Template:Did you know nominations/Operation Crossfire Hurricane


 * 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: promoted by MrClog (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Operation Crossfire Hurricane

 * ... that individuals associated with the Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign were targeted by a Crossfire Hurricane? Source: Washington Post That information prompted the FBI on July 31, 2016, to open an investigation into whether individuals associated with the Trump Campaign were coordinating with the Russian government in its interference activities New York Times Within hours of opening an investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia in the summer of 2016 [...] at the time, a small group of F.B.I. officials knew it by its code name: Crossfire Hurricane.
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Six Motets, Op. 82 (Kiel)

Converted from a redirect by Starship.paint (talk) and Shinealittlelight (talk). Nominated by Starship.paint (talk) at 01:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC).


 * I think the New York Times source is enough; we can do without the Washington Examiner. — JFG talk 01:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Changed to Washington Post.  starship .paint  (talk) 10:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ALT1: "... that a hurricane named Crossfire landed on some members of the Trump 2016 campaign?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by JFG (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, the Examiner is not a RS, so the NY Times is enough.
 * Otherwise, this is a really bad idea as the focus is not on the late discovery of the code-name "Crossfire Hurricane", but on common knowledge about the Russia investigation (which is the common name for what was originally referred to by agents as Crossfire Hurricane). This can end up confusing people into thinking that they were two different investigations, and thus Wikipedia would be engaged in creating/furthering a fringe conspiracy theory. We shouldn't do that.
 * Create a new hook which focuses on the code-name, without getting into anything about the relation of the code-name to the investigation, as that is an unresolved discussion on the article's talk page.
 * This makes me think the article is now only two steps away from an AfD. Before it was three steps. I haven't done that yet because I'm hoping it can turn into a good article which collects into one place all the information about the Russia investigation which is spread around in different articles. If that doesn't happen, then the article has no right to exist. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * ALT2: "... that the Special Counsel investigation absorbed the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane?"  starship .paint  (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I support ALT2. My ALT1 was more aking to an April 1st suggestion. — JFG talk 20:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Gosh. I thought it was Bull.  starship .paint  (talk) 13:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Might as well just have a little fun with it:
 * ALT3: ... that the Mueller Report was born in a crossfire hurricane? (Hope it's alll ... riiiiight ... nooow) Daniel Case (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh yes. Very nice.  starship .paint  (talk) 13:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yay, baby, yay! — JFG talk 21:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Still, for exactitude, we should say ALT4 ... that the Mueller probe was born in a crossfire hurricane? — JFG talk 21:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Source: NPR Comey was leading the Justice Department's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and potential connections between Russia and the Trump campaign. Mueller is now leading that investigation New York Times Within hours of opening an investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia in the summer of 2016 [...] at the time, a small group of F.B.I. officials knew it by its code name: Crossfire Hurricane.  starship .paint  (talk) 01:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh yes to ALT4. Sorry Daniel!  starship .paint  (talk) 00:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Please post on my talk page if you review this, or need my response. Also, note: Page has been moved to Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation).  starship .paint  (talk) 13:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

- thank you for reviewing this. To answer your queries:
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Query While spot-checking sources, at the beginning of section Confidential informants, I did not find the quotes "had extensive discussions" and "a bunch of different foreign-policy-related topics" in the cited source. There is also a cleanup tag toward the end; I think it can be resolved if the sections with main articles can be summarized more succinctly.  In particular, Earwig detected 83.5% similarities with Mueller Report in the sections Russian interference and Conspiracy or coordination, where some text appears to be a duplicate from that article.  I'm not sure if this is a DYK requirement, but the issues in the cleanup tag should be addressed before this appears on the main page.  Otherwise, article was 5&times; expanded within seven days of nomination (or new, depending on how you look at it), is long enough, neutral, and no copyvio detected.  Hooks ALT2 and ALT4 are formatted (I fixed the ellipsis), of appropriate size and neutral.  I prefer ALT4 but "Mueller probe" doesn't appear in the article's prose.  For the ALT2 hook, I see the citation for the takover but not one for this investigation being called "Crossfire Hurricane" (you're killing me with the multiple citations for [3] at the end of the second paragraph of the body). (Found the citation for Crossfire Hurricane, it was a third of the way down instead of on first mention.)  QPQ checks out.  If these issues can be addressed it should be fine. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * About the Confidential informants first paragraph, I believe (I won't check) that I copied it from Stefan Halper without checking it. It that happened, that was a mistake. I will endeavor to not copy material unless I personally check it (or unless I wrote it). I have now checked all the statements in that paragraph.
 * About the Mueller Report sections, yes they were mostly a duplicate, as (1) they are reporting on the same topic, the results of the investigation. (2) I believe that I'm the author of the text both at Mueller Report and here, so there isn't much to change. However, I have trimmed those sections on the Mueller Report. Are they short enough now?
 * Also, I have inserted the Mueller probe into the article. Ha!  starship .paint  (talk) 07:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll admit it: I laughed. Verified that it's in the prose, and one of the citations for that sentence refers to it as the "Mueller probe" (it seems there was some difficult maneuvering in mounting the growing probe).
 * Thanks for sourcing that quotation. I appreciate that it's a lot of work with articles like this that develop from breaking-news sources.
 * Hmmm. I normally like to summarize anything that has a main article in three paragraphs or less; you sometimes have four paragraphs but they're short.  Also, I didn't realize how big the findings section of Mueller Report was.  It's about 4200 words, and you're summarizing it (plus other stuff) in less than 800 words, less than 20% (perhaps closer to 10–15%) which seems within reason.  I took out the L4 headers for the very short sections, and removed the cleanup tag.
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Approved ALT2, ALT4 new enough, long enough, neutral, passed spot-check for citations (focusing on quotes and controversial statements), no copyvio detected. Hooks formatted, of good size, cited in article, neutral, and broadly interesting. QPQ verified. Prefer ALT4. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)