Talk:Dismissal of James Comey/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because...

First, the deletion type listed is for an "organized event". That is not the case here. Regardless, I cannot imagine any serious scholar ever arguing that such a unique event in history is not notable.

I suspect TheGracefulSlick dislikes the title which is probably the true motivation for the deletion request (I am just guessing). If that is the case, though, deletion is not the solution.

--MC (141.131.2.3 (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC))

Now the reason for the deletion has changed but my argument is the same. And as far as "No news hits for this term", this is untrue, though there are not many yet (give it till morning). I included one example hit in the references, though. --MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I literally heard MSNBC anchor say this term. It's being coined as time continues on. --Imsodrunklol

The thing is prodded. We have 7 days to see if Bloomberg's characterization gains traction. Doubt it will be a notable term, but certainly the firing of Comey is a notable event. May need an appropriate rename.Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Considering the volatile nature of the subject

The article looks reasonably fair and balanced. Well done, Wikipedia.Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• Agreed, another miracle of Wikipedia!203.219.158.105 (talk) 09:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Is Saturday night massacre okay to put in the See also section?

I was tempted to put the Saturday night massacre page into the see also section, but I'm afraid that will be seen as too biased. If this does end up being an attempt by Trump to subvert dissent like Nixon, it would totally be relevant, but we still don't know if it is that yet. So should Saturday night massacre be put in the see also section since it's been compared to this previously or is it too soon to know if the link should be included? --pluma♫ ♯ 06:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

It was originally in "See Also" but somebody pointed out it is already linked in the article so that would be redundant. In answer to your question, though, it is totally appropriate to include it. Regardless of what the judgement of the legal community, political leadership, public, etc. finally is, the fact is that the media is broadly comparing it to the Saturday Night Massacre. One could equal well argue (and many have) that the Saturday Night Massacre was overblown and Nixon was justified. It is not for us to make those judgements (and if you think there will be a consensus on that question anytime soon, you are dreaming). The situations are being compared by the experts so it is appropriate to treat them as similar or related topics. -- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.34.43 (talk) 06:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The press is making repeated references to this term/event, so by that rule it can be included in the article. However, rather than put it in the "see also" section, I would recommend that you make a note in the body of the article saying that some news outlets are pointing to some possible parallelism with that other historical event, and insert a wikilink to that article. In this way, it does not appear that the article is suggesting there is an objective connection between the two events, but rather that some have pointed to a possible connection. And that is what is notable at this point: that news outlets talk about it, and not that the connection is valid or not. More time will be necessary to come to an agreed-upon determination on that.(talk) user:Al83tito 18:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

As I said, this is already being done. Thanks. --MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I would put it in the "See also" section, as well, due to the fact that the Saturday Night Massacre is being brought up in most nearly every news article-- it's almost as if they're synonymous and inseparable. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 02:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

RFC: Deletion + Name

There are some active arguments going on related to this new article. Because some editors seem very eager to push for a decision I am putting out a pair of RFCs to answer these questions. --MC

Deletion proposal

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I am procedurally closing this discussion because it is not at the proper forum. If any editor wishes to propose deletion, they may do so by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Mz7 (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

---

A couple of editors have proposed deleting the article. The rationale for deletion seems to have changed over time so I will allow those editors to comment as they wish. But the question is "Should this article be deleted?" -- MC 2605:6000:ec16:c000:eda6:ef34:694a:122c (talk) 02:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• Keep - Comey's firing is clearly a significant historical event. It is only the second time in history that an FBI director has been fired and the first time this has happened during an FBI investigation into members and former members of the administration. It is being widely covered in the news media. -- MC
• Keep - If the dismissal of Sally Yates is worthy of an article, this certainly is. Also, as MC said, the firing of such a high level government official is pretty significant. --pluma♫ ♯ 06:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - as above, this is clearly historically significant and is being widely covered in the news media.203.219.158.105 (talk) 09:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Uhhh... we have a page for that: WP:AfD.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but the article kept getting moved around and regardless, discussions on AfD don't always attract everybody who might have an interest in the article (people tend to focus more on the article's Talk page). So I wanted to ensure that anybody with an opinion actually spoke up. --MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• Keep - this is an event that has intense press coverage, and that the more it is covered the more intricacies are being revealed. It merits having this separate article. (talk) user:Al83tito 18:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Moreover, how could an article that appears thoroughly referenced (with now over 50 references), and is clearly notable, be proposed for deletion? Without being able to see the actual arguments made in that regard, it does seem unreasonable to delete. Only two possibilities come to mind: because of a proposal to be merged with another existing article (which I think is not warranted in this case), or because the article is so biased that rather than being improved it should just be deleted from Wikipedia. I would only encourage editors to make sure that the article remains neutral and factual... and that starts with a name that is neutral and descriptive rather than a name product of media hyperbole (see my comment on that in the subsection below).(talk) user:Al83tito 18:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Name proposal

