March 25, the day after the release of Barr's summary, Mueller himself sent Barr a private letter, the contents of which were reported by The Washington Post in late April 2019. In it Mueller complained that the summary "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance" of the Special Counsel's probe, adding, "There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations". After Mueller sent his letter, the men discussed the matter on the phone. On March 27 Mueller sent another letter, again criticizing Barr's summary and urging Barr to immediately release the report's own introductions and summaries; however, Barr did not release them. Later Barr testified to the House Judiciary Committee on April 10, 2019: "I don’t know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion."


 * There are also factual errors on the page currently. The current edit implies that the March 25 letter says "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance," when that was the March 27 letter.1, 2, 3, 4, etc.


 * Verbatim, Mueller's current POV was never tampered it. Aviartm (talk) 01:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The part I'm objecting to is "Barr clarified on the intention of his letter in both his phone call with Barr and in another letter to Congress that his letter was not intended to be a summary of the report, but rather serve as a description of the principal findings of the report." PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not the same thing but I'll address that. What you quoted, which is what I added, is true. "In their call, Barr also took issue with Mueller calling his memo a “summary,” saying he had never intended to summarize the voluminous report, but instead provide an account of its top conclusions, officials said." – Washington Post. "They said Barr also repeated that his letter was not intended to be a summary of the report. The department spokeswoman described the phone call as "cordial and professional."" – NBC News. "“The Attorney General and the Special Counsel agreed to get the full report out with necessary redactions as expeditiously as possible,” Kupec’s statement continued. “The next day, the Attorney General sent a letter to Congress reiterating that his March 24 letter was not intended to be a summary of the report, but instead only stated the Special Counsel’s principal conclusions, and volunteered to testify before both Senate and House Judiciary Committees on May 1st and 2nd.”" – Politico... Note: ""Barr clarified on the intention of his letter in both his phone call with Barr (Meant to say Mueller, not Barr)..." Aviartm (talk) 03:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no need for us to use the word "summary" at all. Our description of Barr's letter says "On March 24, Barr wrote a four-page letter to Congress describing what he said were the report's principal conclusions." He didn't call it a summary, and he later disavowed the word. But we use the word "summary" three or four times in the paragraph that begins "On March 25, the day after the release of Barr's summary". Just replace our word "summary" with "letter" or "memo" and the problem goes away. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

During Barr’s call to Mueller, he describes a point in which Mueller adds that the media is misleading the findings. The exact quote should be added to the end of that conversation so this section isn’t so blatantly biased. LordWilliamII (talk) 05:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

How much does Barr Weigh?
How much does Barr Weigh?
 * Completely irrelevant. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I do infer that this secret no signature person wants dumbbell.

More importantly there is no contempt  listed.

Dhsert (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Mueller report and contempt of Congress in the lead
I'm trying to gauge the consensus about whether it's appropriate for the lead to have that passage. Any thoughts? El_C 02:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thoughts does not mean reverting without even an explanatory edit summary, not to mention failing to participate in this section about the particular dispute, here. Needless to say, user sanctioned and further sanctions will follow for edit warring on this page. No more warnings. El_C 11:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I support a variation of that passage which goes:
 * "Prior to his appointment as Attorney General in the Trump administration, Barr had publicly criticized Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, and criticized the probe for purportedly examining alleged obstruction of justice by President Trump. In March 2019, when Mueller concluded the investigation and submitted a report on the probe's findings, Barr had become Attorney General. Barr released a four-page summary of the Mueller report and held a press conference; when the full report was published, fact-checkers and news outlets noted that Barr had mischaracterized several aspects of the probe. Mueller himself had sent Barr a letter shortly after the release of the four-page summary, where Mueller said the summary "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance" of the probe's findings."
 * ... but which includes the contempt charge. The reasons for including it is that this is the issue that's covered at greatest length in the body of his Wikipedia article, and clearly an issue that will define his life and career (if he does more notable things in his career, then the lede can be updated), and which has long-term encyclopedic value. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support I find that an alright lead, assuming no one has objections to it.. ZiplineWhy (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It feels UNDUE for the lead, at the moment. He hasn't been held in contempt yet, requiring a full vote from the House. If or after that happens it could be re-assessed. As such, it's also missing a bit of context as to why he withheld the report, claiming that it was a violation of law to release material not in compliance with Rule 6e. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought that normally if material is challenged then consensus must be established before re-inserting it. I’ve just checked the history and the DS placed on this article, and technically the re-addition of the material after the revert is a violation. The material in question should not be in the article at the moment. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The user was blocked for that revert, yes. El_C 14:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * But the challenged material is still on the page, which is what the DS tries to prevent. You need to remove it until there is consensus for inclusion, per the DS. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't need to do anything. But you are free to revert back to the status quo ante. El_C 14:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well I was asking you to do it because you’re an administrator. A lowly editor like me risks a block. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, that's not the case. And you weren't asking. But I am sorry you feel that this is the environment in which you edit. At the event, it has been reverted since. In order for it to be reverted back, the addition need to enjoy consensus. Thanks. El_C 15:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a piece of breaking news so I think we need to give it a bit of a waiting period to see what the historical effect will be. Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

For what its worth, the editor Kozak4512 appears to hold a brazenly unprincipled and inconsistent position on the issue. While he's edit-warring to remove text from the William Barr article, he's simultaneously edit-warring to insert nearly identical text into the Janet Reno article. Thus, his views on the issue should IMO not count for anything because there is zero adherence to any sort of principles or consistent interpretation of Wikipedia policy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I kind of agree with you here - these gestures by an opposition party committee or Congress seem to be entirely political. Would be nice to see RS write up a good summary of the history and precedent here. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This shouldn't be included in the lead since this has been edited by hundreds of wikipedians over the years, who did not feel that this was notable enough for inclusion in the lede. We don't start revising history simply because of current events, when those events are not specifically and directly related to _this particular person's BLP_. Now after a consensus is already reached, another talk page is being opened up to try to include this in the lead when it should not be. I agree with Cosmic Sans that we should wait until there is a notable historical effect from this event. Instead, some editors want to immediately include this in the lead, which completely distorts the nuetrality of his profile. I would also like to ask that this nonsense edit-warring started by Snooganssnoogans to stop and for him to stop blaming me and other users for a edit-war he started. It is unfair to say the least. Kozak4512 (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The event DID NOT OCCUR before this month. How would this be representative of "hundreds of editors" (nevertheless one) opposing adding it to the lead? ZiplineWhy (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems appropriate to me. The allegation that he misrepresented the contents of the Mueller report has received a significant amount of public attention, and the other AG who has been held in contempt of Congress - Eric Holder - has had the votes against him included in his lead as well.ZiplineWhy (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The question isn't whether it is notable or not, but whether it is DUE for inclusion in the lead. Factually you are incorrect - Barr hasn't been held in contempt of Congress yet. Mr Ernie (talk) 07:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

In the section named "Mueller investigation and Report" I am taking out the phrase, "in remarks apparently intended to excuse Trump's potentially obstructive behavior," which seems to violate NPOV. The phrase refers to Barr;'s motives and private thoughts which cannot be known.Princetoniac (talk) 00:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it refers to the context of the comments. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Princetoniac - we aren't in any position to speculate as to intentions. We should just stick to the facts. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

In the same section, the phrase "Barr falsely claimed" should be changed to "Barr claimed." I suggest thatsaying "falsely' is POV as well.Princetoniac (talk) 00:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, that's literally what the RS say. It would be a NPOV vio not to describe a false statement as false. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Contempt of Congress Section
I added a little more detail as to the vote for contempt of congress. The old section appeared to claim that the Judiciary voted to hold Barr in contempt because he misrepresented the Mueller report, which was not actually the reason. The reason was that Barr failed to comply with a subpoena that requested the entire Mueller report. I added a cite to support that and also included the Justice Department's position on the matter. I'm sure this section will fill out in greater detail as these events progress. Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I also clarified that he is not yet in contempt. The matter is now in the hands of the entire House of Representatives for a vote. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Trump's "frustrations"
The editor Aviartm has twice within 23hrs altered text so that it no longer makes clear that Barr's claims about Trump's frustrations mitigating his obstructing were not in Mueller's report (despite Barr's suggestion). Aviartm's change should be reverted. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * What Wikipedia said prior:


