Template:Did you know nominations/Inspector General Report on FBI and DOJ's Actions in the 2016 Election


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

It appears that no one is willing to let this nomination move forward, and no agreement can be made for a compromise hook; as such, it is now closed as stale.

Inspector General Report on FBI and DOJ's Actions in the 2016 Election

 * ... that the Inspector General Report on FBI and DOJ's Actions in the 2016 Election is 568 pages long?
 * ALT1:... that the Inspector General Report on FBI and DOJ's Actions in the 2016 Election prompted President Trump to refer to FBI director James Comey as the "ringleader" of a "den of thieves"?

Created by Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk). Nominated by Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) at 02:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC).


 * I am honored to be co-credited for this article. But apart from approving the AFC and pointing Jerry to DYK I had little involvement. That said I am pleased to review this nomination.– Lionel(talk) 04:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Here are two things that standout:
 * The article needs a little work on referencing. Every para must have an inline citation. For example this: "...which had a deleterious effect on the FBI's credibility." Also the Focus section need a cite.
 * The hook needs to be exciting. E.g. you could use Clinton's "But my emails" quote. Or Trump's "den of thieves." Trumo is so colorful. Anything he says is perfect for a DYK hook lmao. – Lionel(talk) 04:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow, Jerry article looks great! One last referencing thing. In addition to every para needing cites, every quote needs a cite. I see one last item that needs a ref: "in response to requests from Congress, various organizations, and members of the public". And the hook is bigly winning. – Lionel(talk) 07:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg Saying that "Trump has lowered the bar for contentious" doesn't erase WP:BLP concerns. The "den of thieves" quotes could be justified for inclusion in the article per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, but it alleges a level of criminality unsuitable for the Main Page. FallingGravity 05:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg We're going to need a new hook here: ALT0 is not really that interesting as government reports of that length are not uncommon and longer ones also exist, and ALT1 can't be used due to BLP concerns. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg with all due to Falling, the policy he cited to reject the hook, WP:BLPCRIME does not apply in this case . BLPCRIME says: "This section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures." Comey is a public figure. Because there is no policy to disqualify the hook I am unstriking ALT1.– Lionel(talk) 01:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg I'm sorry, but I have to re-strike the hook. has raised legitimate concerns and I have to agree with them. WP:BLPCRIME apparently does not apply to public figures, but nevertheless he states that the hook as it is right now might be too sensitive at this point to run on the main page. I can't unstrike the hook unless he withdraws his objections or he proposes a compromise. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Lionel: The "den of thieves" apparently refers to a bunch of people who worked under Comey, not just to Comey himself (the alleged "ringleader" of this group). FallingGravity 03:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Trump did not identify individual members of the "group"--you can't have a BLP issue with an unknown person in a group. BLPCRIME: "This section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals..." I don't think I'm going out on a limb here when I say that I don't think anyone puts much stock in anything Trump says. And it's very hooky.
 * Let's see what other editors think... – Lionel(talk) 02:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Giving prominence to so dubious, libelous, and deceitful a comment by Trump is pretty bad. Let's face it, Comey has always had a sterling reputation, and only his judgment is in doubt about his decision to restart the email investigation (which hurt Clinton and helped Trump), while Trump has never been accused of being honest, only of speaking his mind. He is a RS for what he says, but never a RS for the veracity of what he says. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * To be fair, even if this was not a Trump-related hook, the hook wording would still be very questionable. Regardless of our opinions on Trump, this hook, even if it didn't fall under WP:BLPCRIME, would still fall afoul of WP:BLP in general. The words "ringleader" and "gang of thieves" are very negative in tone and are probably not appropriate for DYK, especially given that this is a politics-related topic. Even if it wasn't a BLP problem, BullRangifer and FallingGravity have raised concerns about the hook accuracy, so the hook would still have been rejected on that ground. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I would personally say it does not fall under BLPCRIME, but there are still concerns for BLP as even though trump frequently makes similar statements, "ringleader" is very pejorative. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing what perhaps appears to be some let's say for lack of a better word resistance to the Trump hook. Maybe we should consider an alternate... – Lionel(talk) 02:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have been thinking and can't really come up with a good hook if mentioning quotes about people is off limits. What about mentioning the famous Peter Strzok text, his broken promise to "stop" Trump from becoming president? Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think a hook that somehow does not involve Trump, or at least not President Trump, may need to be done here. Writing a non-political hook about the topic can be quite tricky, but it's possible. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The hook should be a main takeaway from the whole report, and this nearly exact quote from the article serves the purpose quite well:


 * ALT2:... that President Trump reacted to the Inspector General report on FBI and DOJ actions in the 2016 election by denying the report's conclusion that the FBI acted with no political bias against him, and by falsely claiming that the report "totally exonerates him" with respect to the Special Counsel investigation.