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Going to procedurally close this one as well, for the same reason. There's a properly opened move request below where you can weigh in. ansh666 05:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

---

There is debate about the primary name for the article. The original name was Tuesday Night Massacre. It was then renamed to Firing of FBI Director James Comey. The question is "Which of these names (or a variant thereof) should be used?" -- MC 2605:6000:ec16:c000:eda6:ef34:694a:122c (talk) 02:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• Use "Tuesday Night Massacre" -- MC

Though I don't have an extremely strong opinion, this name is clearly already trending and if we give it a few days I think the trending will only increase. E.g.

* Kawa, Luke (May 9, 2017). "Five Things You Need to Know to Start Your Day". Bloomberg News.

* Ellefson, Lindsey (May 9, 2017). "Nixon's 'Saturday Night Massacre' and #TuesdayNightMassacre Blow Up on Twitter After Comey Firing". Mediate.

* Roy, Jessica (May 9, 2017). "For the second time since Trump took office, people are talking about Nixon's 'Saturday Night Massacre'". LA Times.

* "Trump's Tuesday night massacre". SF Chronicle. May 9, 2017.

* Bunch, Will (May 9, 2017). "Trump's Tuesday Night Massacre puts U.S. on 'banana republic' brink". Philadelphia Inquirer.

* [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]

I tend to believe that if there is a well-used, memorable name for a topic, it is preferable to use that instead of stringing together a random description like "Firing of FBI Director James Comey".

-- MC

• Keep name for now - Wait a couple of weeks to see what people are calling it then. This may not prove to be as infamous as the Saturday night equivalent, so the name might just be being used by the media now and die down later. --pluma♫ ♯ 06:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Firing is too emotive - No rush to change, but I would suggest something along the lines of dismissal as per Yate's article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.158.105 (talk) 09:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Firing of FBI Director James Comey for now. "Tuesday Night Massacre", while more colorful, is used pretty sparsely in sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is patently false. See above. The TNM is being widely used by virtually every news source (though not in every article), as well as social media. --MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• Use "Dismissal of FBI Director James Comey" is the right wording for the article's name. It is neutral and informative. Using the concept of massacre can tinge the article as having the appearance of being fundamentally biased (even if in fact it might not be). If later on (weeks or months from now, when the dust settles) an alternative naming for this event gets traction within popular culture and the event becomes commonly referred by that alternative name, then it would be the time to reconsider the naming. (talk) user:Al83tito 18:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Use "Dismissal of FBI Director James Comey" for above reasons. Avisnacks (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Use "Dismissal of James Comey as FBI Director" might be a solid compromise. Keeps James Comey the focus of the title while keeping the important information of what position he was fired from. Ashvio (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Dismissal of FBI Director James Comey or shorter Dismissal of James Comey – The "massacre" moniker is not WP:RECOGNIZABLE; the same argument was made at the Sally Yates dismissal article, which had been briefly titled "Monday night massacre". Probably by the end of Trump's first year in office, all weekdays will have been massacred. — JFG ^talk 21:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support "Dismissal of James Comey" per User:Al83tito and User:JFG. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 00:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Lead too long?

I've attempted to shorten the lead by moving content into the body: [15].

Subsequent edits added more content to the lead: [16].