 * "however, the report gave no indication that Trump's frustrations with the investigation would mitigate obstructing behavior." – 1


 * What Wikipedia says now:


 * "Further, Mueller’s report did not say that Trump’s frustration mitigated the evidence of obstruction." – 2


 * As editors of Wikipedia, we need to abide by RS. Looking at the RS and the attributed text in Wikipedia prior to my edit, they were not matching. I initially removed it but after looking even further, the meaning was still inherently distorted. My newest edit is taken from Cit: 88 on the page from the Washington Post: "Mueller’s report does not say Trump’s anger and frustration mitigated the evidence of obstruction." Furthermore, 1 is discussing about the contents of the Mueller Report, not Barr's take. 1 is also implying that Trump's frustrations mitigated "obstructing behavior", when that is not true given the RSs on the page. Aviartm (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Are you going to self-revert your 1RR violation or not? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The text needs to make absolutely clear that Barr's statement was misleading. This is what the WaPo says, "Barr seemed to excuse some of Trump’s attacks and roadblocks of the Mueller investigation by saying that “as the Special Counsel’s report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that the President was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks.” Mueller’s report does not say Trump’s anger and frustration mitigated the evidence of obstruction." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As 1RR is a branch of 3RR: "The one-revert rule is analogous to the three-revert rule as described above, with the words "more than three reverts" replaced by "more than one revert"."; exceptions are also applied. You also proved my point. Wikipedia currently mentions half of the quote that you said:


 * Wikipedia: "During a press conference, Barr said Mueller's report contained "substantial evidence" that Trump was "frustrated and angered" because of his belief that the "investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks". (Whoever added the quote broke it up into sections but that is the same quote)


 * WaPo: "Barr seemed to excuse some of Trump’s attacks and roadblocks of the Mueller investigation by saying that “as the Special Counsel’s report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that the President was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks.”


 * You also provided the quote from the WaPo article that I did as well, which is what I added to the page, which is discussed in full in my first response. Thank you for proving why my edit is correct and sound in relation to the RSs. Aviartm (talk) 00:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Either the Wikipedia text should make clear that Barr is excusing the evidence of obstruction or it should make clear that the Mueller report does not contain what Barr suggests it contains - that's the crux of the WaPO text. Your version of the text does neither and misleads readers into thinking Barr's statement and Mueller's report are unrelated with a weird and confusing "further". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The paragraph where my edit is situated is not a continuum from one sentence to the other talking about the same topic. It is more of a batch of details that Barr mentioned at his press conference. The paragraph goes from general details; Mueller report; president telling staffers to lie not obstruction; and a president could terminate an investigation into him, etc. And since the paragraph is about Barr's remarks, then the edit before mine and my edit should be removed then if we are to focus exclusively on Barr's remarks at his press conference. Nonetheless, the text prior to my edit did correlate remotely to the RSs attributed to it that is why I made the correct changes. Aviartm (talk) 01:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think both are pretty close in meaning, but the older version clearly summarized the sources accurately and flowed better; your proposed replacement is stilted and awkward. In fact, since you lifted a sentence directly without making it clear that it was a quote, it could be argued that your proposed replacement is a copyvio - we're supposed to broadly summarize sources, not lift text from them directly.  Even putting copyvio issues aside, quotes tend to raise potential issues in terms of stripping out the context. --Aquillion (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In terms of flow, I do agree the former was better in that aspect but that gimmick does not supersede RS. The issue with the former is the implication that Trump’s frustrations “mitigated obstruction” when that is not true as stated above with the source in comparing the two. Aviartm (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft status?
What do we know about this gentleman's draft status? &#39;&#39;Paul, in Saudi&#39;&#39; (talk) 04:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * He is 68 years old. That is a little old to be serving in the military.  --rogerd (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

CBS interview
Posting links to reliable sources on it. Surely some notable things in there. 5 links below.  starship .paint  (talk) 06:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Transcript:


 * Newsweek: William Barr's Mueller report inconsistencies suggest he's 'making things up,' ex-prosecutors say


 * The New York Times Barr Escalates Criticism of Mueller Team and Defends Trump


 * Newsweek William Barr admits Justice Department 'didn't agree' with Mueller and applied 'right law'
 * New York In Terrifying Interview, William Barr Goes Full MAGA

This stood out from the interview. When Barr was asked what the fundamental difference between his view and Mueller's view is he said: "As a matter of law...we didn't agree with the legal analysis- a lot of the legal analysis in the report. It did not reflect the views of the department..." Is there a good place to add this text to the article? Plakow (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I do think some of the things he said deserve to be in the article; possibly the above; also his insistence that Mueller could have called Trump's actions a crime without indicting him (Mueller himself explained how that would be unfair and violate the presumption of innocence); also his indication that he is ordering new investigations on a bunch of things that Trump claims even though they have already been investigated multiple times; also his insistence that the government spied while claiming that "spied" is a harmless neutral word. There is a lot of meat here but let's discuss what to add before doing anything. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * That's great. Agree that everything mentioned above should be included. There's no need to restrict it to the craziest thing he said.  starship .paint  (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Mueller himself explained how that would be unfair because “Leading up to the release of the Mueller report, Rosenstein had argued against too much transparency, citing Justice Department policies that generally don’t reveal derogatory information about people who have not been charged with a crime” soibangla (talk) 03:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That statement contradicts his earlier rationale, and 28CFR§600.7b may require the AG to report to Congress if he overrules the Special Counsel. Developing... soibangla (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Removal of RS content, citing "bias"
The editor "Kozak4512" has just indiscriminately reverted a bunch of changes I made to the body of the article. This includes restoring BLP vio language and a citation needed tag, as well as mass-removing text that adheres to reliable sources. This is extremely annoying, in particular given 1RR. My changes should be restored immediately. On a related note, there are concerns about this editor's editing practices. Not only is he indiscriminately reverting content, but he's adding literally the same content to other Wikipedia articles that he strenuously objects to in this Wikipedia article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I have reverted this indiscriminate content removal. Kozak4512, if you wish to pursue this matter, please set forth your specific objections and rationale here. Neutralitytalk 14:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Expand lede beyond one short paragraph
Should the second paragraph be added to the lede (excluding the citations which are already in the body)?: Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

"William Pelham Barr (born May 23, 1950) is an American attorney. He was appointed by Donald Trump as the 85th United States Attorney General, and has served in that role since February 14, 2019. He had previously served in the position from 1991 to 1993, in the administration of George H. W. Bush. Before becoming attorney general the first time, Barr held numerous other posts within the Department of Justice, including serving as Deputy Attorney General from 1990 to 1991. He is a member of the Republican Party."

"Prior to his appointment as Attorney General in the Trump administration, Barr had publicly criticized Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, and criticized the probe for purportedly examining alleged obstruction of justice by President Trump.   In March 2019, when Mueller concluded the investigation and submitted a report on the probe's findings, Barr had become Attorney General. Barr released a four-page summary of the Mueller report; when the full report was published, fact-checkers and news outlets noted that Barr had mischaracterized several aspects of the probe.      Mueller himself had sent Barr a letter shortly after the release of the four-page summary, where Mueller said the summary 'did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance' of the probe's findings."