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg This has 310 characters, well exceeding the 200-character guideline from WP:DYKHOOK. Also, it should be the form of a question. FallingGravity 23:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * ALT3:... that President Trump reacted to the Inspector General report on FBI and DOJ actions in the 2016 election by denying the report's conclusion that the FBI acted with no political bias against him?


 * Okay, how about that? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That hook is not hooky. Not in the least bit creative or interesting. That fact of the matter is noone really cares about the "Trump lies people die" narrative. Oh wait--am I getting my talking points mixed up?– Lionel(talk) 00:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Lionel, it's actually a pretty well-known conclusion and reaction, IOW very noteworthy, and thus a good hook, IF it's dressed up properly and creatively. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This is my first one of these but I think it's common sense that the hook shouldn't be actively repeating the opinions of activist journalists from the LA Times and NBC. It's gotta be factual. Also Naruto just said that we should try to stay away from Trump and both of those hooks are about Trump. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 01:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * So far we've avoided activist opinions, although Wikipedia does document such things. We do NOT only document "truth" or "facts", but also opinions in RS. When we do, we attribute them. Your first suggestion deviated far from the facts by highlighting Trump's deceptive, non-factual statements, so your objection to opinions in RS is rather odd. Trump is less "reliable" than nearly any other source. He's only a RS for what he says, but not for the factuality of what he says. There's a huge difference.
 * The two suggestions I proposed are strictly factual, not activist opinions, although Fox News viewers would interpret them that way. They don't usually like real facts about Trump, and often don't even know them because Fox won't report them.
 * Naruto's suggestion can make it easier to reach consensus, but it's not binding or policy-based. Sometimes compromise is necessary, but if it smacks of censorship, that's a serious NPOV violation, so we also need to avoid that.
 * A good hook could document a fundamental conclusion(s) of the article. What are they? I listed two of them above: (1) the FBI acted with no political bias against Trump, and the report did not exonerate Trump with respect to the Special Counsel investigation. Are there others worth using? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing personal but now you've outstayed your welcome. Maybe you could go explore some forums or blogs away from Wikipedia and go post about Fox News viewers and spam conspiracy theories about "factuality[sic]" over there. Suggesting POV hooks isn't helpful, and it's disruptive to the discussion, as is your soapboxing about Trump and downplaying of the seismic Strzok texts. We'll take it from here. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 04:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "Nothing personal" and you make it personal? Is that some type of newbie personal attack? After 15 years here I've seen it all, so get off your high horse and chill. We don't need any ownership or battlefield attitude here. A bit of collaborative mentality would be fine. I'm all for that. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's just say it's time for ALT4... – Lionel(talk) 11:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

What we need is a hook that doesn't try to make a political point for one side or the other. That's hard to find, because there isn't much coverage of this that is neutral - or many editors who feel neutral about it. Maybe we should go back to basics. How about:
 * ALT 4 ...that the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Justice investigated how the department handled its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails, and produced a 568 page report?

MelanieN (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's ALT0 all over again! This place is crazy lol. 21 days later we're back to square one, except this time I'm APPROVING THIS HOOK! Why did I think we could milk one of Trump's quotes for some Main Page entertainment? Thank you Melanie. – Lionel(talk) 04:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * ALT 5 ...that the Office of Inspector General reviewed about 1.2 million documents and interviewed more than 100 people to produce a report on the Hillary Clinton email investigation?
 * Sorry to add another hook to the fray, but this one hearkens back to the original ALT1 hook. FallingGravity 07:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg As a co-creator of the article, you can't be approving it. Seriously, somebody else needs to review this nom.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg As Lionelt mentioned above, he didn't actually contribute to the article other than a few technical edits, his main contribution was approving the article when it was at AfC; it was mostly other editors who worked on it. With that said, considering his involvement in similar articles and his strong feelings about Trump, I think it would be for the best to have an uninvolved editor review the hook. MelanieN's ALT4 and FallingGravity's ALT5 are on the right track, but this is a politics-related article and I'm not really comfortable approving hooks related to them, so I'll leave this for another editor to do. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

