Template:Did you know nominations/Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act


 * 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act

 * ... that the proposed Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act would prevent Donald Trump from firing Robert Mueller?
 * Reviewed: Zeke Upshaw

Created by Antony-22 (talk). Self-nominated at 03:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg New, in time, long enough, sourced., QPQ needed. Also, I assume the text of the bill is in the public domain (so no copyright issues), but it would be worth adding quotation marks under "Provisions" to show that it's the actual text of the bill's summary. Finally, how about "is intended to prevent"? Trump could always label the bill unconstitutional and fire Mueller anyways; it would provoke a court battle, but would nonetheless be Trump firing Mueller. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * QPQ provided, added quotes. How about the following hook? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 05:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ALT1: ... that the proposed Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act would make it illegal for Donald Trump to fire Robert Mueller?
 * Symbol question.svg, the hook looks good, but the article doesn't explicitly state that the bill would proscribe Trump firing Mueller. Two logical places to add this would be in "Provisions", or in "Legislative history" (e.g., "...leading to fears that President Donald Trump would fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The proposed bill would make this illegal."). Once you add that, you're all set. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 05:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg All set., stylistically that sentence is a bit of a run-on now, you might think about rewording it. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg The sources don't specifically state that the act would make it illegal for Trump to fire Mueller, so I'm not sure this hook is viable. Gatoclass (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The official summary says, "a special counsel may only be removed by the Attorney General." The President is not the Attorney General, so he would not be able to fire a special counsel.  This is an obvious logical operation, as is substituting Trump and Mueller's names for their positions.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 23:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The powers of the president versus Congress is a murky area and I am no lawyer, but the sources don't explicitly state that the move would make it illegal for Trump to fire him. Might I suggest that the hook be tweaked to say "seeks to prevent" Trump from firing Mueller, rather than the existing phrase? Gatoclass (talk) 16:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There's nothing murky about this. the Attorney General is not the President. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 14:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , I will withdraw my objection if you insist, but I must advise you that a lot of hooks are being challenged at WP:ERRORS at the moment over similar issues and there's a chance that your hook might therefore end up being pulled from the main page prematurely, so if you want to take that risk, it's up to you. Gatoclass (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If you want to get technical, this really is covered under WP:CALC, except with a simple logical operation instead of arithmetic. An equivalent situation would be if a source says a bill imposes a tax only on apples, and writing in the article that it doesn't impose a tax on oranges.  I'll try to make this more obvious in the text to head off any challenges, but I don't see how anyone can seriously say that statement is inaccurate.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 14:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the following is a bit clearer? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 15:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ALT2: ... that the proposed Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act would make it illegal for Donald Trump to directly fire Robert Mueller?
 * , I don't think that is accurate as IIRC the President can never directly fire the special counsel, he can only appoint somebody to the justice department who is willing to do it for him. Gatoclass (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That is due to Justice Department regulations that can be easily repealed; this would make it a law. But okay, maybe this one would work?  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 15:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ALT3: ... that the proposed Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act seeks to protect Special Counsel Robert Mueller from being arbitrarily fired?
 * Is ALT3 acceptable, or should I make a completely different hook? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 16:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ALT3 or something similar looks viable, but I'm wondering if the status of the bill has changed since you first nominated this? Gatoclass (talk) 11:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It passed committee on April 26, and I updated the article to reflect this. There hasn't been any movement since then.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg ALT3 approved, with a slight tweak. Gatoclass (talk) 04:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)