Please indicate whether you support or oppose something similar to the above text, along with your reasoning. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support: Recent events are the most notable of Barr's career and should be in lead, as should mention he is proponent of unitary executive theory of expansive presidential authority. soibangla (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support (Support adding something but Oppose this wording as non-neutral; see my alternate proposal below.) If memory serves, this was in the article lead at one point but got removed. Yes, these are recent events, but they are massively covered on an ongoing basis, and they do need to be summarized in the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC) P.S. However, the proposed paragraph is way overcited. The first paragraph of the lead contains no references, as is usual for a lead. This proposal contains 12 - all of which are repeated in the text. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Non-neutral in many ways. Basically reads as a polemic against Barr and gives much too much weight to the current controversy. R2 (bleep) 00:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as UNDUE. The majority of the lead would then be devoted to the last few months of his life and career. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is by far the most sizable part of his Wikipedia article. If there is anything else that this man has done and which is notable, it should be added to the body and then possibly to the lede if the depth of coverage justifies it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there are already items in the body which could be also added to the lede - that shouldn't stop us from adding this material.  starship .paint  (talk) 02:03, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose as UNDUE. We have to be mindful of recentism, and the fact that this story is still developing on a daily basis. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: PER WP:WEIGHT. The level of coverage warrant it to be in the lede. This will certainly define his term as AG and will clearly be important in WP:10.Casprings (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. The level and tone of current coverage makes it reasonable to conclude that this is the defining feature of his tenure as AG, which is patently the most notable part of his career. --Aquillion (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. This is the single issue that's covered at greatest length in the body of his Wikipedia article, and clearly an issue that will define his life and career (if this 68-year old man does more notable things in his career, then the lede can be updated), and which has long-term encyclopedic value. If there are other notable things that Barr has done in his past, then they need to be added to the body and then we can evaluate whether they are covered at sufficient depth to be included in the lede. We can perhaps add a line about his advocacy for the unitary executive theory, as well as a line about his role in the Iran-Contra scandal. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose UNDUE and POV-pushing. This covers a small portion of his career.  --rogerd (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is by far the most sizable part of his Wikipedia article. If there is anything else that this man has done and which is notable, please point it out. Also, point out what part of this is a NPOV violation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's only sizeable due to a lot of coatracking and recentism issues.--MONGO (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose as UNDUE weight. Barr has had a long career and the article as it currently sits is plagued by serious recentism issues. I suggest a split off of some of those more recent issues to better comply with BLP on the primary biographical page.--MONGO (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This article is basically the poster child for recentism. Cosmic Sans (talk) 02:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support . According to WP guidelines, the lead should  "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."  Can't get more prominent than something that's been mentioned by Trump himself and his supporters and opponents practically on a daily basis since Trump took office.   Barr prominently inserted himself into the controversy with his summary exoneration of  Trump.  Even staunch Trump supporter Napolitano called his memo  a "foolish attempt to sanitize the Mueller report. It was misleading, disingenuous and deceptive. Also, because Barr knew that all or nearly all of the Mueller report would soon enter the public domain, it was dumb and insulting." (Newsweek, The Hill)  Keeping s.th. like this out of the lead is non-neutral and POV-pushing (see "sanitize").  I'd shorten it, 'though.  Instead of a lengthy explanation on this page, I edited the lead and then self-reverted.
 * Controversies predating Wikipedia (e.g., his role in the Iran-Contra cover-up, instituting—at the time illegal—wiretapping of Americans in 1992 (kinda ironic, isn't it?), incarceration) not being mentioned in the lead—yet—is not a good reason to suppress mention of the ongoing big one.  What ARE the positive things he is known for? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose as POV-pushing a particular counter-opinion of Barr's own opinion. Also undue detail and recentism. — JFG talk 22:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no dispute in RS that Barr misrepresented aspects of the probe. It's not "opinion". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Come on, even Mueller today said he saw nothing wrong with Barr's statements about his report. — JFG talk 21:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Mueller at no point said anything explicitly in his speech about whether Barr's statements or summaries of the report were wrong/correct (the whole transcript can be found here). As for what Mueller stated about the report (there's nothing new in the speech that wasn't in the report - and multiple RS clearly delineate how Barr's summary and remarks about the report were false and/or misleading), his remarks contradicted Barr's claims per RS:
 * There is a whole Politico piece just about these contradictions: "Mueller spotlighted differences with Barr on several points."
 * LA Times: "The special counsel’s comments, however, contrasted with Barr’s own description of the investigation."
 * The Guardian: "His statement on Wednesday contradicted Trump’s claims that Mueller’s report awarded him “total exoneration” and also William Barr’s bald assertion last month that Mueller’s decision was not based on justice department policy."
 * NY Times: "In summing up his inquiry, he seemed to cast the president’s conduct in a more damning light than Attorney General William P. Barr."
 * NBC News: "Contrary to the suggestions of Attorney General William Barr, Mueller said he didn't pursue such a finding because the Justice Department has a regulation barring the indictment of a sitting president and "the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing" — impeachment and removal from office."
 * Bloomberg News: "That appears to contradict what attorney general William Barr said publicly, when he disputed that Mueller’s decision not to charge Trump was based on the justice department policy, written by its office of legal counsel."
 * CNN: "Special counsel Robert Mueller's public statement Wednesday presented a stark contrast to the attorney general regarding the significance of the Justice Department guidelines against indicting a president."
 * 538: "Mueller quietly rebuked Barr"
 * To the closer of this RfC: If someone claims that the disputed content should be kept out of the lede because RS do not support the text, keep in mind that this argument is completely and utterly false, and consider the merits of the votes/comments accordingly. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * JFG: That’s a highly inaccurate description if you are referring to Mueller’s statement at his June 29 public appearance at the Justice Dept. Please cite the RS or the parts of the transcript that support your bald claim.  Mueller never even mentioned Barr’s summaries.   According to the NYT:  Mr. Mueller acknowledged that he and Mr. Barr had differed over whether to release his team’s summaries. But he said, "I certainly do not question the attorney general’s good faith in that decision." He also complimented Mr. Barr’s decision to make almost the entire report public.  WaPo: Mueller thanked Barr for making most of his report public — suggesting that there might no longer be tension, as there once was, over how the attorney general was characterizing Mueller’s work. … Mueller did not address the dispute specifically Wednesday but said he did not question Barr’s "good faith" in releasing the report.  Transcript of Mueller’s statement: At one point in time, I requested that certain portions of the report be released and the attorney general preferred to make — preferred to make the entire report public all at once and we appreciate that the attorney general made the report largely public. And I certainly do not question the attorney general’s good faith in that decision.  That is a very diplomatic way of Mueller saying that he wanted Barr to release the Special Counsel’s summaries immediately and—while Barr preferred not to do so for 5 weeks—Mueller appreciates that Barr eventually released the report with Mueller’s summaries and that Mueller doesn’t question that his boss (AG Barr) acted in good faith when he decided to wait for 5 weeks. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You're making my point: Mueller wanted Barr to publish his full summaries, and Barr did so together with the whole report, a bit later than Mueller would have preferred (but on the other hand Barr said he would have preferred to release the whole thing immediately, but the redactions were not ready). Neither Barr nor Mueller said that the other person made false statements. This "controversy" is not lead-worthy. — JFG talk 07:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What point? Your only point that Mueller today said he saw nothing wrong with Barr's statements about his report?  Repeating what I wrote above: Mueller never even mentioned Barr's summaries, i.e., statements, non-summaries (whatever) to the public. And, since he didn't, how could he have commented on their content one way or the other?  Also, I don't recall any editor proposing to say that Barr and Mueller accused each other of making false statements, so why are you bringing that up? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Look, I won't convince you and you won't convince me, but no matter how we parse their statements, it's still undue detail for the lead section of a biography. — JFG talk 14:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - This is relevant and important background. I agree with 's explanation above.  Still, it is probably best to identify who the specific "fact-checkers" and news outlets are to avoid weasel issues.  We should be clear about "who says".--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This article is being updated much too frequently, which is the definition of recentism. It does not need revision on a daily basis to reflect whatever is on page 10 of today's newspaper. In addition, if an editor asks if a section should be added, he/she should not repeatedly comment in support of their own question or refute those who oppose the idea. Finally, keeping something out of an article cannot be POV pushing, because things which does not exist (in the article) cannot have a point of view. Princetoniac (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC) 16:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Three sentences in the lead is appropriate here, given the extent of coverage and the importance of these items. I disagree with users asserting that this content is a "counter-opinion" or "refutation"&mdash;this material seems to quite plainly reflect what the reliable sources say. On a different issue - if users think a few more sentences about his earlier career in the lead would be warranted, I have no particular objection to that. Neutralitytalk 20:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - extremely significant to his career. Per Neutrality, editors are free to add other significant parts of his career to the lede.  starship .paint  (talk) 02:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose- as POV- you are clearly writing a particular counter-opinion of Barr's own opinion. Kozak4512 (talk) 12:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support (via FRS) - This is the thing for which he is clearly most notable and therefore is deserving of the greatest weight in the lede. StudiesWorld (talk) 09:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As several more knowledgeable users have noted, the way the paragraph is worded appears to be non-neutral. If the paragraph is included in the lead, the "fact-checkers and news outlets" should be identified. As other users put it: Wikipedia should be clear about "who says". Plakow (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:POV-PUSHING in many ways. The characterizations are disputed. One could just as easily dig up a bunch of pro-Barr ways of looking at it, which would also be wrong.Adoring nanny (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – while I actually agree that it's UNDUE as written, the solution is to provide more detail about other parts of Barr's career in the lead. Wording can be tweaked for neutrality, although I think that the alternate proposal below goes too far and doesn't explain to the reader why any of this is important or lead-worthy. signed,Rosguill talk 19:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I fully support summarizing other parts of the body in the lede (I beefed up the body after the start of the RfC). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. The idea that we should exclude the most prominent events of this man's career from the intro is obviously ridiculous. I think it could be more concise, though not by much, and we could also include a response if he's given one. If someone wants to present some reliable sources which explicitly suggest Barr didn't mischaracterise aspects of the report we could qualify that line as "some news outlets" and/or name specific ones. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 14:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Opppose- As several others have said, this is clearly an attempt to WP:POVPUSH. Why not just take it a step further and just call him a liar? Mueller also said during his press conference " I certainly do not question the Attorney General’s good faith in that decision."--Rusf10 (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That quote is in reference to Barr making the report public. It has nothing to do with Barr's misleading summaries of the report. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. As others have said above, Mueller has said that the report is accurate. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) w umbolo   ^^^  05:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Alternate proposal
I support adding something to the lead, but not this much detail and certainly not so negative. This addition mainly highlights all the criticisms of his action; it is not neutral. But I really do think we need something in the lead about the special counsel’s report. That is by far the main reason any of our readers have ever heard of Barr; it's a travesty to not even mention it in the lead. A few neutral sentences are what we need. Example: "Upon becoming Attorney General on February 14, 2019, Barr assumed supervision of the special counsel investigating the Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and related matters. On March 22, 2019, the special counsel, Robert Mueller, delivered his final report to Barr. Four days later Barr sent Congress a four-page letter describing what he said were the principal findings of the investigation. On April 18 Barr released a redacted version of the report."