I consider the lead to be too long for a relatively short article (or any article). Any thoughts on this? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree: this lead is not a lead; it's another version of the full article. Some editors tend to add new developments to the lead and forget the main article body (just like many readers will stop at the lead). Feel free to refactor and summarize. — JFG ^talk 07:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 10 May 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved per WP:SNOW – closing earlier because the article is in the news. No such user (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

---

Dismissal of FBI Director James Comey → Dismissal of James Comey – There is no need for "FBI Director" in the title of the article. For example, Dismissals of Sally Yates and Daniel Ragsdale does not need "acting Attorney General" and "ICE Director". Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 19:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Support: I agree it's unnecessary and out of line with precedent. I would also add that even as the title stands saying "United States Federal Bureau of Investigation" would be better than "FBI" (which, even if famous, is a bit ambiguous). But of course all the same it's unnecessary. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support – Shorter is enough, per WP:CONCISE. — JFG ^talk 21:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support - "Dismissal of James Comey" seems most appropriate at this time. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support and keep the previous title as a redirect. Proposed title is more concise.- MrX 22:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 23:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support. The "FBI Director" disambiguation is not needed, because there isn't another James Comey whose dismissal is notable, nor has this James Comey been notably dismissed from another position. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 00:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• Concur —ajf (talk) 02:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. This isn't only a US only website. For a worldwide audience, I think you might need FBI Director to help a reader identify the article.Casprings (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Casprings: There is no precedent for that, not to mention the fact that the lede explains that he is the Director of the FBI. Examples: Dismissals of Sally Yates and Daniel Ragsdale, Fall of Suharto, Firing of Shirley Sherrod, Resignation of Jehangir Karamat, Resignation of Sarah Palin. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 02:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Antony, no extra disambiguation needed. ansh666 05:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

PLEASE CLOSE THIS DISCUSSION: There is already a pending discussion on the name above. -- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The previous discussion focuses on choosing between "massacre" and "dismissal". This one offers to choose between a long and a short version of "dismissal", starting from the current title. If the first discussion concludes in favour of "massacre", this one will be moot. Until then, it's fine to keep both open. — JFG ^talk 21:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Meh, I closed the RfC, any name can be discussed but it should be limited to a single section, and a move request is better than a RfC. Note to closer - please also consider the previous discussion if the participants don't weigh in here. ansh666 05:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. This RM is the better format. — JFG ^talk 07:06, 11 May 2017 (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.

Reason of Dismissal

I have attempted to edit the article stating that the dismissal was to cover-up the Russia scandal, ala Watergate, but it keeps getting reverted. What do you think? Tarkus (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC) Tarkus Rules, Manticore Drools!

Trump literally just admitted he fired Comey because of Russia

Full interview here:http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/pres-trump-s-extended-exclusive-interview-with-lester-holt-at-the-white-house-941854787582

I am sure news stories are coming.Casprings (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Something to watch: WAPO reporting that Deputy Attorney General "threatened to resign" after Comey's firing

New reporting by the Washington Post on the Trump administration's "anger and impatience" with Comey before his firing, has been updated regarding the involvement of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to state the following:

"Rosenstein threatened to resign after the narrative emerging from the White House on Tuesday evening cast him as a prime mover of the decision to fire Comey and that the president acted only on his recommendation, said the person close to the White House, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter."

If this is elaborated on more by other news outlets, and if the story is further built on, it will mark a new turning point regarding Comey's firing. Thanks. WClarke (talk) 04:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I already put this in the article...it appears the info has been duplicated. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Content in lead about Trump's claim that he was not under investigation

What's up with this part of the lead?

Trump claimed in the termination letter that Comey had told him "on three separate occasions that I am not under investigation".[12] This statement has been overwhelmingly contested as false, including by 30 officials at the White House, the Justice Department, the FBI and on Capitol Hill,[13] who state that Roger Stone, Rudy Giuliani, Jeff Sessions, Keith Schiller, and other associates of Donald Trump promoted the firing of Comey.[13]

I've been following the news coverage, but I'm unclear from reading this on how Trump's associates promoting Comey's dismissal has anything to do with Trump's statement about being under investigation being false. The two may well be independently correct statements, but joining them like this implies that Trump's associates urged Trump to fire Comey because Trump was under investigation; is that correct/intentional? If it is, it should be stated much more clearly and not left for the reader to draw that conclusion.

As an aside, that third para of the lead feels pretty slanted towards the left to me. Someone more on top of the news than I may want to adjust it a bit to reflect all viewpoints. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Trump put this statement in the dismissal letter, so apparently it was important to him. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The subject of the first statement is whether or not Trump had been informed by Comey that he was not under investigation. This is followed by the strange claim that "This statement has been overwhelming contested as false [...]". How exactly can the contents of a private conversation between Donald Trump and James Comey be contested by anyone other than Donald Trump and James Comey?