ALT4 and ALT5 are approved. Per the rules I am an uninvolved editor. Narutolovehinata5's wild speculation about my political inclination and what bearing if any it has on my capacity as reviewer is a clearcut personal attack "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views" WP:NPA. – Lionel(talk) 22:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Firstly it was not a personal attack, it was merely a reflection of previous comments here such as "Why did I think we could milk one of Trump's quotes for some Main Page entertainment", "Anything he says is perfect for a DYK hook lmao"m and "however Trump has lowered the bar for contentious lol", as well as an apparent eagerness to use the "den of thieves" hook. Secondly, there are comments by users such as Volunteer Marek and FallingGravity that an uninvolved editor needs to review this. Regardless of our personal opinions on Trump, remember that BLP still applies. This review is not meant to be a reflection of your standing as an editor, but as this is a sensitive topic, it would be for the best for a neutral editor to take a look at this. With that said, I'm leaning towards ALT4 and ALT5 as well, but someone here needs to do the honors. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Per the rules I am an uninvolved editor. The rules do not disqualify editors who are not "neutral" using your word. If you are trying to disqualify me as a not-neutral editor then you need to go to ANI. And here's a warning for you: do not strike my comments. Revert my comment again and I'll see you at WP:ANEW. – Lionel(talk) 00:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I have requested that some outside, uninvolved person - someone familiar with DYK and not involved in US Politics articles - come and take a look at this discussion and decide whether to approve it for publication and what hook(s) to use. IMO everyone here is operating in good faith but is too emotionally involved to make the final decision. I include myself in that assessment. MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * where in the DYK Rules regarding Reviewers is there a prohibition against editors who have been accused of being "not-neutral"? Whatever that means.
 * How is such a "policy" not a violation of "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views" WP:NPA?
 * What is the scope of this "policy"? Is it to be applied only to Lionelt? Or only editors accused of being pro-Trump? – Lionel(talk) 01:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment First of all,, stop approving hooks. You may only be on the edge of being technically involved, but you're certainly not neutral, and you're not the only one in this discussion who isn't. Leave it to a neutral party.  Secondly, as someone who works quite a bit with DYK and ERRORS, I'd be tempted Symbol delete vote.svg not to promote this at all.  Politics is obviously not barred from DYK, but I really don't think we need what is obviously such a hot-button issue on the front page with all its ensuing issues at ERRORS (because someone will complain, regardless of what the hook is).  Furthermore, from a purely personal DYK standpoint, the earlier hooks are controversial, and the later ones (4 and 5) aren't very interesting, or hooky.  Comments from other DYK regulars are welcomed. Black Kite (talk) 12:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What if we went with something like:
 * ALT6:... that Donald Trump and James Comey both disagreed with the results of the Inspector General report on FBI and DOJ actions in the 2016 election?
 * Source 1: "'The end result was wrong. There was total bias,' Trump said during a live interview on 'Fox & Friends'" LA Times
 * Source 2: "In a message posted to Twitter on Thursday afternoon, Comey wrote: 'I respect the DOJ IG office, which is why I urged them to do this review. The conclusions are reasonable, even though I disagree with some...'" Washington Post
 * I mean, at least to my mind, that's the real interesting thing about the report: various people from all sides in various ways saw it as a travesty and also as vindicating their own position. Not that often you get such widespread agreement on everyone disagreeing with each other and themselves at the same time.  G M G  talk  12:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean, at least to my mind, that's the real interesting thing about the report: various people from all sides in various ways saw it as a travesty and also as vindicating their own position. Not that often you get such widespread agreement on everyone disagreeing with each other and themselves at the same time.  G M G  talk  12:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg in any form. Way too contentious and nuanced to boil down to a single short paragraph. Guy (Help!) 13:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)