We could add a brief hint about the controversy if people insist, such as “what he said were the principal findings of the investigation, although his letter was later described as mischaracterizing the report.” Comments? -- MelanieN (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The text must note that he misrepresented aspects of the Mueller report. That's what makes this notable. A normal AG summarizing a report correctly and acting transparently would never belong in a lede or be covered at such length by RS. The fact that every RS that has covered Barr (subsequent to the release of the Mueller report) makes reference to his misrepresentations clearly substantiates that this is the notable aspect. While it's not as important, I also think it's relevant here to note that Barr criticized the probe before he was AG and dismissed the evidence of obstruction in the investigation before he was AG (while having zero knowledge, as a non-AG, of what the probe had uncovered). That he was known for criticizing the probe before being handpicked by Trump to supervise the probe and to manage the release of its findings is something that will obviously end up in the lede at some point (most likely after he's out of office and none of the editors who are currently vetoing this change care anymore). I think it's unfortunate that we'd keep it out of the lede out of a desire for compromise. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me just note that I am not proposing this version out of a "desire for compromise". I am proposing it out of a desire for WP:Neutrality. Front-loading the article with all the criticisms of him is not neutral and not encyclopedic. So I take it you prefer the original proposal; that's fine. Let's hear what others have to say. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC) (BTW what I would like to see come out after he's out of office is some exploration of whether it's just a coincidence that Mueller closed his probe within a month of Barr taking control of the investigation. But we'll probably never know because Mueller will never tell.) -- MelanieN (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Omitting criticism by fact-checkers and legal experts (for once, from both sides of the political spectrum) isn't neutral, either, it's a big basic missing from the  nutshell. Applying your reasoning to Donald Rumsfeld (where the lead for no apparent reason - um, balance? - advertises two books he wrote): Rumsfeld was appointed Secretary of Defense for a second time in January 2001 by President George W. Bush. As Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld played a central role in the invasion of Afghanistan and invasion of Iraq. Before and during the Iraq War, he claimed stated that Iraq had an active WMD program; no WMD stockpiles were ever found.[3][4] A Pentagon Inspector General report found that Rumsfeld's top policy aide "developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers." [5] Rumsfeld's tenure became highly controversial for the use of torture, as well as the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal .[6] Rumsfeld gradually lost political support and he resigned in late 2006. Contains the bare facts but doesn't really say anything other than "stuff happens," (D.H.Rumsfeld) then other stuff happened, and then more stuff happened. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I proposed an alternate version in my post on May 20 (see edit and self-revert). Add after "Barr is a longtime proponent of the unitary executive theory of unfettered presidential authority" and in June 2018 he publicly criticized Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation as "fatally misconceived". Add second paragraph: ""Barr's four-page summary, released in March 2019, of Mueller's report on the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and possible obstruction of justice by President Trump was critized by fact-checkers and news outlets for mischaracterizing several aspects of the probe when the report was released in April 2019. Mueller wrote Barr a letter stating that the summary 'did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance' of the probe's findings."
 * Your proposal leaves the reader wondering why describing what he said were the principal findings of the investigation etc. is lead-worthy. It doesn't belong in the lead if you don't mention what's truly noteworthy, the massive criticism. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Post-RFC: Mueller report summary in the lede
What should the lede say about his summary of the Mueller report? And what is the best way to conclusively determine this given that the RfC ended without a firm consensus on the language? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Barr's order of "indefinite detention" was removed due to WP:NOTNEWS
Seriously. Does the editor Calidum care to explain his/her thinking? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It should be immediately restored soibangla (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Mueller, and Barr's "good faith" handling of the report
<div class="boilerplate archived" 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.

On May 29, 2019, Mueller held a press conference at which he stated that he did not doubt Barr's "good faith" handling of the report. I added this to the article along with a reliable source. It was immediately reverted by User:Snooganssnoogans with the edit summary "deceptive af." I reverted it back as I lifted the language exactly from the source. (In fact, aside from the date, what I added to the article was the headline of the source.) Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is deceptive (and I strongly suspect intentionally so). Mueller explicitly said he did not doubt Barr's "good faith" in his decision to release the report. Here's Mueller's exact quotes, "The Attorney General preferred to make that — preferred to make the entire report public all at once, and we appreciate that the Attorney General made the report largely public. And I certainly do not question the Attorney General’s good faith in that decision." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, you have violated 1RR to add your deceptive rubbish to the article. You should self-revert immediately. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * (1) I do not see how that quote differs from what I said. Would a compromise solution be to include the whole quote? (2) I did not violate the 1RR rule. I'm afraid your complaint will go nowhere. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You do not see the difference between doubting the "good faith" of the handling of the Mueller report in general versus doubting the "good faith" in releasing the Mueller report? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll ask again: Would a compromise solution be to include the whole quote? I'm not here to get into a pointless argument. I'm just trying to resolve the dispute. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I frankly do not see it as WP:DUE to include text that says Mueller did not doubt the good faith involved in belatedly releasing a redacted version of the report. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Uh huh. The vast majority of the "Report" section concerns how the report was released. Can you explain why it would be undue weight to include the opinion of Mueller (who wrote the report) in a section about the release of the report? Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * In an effort to obtain consensus, I would appreciate some additional opinions on whether we should include Bob Mueller's quote in the article. I am perfectly fine with including the whole quote, or introducing the material as I had originally phrased it. Either way seems fine to me. Cosmic Sans (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Use the whole quote for precision. ' post of 13:56, 10 July 2019 is convincing.  starship .paint  (talk) 08:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm hoping to generate more discussion by pinging the users who were involved in the last RfC on this page. Specifically, the question is whether we should include the following quote from Robert Mueller in the Mueller Report section on this article: "The Attorney General preferred to make that — preferred to make the entire report public all at once, and we appreciate that the Attorney General made the report largely public. And I certainly do not question the Attorney General’s good faith in that decision."