Then a completely different subject is broached i.e. what prompted the firing of Comey. But what prompted the firing is not relevant to the question of whether or not Comey informed Trump was not under investigation. It appears the editor who added these lines is intentionally conflating these two unrelated issues to create a straw man argument. Even if I agree that the given reasons for firing Comey were not true... that does not 'contest' the claim that Comey informed Trump that he was not under investigation. I don't think there is anyway to interrupt the way this is written other than as a straw man argument.107.0.155.16 (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

"This statement" ??? I agree that "The two may well be independently correct statements". 30 sources saying that Comey was fired because of XYZ has nothing to do with whether Comey told Trump on three separate occasions that he (Trump) was not under investigation. I strongly urge the deletion of that entire paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.130.204.49 (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Still no conclusive evidence of "muh Russian hackers" conspiracy theory

WP:NOTAFORUM. Discussion on this page should be about editing the article.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
That's all it is, is a theory. Just because the "U.S. intelligence community assessment expressed "high confidence" that Russia favored Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton" doesn't prove anything. Obama favored the UK voting "remain" over "leave" - so what? Lots of nations' governments have their own opinions subtle or not-so-subtle about how other nations conduct their affairs. Some even go so far as to use their platforms in the world to influence other countries (the US is no stranger to conducting this sort of business - we have our own PsyOps divisions & so on to do this). Taking out an ad campaign is not illegal, nor is happening to be preferred candidate by another country. The Saudi royal family, a regime infamous for brutal crimes against humanity & daily violations of human rights clearly favored a Hillary presidency, & donated millions to her, but where's the investigation into that scandal? Hey, remember when the "U.S. intelligence community assessment expressed "high confidence" that Saddam had WMDs"? Yeah, we're being expected to swallow the same snake -oil, hook, line, & sinker, with - again - no substantiated proof. What we do know from the Vault7 is that the CIA has an arsenal of malware that could make a cyberattack look like it was coming anywhere in the world - and then lost control of said arsenal, so anyone could have a copy of said malware. Also, Podesta wasn't "hacked", he fell for a phishing scam b/c he's old & tech-illiterate - so let's use the accurate terminology to describe what happened. All that the DNC leaks did was show us the extent of the Democrat party's & media's corruption - no "hacker" is so good that they somehow made those involved do the corrupt things in the first place. If you read "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections", you see it's basically all assertions built on speculations - unlike the email leaks, not a shred solid evidence (as far as I'm aware, as of this writing) has been made available to the public to peruse & come to their own conclusions. We're being told to trust an "intelligence community" that at the best of times has a job description that involves being "professional deceivers" (I would know, having once worked side-by-side next to them in the military counterpart thereof). The burden of proof always rests on the accuser, not the skeptic, & in this case, the accusers have done nothing but make hollow allegations saying "trust us, we have the evidence, but we can't show any of it to you, because reasons". I guess I'm just saying that something that is still an unproven conspiracy theory is given undue weight by stating it as a matter-of-fact. I like Wikipedia & support what it stands for (the ability for anyone to access the body of human knowledge), so I don't want to see it degenerate into a dungheap of propaganda & wild hysteria - there are other places online people can go if they wanna find that. CitationKneaded (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I assume this article is secure against vandalism?

Hi, I am not a wikipedian so I'm not familiar with the settings for auto-reverts. It seems some section of this article do automatically revert while others do not? (I was able to add in jibberish that stayed when I tested in one section but another user commented that they were not able) I'm just posting this because I worry that the good content assembled here could be cumbersome to manually police against misinformation. Forgive me if this post is naive, I am only trying to be a concerned citizen. Great article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.236.125.65 (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Pages are not protected pre-emptively, and at this stage anyone can freely edit this article. However, obvious vandalism is promptly rolled back by our anti-vandalism bots or by the (I can imagine countless) users eyeballing this article. If persistent vandalism recurs, the page could be protected against that fairly quickly, so no worries. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

WoPo May 11, 2017

In a Private Dinner, Trump Demanded Loyalty. Comey Demurred.