Snooganssnoogans has claimed that quoting Robert Mueller in a section regarding the Mueller Report is somehow a violation of WP:DUE. I still do not understand how Mueller's opinion on the handling of Mueller's own report is not a "significant viewpoint" as per the WP:DUE policy. Based on my discussions with Snoogan on his talk page, he is apparently not interested in discussing this dizzying assertion any further. So, I would appreciate independent feedback on this.

Pinged users: User:soibangla, User:MelanieN, User:Ahrtoodeetoo, User:Mr_Ernie, User:Casprings, User:MONGO, User:rogerd, User:JFG, User:Darryl_Kerrigan, User:Princetoniac, User:Neutrality, User:Kozak4512, User:StudiesWorld, User:Plakow, User:Adoring_nanny, User:Rosguill, User:ReconditeRodent, User:Rusf10, User:Wumbulo

Thanks! Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree with Snoogansnoogans here: the original phrasing is misleading, and it's not clear why Mueller's comments regarding whether or not it was a good faith act to release a public version of the report are relevant here. Yes, Mueller is a relevant authority on the Mueller Report, and there very well may be quotes from him that are worth including. However, this particular quote doesn't really say anything important or relevant in the context of the section as currently written. If there was a paragraph or more about controversy specifically relating to the release of the report to the public, then this would be a relevant quote to include. signed,Rosguill talk 16:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If there were a detailed section about controversy related to the release of the report (e.g. Democratic congress members telling Barr to release it for a couple of weeks, Mueller encouraging the release of the report), then it might belong. That said, I think such a section might be too in-the-weeds. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with the Rosguill/Snooganssnoogans analysis above. Neutralitytalk 17:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there any policy reason for that? Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The section discusses the controversy surrounding the release of the report, specifically as it relates to the public disclosure of the report and the complaint that Barr did not release all of it -- which Barr was held in contempt of congress for. This is all in the article, so Mueller's comment on this is directly relevant. Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC) I guess what I'm wondering is: what specific policy would say that we should not include this? It's relevant to the subject matter and material already in the article. It's not a fringe position, nor is it an insignificant viewpoint - so WP:DUE doesn't apply. I could deluge you with reliable sources, since this was from a highly publicized and hugely relevant press event (the first and only press event that Mueller has done.) It ticks all the boxes for inclusion, but I haven't seen any good policy-based reason as to why it should be excluded. Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Please remember to avoid WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT arguments. The material is unquestionably notable. It is verifiable. It comes from a reliable source. If you don't want to include it in an article, please cite to a Wikipedia policy instead of saying that you just don't want it in the article. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC) Specifically, if you believe that we cannot add this material unless large amounts of similar material exists in the article first, then please cite to the policy that states that. (Note: the article does discuss the public release of the report, so this quote is relevant to material already in the article.) Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * First of all, looking at the source, the error was made by whoever wrote the headline, not by User:Cosmic Sans. So the accusation of "intentionally" needs to be dropped. That said, the article's text should reflect the source's text, not the headline. And User:Snooganssnoogans is correct about the source's text. Lastly, I think the proposed insertion is notable, easily meets WP:DUE, and a corrected version of the proposal is appropriate for the article. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree... and just so everyone is aware, the only proposal I'm supporting is the proposal that we use the whole quote. I'm no longer advocating for my initial edit. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support proposal to use entire quote- Mueller's opinion of Barr's handling of a report that Mueller wrote is clearly not UNDUE. I agree this amounts to an WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT argument. Snooganssnoogans assumption of bad faith by Cosmic Sans (who is trying to compromise) was uncalled for.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Although I believe that the "oppose" votes are ultimately nothing more substantial than WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, I'm going to seek third opinions/RfC in order to build a clearer consensus. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Since I was pinged for this, here is my opinion: working on this article or making good faith edits has become useless, because the entire article on Barr has been hijacked by two editors. They repeatedly add negative items and argue with editors and basically use this forum as a method to denigrate Barr. Look at the article's edit history and you will see how frequently they appear. If you look at the talk history above, at one point a small section of the article was removed, Editor #1 responded, and Editor #2 responded in support of Editor #1 within four minutes. The entire biography has been tainted for half a year because of these two editors, and there is little or nothing administrators will do about it.Princetoniac (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . Thank you for your comment. Do you have any position on support/oppose? As difficult as the editing process may be, I am still trying to demonstrate a clear consensus. At the moment, it seems like more commenters support the introduction of my edit, but I want to make this as clear as possible before I make the changes. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I appreciate your effort and good faith but I believe there is no point to editing the William Barr article at all. The two editors involved are stalking the page and will simply revert anything they don't like. Good luck to you, but it is a waste of time, in my humble opinion.Princetoniac (talk) 15:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Robert Mueller's Quote
<div class="boilerplate archived" 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.

Attorney General William Barr's article contains a section entitled "Mueller investigation and report", which concerns his handling of the Mueller Report. Should the following quote by Robert Mueller regarding William Barr's handling of the report be included in that section: "The Attorney General preferred to make that — preferred to make the entire report public all at once, and we appreciate that the Attorney General made the report largely public. And I certainly do not question the Attorney General’s good faith in that decision." Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Provides appropriate clarification in context. We could do without the stuttering, though: just say "preferred to make the entire report public all at once". — JFG talk 00:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, without the stutter per User:JFG.Adoring nanny (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, without the stutter concur with the above opinions.  C Thomas<sup style="font-size: x-small; color: brown;">3   (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If there were a detailed section about controversy related to the release of the report (e.g. Democratic congress members telling Barr to release it for a couple of weeks, Mueller encouraging the release of the report, Barr stalling), then it might belong. That said, I think such a section might be too in-the-weeds. Instead, the intent here seems to be to smack this into a section that covers Barr's misrepresentations about the report in order to give the false impression that Mueller endorsed Barr's misrepresentations when he is instead talking about something more obscure and trivial (the date at which the report was released to the public). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Mueller isn't talking about the date on which the report was released to the public, but rather that AG Barr made the report public all at once without publishing part of it in advance. That's actually discussed in the article, so it is very much relevant. Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support, without the stutter seems appropriate and relevant in that section.--SharabSalam (talk) 11:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * SUPPORT - though it should also say where/why Mueller made the comment. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:59, 17 August 2019 (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.


 * 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.

Lede
The lede seemed to me to be both overinclusive of relatively minor issues that are not the focus of the article (the unitary executive theory, for instance) and underinclusive of much of Barr's career. I revised it, but my edits were reverted on the grounds that they should be discussed here first. So, here is my proposed new lede:


 * William "Bill" Pelham Barr (born May 23, 1950) is an American lawyer and government official serving as the United States Attorney General in the administration of President Donald Trump. He also served as U.S. Attorney General during the George H. W. Bush administration from 1991 to 1993.


 * A graduate of Columbia University and George Washington University Law School, Barr worked for the Central Intelligence Agency in the 1970s. He served in the Reagan administration during the 1980s and also worked as a partner at a law firm. Before becoming Attorney General in 1991, Barr was an Assistant Attorney General and a Deputy Attorney General. During his first tenure as Attorney General, Barr "oversaw high-profile investigations into the savings and loan scandal, Manuel Noriega – the corrupt former dictator of Panama convicted in 1992 of racketeering – and the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103". In a 1992 report entitled The Case for More Incarceration, Barr argued for an increase in the United States incarceration rate; he has been an influential advocate for tougher criminal justice policies. Following his departure from the Department of Justice, Barr worked for telecommunications companies and engaged in the private practice of law.


 * After being nominated in December 2018 by President Donald Trump to serve as Attorney General a second time, Barr was confirmed by the U.S. Senate and sworn in as the 85th United States Attorney General on February 14, 2019.

Thoughts? SunCrow (talk) 10:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that "The Case For More Incarceration" is important enough for the lede. It seemed to catch some media attention during his confirmation process as AG, but it hasn't been discussed much since then. Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Agree that "The case for More Incarceration probably doesnt' warrant mention in the lead paragraph. Else, I think it is very good, and a definite improvement from the current lead.2601:247:4300:29AF:A9C9:E9D6:81E5:46 (talk) 03:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support new lead section as proposed – much more biographical. — JFG talk 09:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Include "Unitary executive". Unitary executive is key stance of Barr's current tenure as Attorney General. Relates to many diverse actions he has taken. Clearly significant for lead section of this article. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * SUPPORT as better. I also suggest drop the mention of ‘Case for incarceration’ as well.  And a minor tweak, remove quotes around the part “oversaw high-profile investigations”.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I also agree with the above post regarding the "case for incarceration". It is too specific. The "tougher criminal justice policies" should be enough. Darwin Naz (talk) 02:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Barr giving money to Trump's DC hotel
An editor removed the fact that Barr plans to give more than $30,000 to Trump's DC hotel, claiming it was UNDUE and rambling about how this money does not go to Trump, despite the fact that countless RS, including WaPo, NYT, USA Today, CBS News and the ABA Journal covered it. Even Fox News covered it, noting the ethics concerns related to it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Another editor tries to add every single piece of negative news to right wing BLPs. Have some judgment. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If you think it's not worth covering, write a letter to those publications complaining. But "I don't think this is a big deal because [reason]" isn't a really meaningful argument when it's getting reasonably heavy coverage that doesn't seem to agree with your analysis.  At best, perhaps we could find a source that disagrees with those (and mentions your argument that Trump isn't making much money) and include that, but even then, I'm not sure personal money made is the main focus of what they're saying. --Aquillion (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Those publications can cover whatever they want. That doesn't mean it warrants inclusion in an encyclopedic article about Bill Barr. News agencies will report the news, but not all news is encyclopedic. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that this factoid is inappropriate for inclusion. It's fairly unencyclopedic. It received one 24-hour news cycle back in August - from what I can tell, every article on the subject is from the 27th or 28th of August 2019. A number of outlets may have piggy-backed on each other during that one-day timespan in August, but the fact that it petered out so quickly reflects how insignificant this story even is. It doesn't add much to the article as apparently, the sourcing agrees that it's "not unethical" (also known as "ethical") but "troubling" which seems fairly meaningless and unimportant in the grand scheme of things. To the extent that it's being used to cast aspersions on Barr, it may invoke BLP concerns. In any event, if this factoid were to be included, NPOV would require that we go into it with a little more depth. The reader might see that sentence, for example, and assume that it was an official DOJ function (it wasn't) or that it's unethical (it wasn't). By the time you've explained all this, you've got a fairly boring paragraph about something that has no lasting significance whatsoever. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 20px lightskyblue, -4px -4px 20px black;font-weight:bold;">May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 16:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources say it's not a brightline violation of government ethics rules. The requirement that only things that receive daily sustained RS coverage meets WP:DUE (a requirement that literally no content on Wikipedia fulfills) is bonkers, and seems to generally just be an unprincipled and inconsistent way to argue for the exclusion of content that you personally dislike. That you personally believe it's "insignificant" for the AG to put money into the pocket of the President, contrary to the weight of RS coverage, is not a reason to exclude this content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I really don't appreciate your claim that this is just material that I "personally dislike." I have no personal feelings about it and I'd ask that you stop casting aspersions. It looks like he rented a venue at a Trump property in an arm's length transaction for a personal event, which sources describe as (and I quote) "not unethical." I'm not asking for daily sustained coverage, but I'd like more than one news story that got duplicated over a variety of outlets. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 20px lightskyblue, -4px -4px 20px black;font-weight:bold;">May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 13:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Today I learned that the only content that can be allowed into this encyclopedia are straight up crimes and impeachable ethics violations. That every single RS in the country covered the event and ethics experts described it as ethically troubling is apparently immaterial - you in your great wisdom have declared that RS were wrong to cover it and that your feeling is that officials putting vast sums of money into the President's pocket is "insignificant". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a bit dramatic and not really helpful. RS can and do cover whatever they want. It is our job as editors to determine which are meaningful enough to build encyclopedic profiles of the subjects. In this case, it made the rounds on the news cycle and died down. Do you really think Bill Barr put vast sums of money into the President's pocket? Trump was already a billionaire when he entered office. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Trump was already a billionaire when he entered office. Y'think? Any independent RS thinks? NOR. It's the nature of media coverage that initial reporting subsides and then longer-range narratives continue to cite certain events. This is one such event. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * He paid more than $30,000 to a property owned by Trump. Please keep up. If you're going to delete content, you should at the very least know what you're deleting. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sure Trump makes a lot of money from his properties. What's your point and why is it relevant to William Barr? Mr Ernie (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ernie, isn't this the article wherein we present the life and times of Bill Barr, e.g. his actions? <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , sure but we need to have a reason to put things in. Why does this little blurb deserve a mentioned in a biographic encyclopedia article? It has no relevance to Bill Barr's life or career. Mr Ernie (talk) 07:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, need we remind ourselves, we have no idea whether Trump owns so much as a single "property"? As best RS have figured out, he went broke around y2K and now collects fees from licensing his name on other people's buildings. Like this troubled hotel, e.g. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This article isn't a clearinghouse for every tidbit of information or factoid about Bill Barr. The life of this new story can be measured in hours. It really isn't suitable. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 20px lightskyblue, -4px -4px 20px black;font-weight:bold;">May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 20:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You must not have seen that I was responding to a specific question of Mr Ernie's. Your other point has already been addressed by others. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2019
The sentence "Barr is a longtime proponent of the unitary executive theory of nearly unfettered presidential authority" is unclear and actually dishonest. To make it more clear and truthful, it should be edited to say "Barr is a longtime proponent of the unitary executive theory of nearly unfettered presidential authority over the Executive Branch." 209.66.116.4 (talk) 17:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done: see Special:Diff/922868988. <b style="color:black">Nici</b><b style="color:purple">Vampire</b><b style="color:black">Heart</b> 20:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Origins of the Russia investigation - what's appropriate content
The addition of "The New York Times noted that this was "likely to raise alarms" that Trump was using the Justice Department to go after his perceived enemies, which includes those who concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 election (which Trump considers a hoax)." is not appropriate for a BLP. The NYT may of noted it, but that does't automatically qualify for inclusion here. There's a counter narrative article for that type of content. --Garp21 (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Why do you think that this is not appropriate for a BLP, but the rest of the material that you added is?- MrX 🖋 23:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BLP 1.1 Tone, and 1.2 Balance. I added the facts of the news:
 * 1. The review was now a criminal investigation
 * 2. Added a brief description of what that means.


 * The additional comments were speculative commentary that was not in keeping with tone, and balance of BLP. Those type of comments may be appropriate for the counter narrative article. I also removed the portion of those comments that weren't in the source material. --Garp21 (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The text that you deleted was explicitly in the source. How much time are we going to have to waste on this four-week old account whose edits have exclusively centered on pushing nonsense on this topic and whose editing patterns demonstrate a familiarity with editing Wikipedia? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * So because I'm a fairly new editor my contributions don't carry as much weight as yours! And then comments move into the personal attack category in violation of WP:TPNO — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garp21 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm a veteran editor, yet you're citing Wikipedia policies that are so obscure (WP:TPNO) that not even I have heard of them before. Very normal for a "new" account. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The new guy (Garp21) is right here. First, the editorial comments of the New York Times should not be included in a BLP. It implies Barr has done something wrong. Second, WP:TPNO is not obscure, its actually a basic guideline about how to behave on a talk page. Read it and you may learn something.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What editorial are you talking about? The content is directly from a NEWS reportthe same one that Garp21 used. We don't omit content it because it makes a WP:PUBLICFIGURE look bad.- MrX 🖋 02:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I can't speak for Rusf10, but my interpretation of what he said is not that the NYT article is an editorial, but that the comment in question was an editorial type comment. --Garp21 (talk) 03:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly, the New York Times does this all the time. They insert opinions into what appears to be at first glance a news report. Language like "likely to raise alarms" implies wrongdoing even when there are no specific facts that anything was in fact done wrong.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, it did lead to lots of comment, so instead of labeling it "alarms" maybe we should just cite or characterize the reaction. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Some sources: Lawfare. Calling for disclosure as to what's being investigated, Washington Post. Investigation should make Democrats nervous, Fox News: Warner calls on Barr to testify before Congress. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree that we don't need the NYT opinion implying wrongdoing by Barr. That was pretty bad editorializing. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Interpretation and analysis is what a secondary WP:RS is for, and the NYT is one of the highest-quality such sources around. We can (and do) use an in-line citation if it's a controversial or contested point, but "I feel this is editorializing" isn't a valid WP:RS / WP:V arguments, since everyone is naturally going to feel that any interpretive statement they disagree with is editorializing.  The Times' interpretation of events is, nonetheless, worth noting in the article, and the fact is that it's in a news piece rather than an opinion one - that is to say, they present it as their interpretation of factual events, rather than just their opinion about such events.  --Aquillion (talk) 06:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Barr's summary of Mueller Report
I see that an effort and quick revert of lead text to summarize Barr's public representation of the Mueller Report prior to its release. Regardless of the details of the wording, that does seem a significant enough for the lead in the context of Barr's life story. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I support the revert. The Mueller stuff turns out to not be that important - it seems everyone has moved on from that report. I see no reason it needs to be in the lead of this BLP. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The content was not about the report and it was not about the public. It was about a highly consequential official action by AG Barr. Sources describe the reason for its significance is the extent to which "everyone has moved on". <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * - Barr presided over the end of the investigation of a sitting president. Please inform me what more significant thing has he done that we have omitted from the lede? I will be transparent with you - you propose this, and it all gets into the lede along with the Mueller Report. The lede should be expanded anyway.  starship .paint  (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * A RfC was concluded in June 2019 with a consensus to include text in the lead on the controversy related to the Barr's summary of the Mueller report. MelanieN can maybe help write that text? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Here are some comments I made to starship.paint, the author of the edit I reverted, at my talk page: We could possibly do something about the Mueller report in the lead. We'd have to base it on the Mueller section in the article text. Something like 1) he did not recuse himself from the Mueller investigation despite calls to do so, 2) he held up the Mueller report while issuing his own summary of it, a summary which was called misleading by Mueller, 3) he later issued a redacted version of the full report. We might also want a sentence about his refusal to cooperate with congressional investigations, but it would have to be in the article text first. IMO something about that should be added there, maybe under Tenure. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * - did you revert me because my version... was not strong enough?  starship .paint  (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Thinking about it: we currently have NOTHING in the lead about his current tenure as Attorney General. Maybe we should mention some of his most significant actions in addition to the Mueller report. (I didn't realize there had been a RfC about adding it.) How about something like this? -- MelanieN (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC) "Under Barr’s leadership the Justice Department has argued to nullify the Affordable Care Act and reinstated the death penalty for federal crimes. Upon taking office Barr refused calls to recuse himself from overseeing the Mueller investigation. After receiving Mueller’s report he issued a four page letter to Congress, describing what he said were its principal conclusions, and adding his own opinion about the obstruction of justice issue. He later released a redacted version of the full report. He has refused Congress’s requests and subpoenas for an unredacted version."


 * Sounds good, but I would add more related to the controversy over his summary of the Mueller report: namely that Barr misleadingly summarized the report (per all fact-checkers and all RS). Maybe also something about how Barr is running across the globe, attempting to chase down Trump's false conspiracy theories. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * something about how Barr is running across the globe, attempting to chase down Trump's false conspiracy theories — Done  soibangla (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Good, we needed that in the text. I don't think we need the conspiracy chasing in the lead, although it is unusual that he is doing all this investigating personally, after nominally assigning the case to a US Attorney. I'll work on a sentence about the letter being misleading. And I'm having second thoughts about the "refused requests" last sentence, what do you think? Maybe not worth mentioning? -- MelanieN (talk) 00:17, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * and adding his own opinion about the obstruction of justice issue - doesn't do it justice (ha). Barr declined to charge President Trump with obstruction of justice is clear..., what's wrong with what I wrote... Fact-checkers, news organizations, and special counsel Robert Mueller stated that Barr misrepresented the report.  starship .paint  (talk) 01:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, let's talk about that sentence. IMO "declined to charge President Trump with obstruction of justice" makes it sound as the report suggested it was up to him to make the call - which it didn't. I think "added his own opinion" makes it clearer that this was something he did on his own and (arguably) outside of his responsibility - certainly outside of anything the Mueller report said. How about "added his own opinion that the president had not committed an obstruction of justice offense"? And OK, I could use your "misrepresented" sentence. Especially if I leave out the "refused requests" sentence. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * - what say you to added his opinion that the evidence did not establish President Trump committing obstruction of justice  starship .paint  (talk) 02:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, that is closer to what he actually said: "Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense." Mine is shorter and more to the point and I kind of prefer it, but yours is closer to his actual wording: lots of legalese. What do others think? -- MelanieN (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I see that people have been adding to the lead, but still nothing about the Mueller Report. And discussion here has died out. So I'm going to put in my proposal, but add the fact checker sentence, and use Starship's most recent suggestion for the sentence we were disagreeing over. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC:
<div class="boilerplate archived" 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 we add one sentence noting that Barr is giving more than $30,000 of his own money to host a personal party at Trump's D.C. hotel, a property owned by the President? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

RS that covered this:


 * WaPo
 * NYT
 * USA Today
 * CBS News
 * the ABA Journal
 * Politico
 * NPR
 * CNN
 * the Hill
 * Business Insider
 * Vox
 * Fox News

Survey

 * Exclude. Barr is a multimillionaire. Trump is a billionaire. This is meaningless and intended to imply some misdeed. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Mr. Ernie, we can't base article content on Original Research or editors' theories about the subject's behavior. Maybe you can find a body of RS discussion that says it's not significant? That would be helpful, because We already have a body of RS above that says it is significant. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no body of RS that says this is significant, only that it made the news. There's a big difference - I'm sure you've read NOTNEWS but I'm quoting the relevant bit here - While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia.. This falls perfectly under that. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC) (fix sig)
 * Include - RS has discussed this both in itself and in the context of Barr's apparent corruption and other surprising behaviors. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Include - Substantial RS coverage, with ethics experts expressing alarm at the conduct (even if it's not a brightline ethics violation), and with sources demonstrating how unusual it is for a sitting AG (or official) to put money into the pocket of the President. It's illustrative not only of the conduct of the administration, but the character of Barr. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Exclude - All coverage appears to have occurred within the span of August 27th to 28th, 2019. Sources have piggy backed off each other, which could give the illusion of widespread coverage, but the fact that the story immediately petered out within hours is testament to just how useless/irrelevant/unhelpful/unencyclopedic this content actually is. You could measure this story's lifespan in hours. There is no way this could possibly be considered substantial. If this results in some kind of sanction for Barr? Maybe. But just because some reporters talked about this on a slow August afternoon, never to be mentioned again, doesn't mean that it should be included in the article. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 20px lightskyblue, -4px -4px 20px black;font-weight:bold;">May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 23:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Reporting about this in September and October:
 * Politico,
 * NPR,
 * NYT
 * CBS News,
 * The Atlantic,
 * NBC News,
 * Quartz
 * Vox
 * Vanity Fair
 * Salon
 * GQ
 * Op-eds Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Include per Snooganssnoogans.-<b style="background:#00ffff">Ich</b> (talk) 11:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Include The significance as well as the amount of coverage from reliable sources makes this content rightful to be included in the article. Cook907 (talk) 13:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Exclude Trivial and irrelevant. If anything more significant comes out of it, then think about adding it, but not now HAL  333  20:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Exclude - trivia du jour, the party has no enduring impact on his life or world events. Also seems UNDUE.  So he had booked the Willard but had to redo as they'd double booked, and then he tried the Mayflower but that wasn't available, so he wound up there.   Not important.    On a sidenote - ??? The second set of cites above are not about this. They seem to be about a mix of similar stories (e.g. Quartz - a party at golf resort for Border patrol retirement).  Anyway, that sources have trivia these days is not unusual, exclude this.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Your assertion that "The second set of cites above are not about this" is brazenly false. This is being cited as part of the numerous corruption and ethics scandals facing the administration, just illustrating that it has enduring value. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with Markbassett. Most of those sources only mention Barr's hotel booking in a roundabout way. There's nothing corrupt or unethical about it, so please stop saying that. Mr Ernie (talk) 07:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "There's nothing corrupt or unethical about it, so please stop saying that." That is your personal opinion. The cited sources (which number more than a dozen) do cover this from an ethics frame even if you're personally fine with this and see nothing unusual about it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 07:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And none of them say it is corrupt or unethical. Mr Ernie (talk) 07:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Include Well referenced and significant based on many other tie-ins involved in these. ContentEditman (talk) 12:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Exclude trivia - per Markbassett --rogerd (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Include - The extent of coverage indicates that this is noteworthy. As us frogs boil in the pot, "corruption is becoming more brazen and blatant". - MrX 🖋 18:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Exclude - First, Barr is not "giving the money", a biased implication that Barr is transferring the money directly to the hotel without the expectation of receiving something in return. He entered into a contract with the hotel and will pay the hotel to receive services and/or goods from the hotel. And since it is a personal family holiday party, and not an official DOJ event, one would expect Barr to spend "his own money". Second, one sentence does not provide the context from the sources, e.g. - annual party already under contract at another venue and was cancelled - second venue was contacted but could not accommodate party - DOJ ethics officials vetted and approved Mr. Barr’s decision - ethics experts said that Mr. Barr had not crossed the sort of ethical bright line that he would have if he were to be given a steep discount to rent space at the Trump hotel. Also agree with others on NOTNEWS, UNDUE, trivial, not a significant life event for a BLP. Isaidnoway (talk)  17:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Exclude I’m really not sure why anyone would add this. What two rich people do with their money isn’t really relevant at all. As explained, to include it is to imply that they did something wrong, and frankly, despite the fact that it bothers these news articles, (of which most are just copies of a few legitimate originals), this doesn’t really warrant a mention. --<u style="color:#0000ff"> Puzzledvegetable  <sup style="font-family:Century Gothic">Is it teatime already?  02:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Exclude Per User:May His Shadow Fall Upon You's stated reasoning.Garp21 (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * To the closer of the RfC: Given that both May His Shadow Fall Upon You and this user (who is a 5-week old single-purpose account) use the false easily-debunkable argument that no RS covered this except for two days in August, judge their votes accordingly. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Exclude Trivial. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Exclude I agree with MelanieN that this is pretty trivial in the grand scheme of things. I read a lot of the more recent coverage linked above. Some were more general articles about Trump administration ethics issues and did not mention this party. Others were passing mentions linking back to the WaPo article, as part of journalistic laundry list of all the alleged scandals, big and small. One source calls it a Justice Department event rather than a private Barr event, evidence of incompetent reporting. $30 K is no big deal for a rich guy throwing a private party. Personally, I dislike Barr but this does not belong in his biography. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  04:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Exclude – per Cullen. This is trivial and inclusion would be counter to the principles of NOTNEWS. $30k isn't even a lot of money for this sort of thing. I mean, national politicians hold dinners that cost $30k per person. If he had made a multi-million-dollar donation to Trump, that might be worth mentioning, but this isn't that. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 17:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Exclude Trivial. This doesn’t really warrant a mention. Lightburst (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2019 (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.

Webster's op-ed
I believe this content is DUE and should be restored.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Barr&diff=931208446&oldid=931121932

soibangla (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I could be convinced, but at the moment it doesn't seem DUE to Barr's BLP. I'm sure there a many people who have an opinion of Bill Barr. I think Holder's comments, as a former AG have enough weight for inclusion (although on this I could also have my mind changed). Maybe Webster's could be appropriate given their past working histories, but I don't think it adds much at the moment. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Agreed. As it stands now, the section has been heavily scrubbed over the past couple months, which is astounding to me, since his most recent tenure has been plagued with pretty much nothing but controversy. This is readily evident in the thread at the top of this talk page as well, where his framing of his “war on secularism” was widely covered, and has been of lasting relevance. This Op-Ed is likewise an example of a prominent individual whose opinion is clearly due, being represented in the most prominent and widely-read newspaper outlet in the entire world. I don’t want to coat rack negative material; I think editors have been generally pretty wise about what they’re putting forward.


 * As I said, it’s a bit ridiculous how underreported legitimate criticism here is, given its preponderance in reliable sources. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Editors haven't disputed the sources. They have mostly argued UNDUE. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, you have, anyway. soibangla (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, and so did the editor who last removed it. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see that happened. soibangla (talk) 21:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Why not have Criticism (above) of Barr, as he is very controversial? X1\ (talk) 00:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Why not have Criticism (above) of Barr, as he is very controversial? X1\ (talk) 00:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

"U.S. Attorney General (1991–Present)" misleading ...
Isn't it proper to change William Barr section (2.4) title to date segments, as not continuously USAG? Note: section (2.6) title William Barr also. X1\ (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I fixed the heading. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

2019-10 conspiracy of secularists
See https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/465601-barr-bemoans-moral-upheaval-that-has-brought-suffering-and-misery. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Should be in the article. Explains a lot about this man and the actions he is taking. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , the way you write articles is like a news story. "In October 2019, Barr..." If you want to describe his views on secularism per the window of that one speech, then please make it more encyclopedic. It is not supposed to be lists of dates and times where newspapers published a story about him. Mr Ernie (talk) 07:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed it as UNDUE. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course you did. Just another reason why editing in American politics is so dysfunctional. Here is more RS coverage of Barr's remarks for the record. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Not every word this guy says should go into an encyclopedic article. Not every piece of news is notable. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This got extremely heavy coverage, though; it's clearly impacted how he's perceived, and therefore deserves a mention in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It is particularly notable, especially in light of what you'd see if you go to state.gov right now. These guys are preaching Christian gospel now. Establishment clause, anyone? soibangla (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The current weight of reporting and RS descriptions of its significance clearly warrants brief inclusion. With time, who knows -- maybe mainstream reporting will change and this will no longer be considered shocking and significant. Until then, a brief reference to this is appropriate. The Hill is not some left wing rag. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I don't know if you saw this discussion before removing the note about secularists, but FWIW I supported it then and still now on the basis that it has no lasting importance. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * no I don't recall seeing this previously. I'm happy to explain my reasoning if anyone challenges my edit. - MrX 🖋 13:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Again, Barr's hostility towards secularism obviously belongs in the article. It's standard 'political worldview' type content for a political figure, never mind the Attorney General for the United States. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Barr's views on secularism and traditional values was the subject of a detailed NYT piece. Again, demonstrating just how baseless the removal of this content was, and how dysfunctional it is to try to edit in American politics. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Barr's views on secularism was literally the intro to this in-depth New Yorker piece on his tenure as AG in the Trump admin. Again, demonstrating just how baseless the removal of this content was. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Add relative to sidebar
William Barr is the brother of Physicist Stephen Barr: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Barr This should be added to the list of relatives in William Barr's side bar. (No pun intended)

Epstein
There have been persistent efforts to remove any mention of Barr's oversight of the Jeffrey Epstein case from this article. These efforts are unwarranted. Barr oversaw the DOJ at the time of Epstein's incarceration and death, issued official statements to the news media about the case, and personally ordered multiple, high-profile criminal investigations into the circumstances surrounding Epstein's suicide. One of these investigations has already resulted in criminal charges. All of these facts are undisputed, of widespread public interest, and deserve to be at least *mentioned* in this article. I welcome discussion from fellow editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1120:60:2CBE:ADEC:1EB5:448E (talk) 00:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)