Imo worth to mention in the article. --Neun-x (talk) 10:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The NY Times story is not credible: The NY Times claims to have two sources familiar with a private conversations between James Comey and Donald Trump. This claim is simply not plausible. There are only two possible sources... James Comey and Donald Trump. So if one of those two is denying the claims then the NY Times cannot have two sources. Further, if James Comey is their source he is no more credible then Donald Trump because they both have a self-interest at stake. This becomes a he-said, she-said situation; until or unless Donald Trump produces the tapes there is no way to tell whether any claims related to their private conversations are true. 107.0.155.16 (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

It isn't our position to determine if what the NYT is reporting is accurate or not. NYT is considered a reliable source and they're reporting on a newsworthy event. We can position it by "The New York Times reported.." and include the citation. Our articles summarize (as neutral as possible) what is being reported; not what we as editors feel if what a major news network is reporting is accurate or not. RedLinkJ (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

This is significant and should absolutely be mentioned.- MrX 16:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

This is why Wikipedia is broken. The NYT and Washington Post can print a story that cites anonymous sources, have it refuted by sources on the record, and it is still considered reliable. Take two recent examples:

1. The Washington Post, citing anonymous sources, reported that Judge Napolitano was suspended from Fox News and would not return in the near future. He returned two days later. Yet the Washington Post story, which is demonstrably false, is still considered a reliable source when wikipedia editors want to (falsely) claim that Napolitano was suspended for his comments.

2. The Washington Post reported, citing anonymous sources, that the new DAG was considering quiting over the handling of the Comey firing. The DAG, the only person in a position to know what the DAG was considering, said this is not true. Yet the Washington Post story is considered credible.

This is absurd that a story citing anonymous sources can be considered credible when every person in a position to know the facts denies the story. I reiterate my original position: If the only people present at the dinner were Donald Trump and James Comey then the NYT cannot possibly have two sources for the story unless those sources are Donald Trump and James Comey. If the Wikipedia community wants to treat anonymous sources as credible... then this website is no more credible then their sources. You shouldn't confuse what Wikipedia editors consider 'credible sources' with what actually is a credible source. Anonymous sources are not credible... even if they are printed in the NYT and WashPo. 107.0.155.16 (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Napolitano did not return "Two days later" - he returned two weeks later. Neutrality^talk 18:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The Washington Post reported on Monday 3/27 that Napolitano would not return to Fox News "in the near future". He returned two days later on Wednesday 3/29. It was two weeks after he first made his claims but it was only two days after the Washington Post (incorrectly) claimed that he he had been suspended would not be returning "in the near future". Unless you want to quibble about the meaning of "near future" my facts are correct. The Washington Post story, citing anonymous sources, is demonstrably false. Yet it is still considered a reliable source per Wikipedia and can be (is) used by POV editors as an ad hominem to attack the credibility of Judge Napolitano. I mean, if Fox News suspended him then he must have been lying right? Except that Fox News did not suspend him and the entire stories about his suspension were fabricated by the apparently not-credible Washington Post. 107.0.155.16 (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I understand your concerns regarding the reliability of the source, but the talk page for this article isn't the place to go to if you want to affect change in a policy that's working as designed here. I'd recommend visiting the Reliable Source Noticeboard so your voice can be heard and a discussion can take place. RedLinkJ (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

• "So if one of those two is denying the claims then the NY Times cannot have two sources. " Well, no.

• Trump is famously a liar who says one thing one minute and something completely different the next minute (actually, in the same minute) so what he denies now tells us nothing about what he might have confirmed earlier.
• More to the point, if you think "private dinner" means Trump and Comey sitting alone at a little table with a candle in an Italian restaurant somewhere, just the two of them whispering in each others' ear, then you have no idea what you're talking about.

EEng 09:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Let's remove opinion pieces from the lead

Currently the lead mentions several opinion writers: Chemi Shalev, Andrew Nusca, Eugene Robinson, Dan Rather and Jeffrey Frank. I think it would be best to keep opinion stuff out of the lead of this particular article, and just focus on facts. This would not only be easier for readers, but would also spare editors the trouble of tracking down punditry in an effort to tilt or neutralize this article. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and do this, but please feel free to discuss further here, and revert me if you feel strongly about it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I looked at the lead an hour or so ago, and I agree: there is way too much "opinion" material in there. It's true that if we disregard NOTNEWS opinion writers became almost as important as real actors, but yeah, that lead had way too much opinion. If the lead deals with those commentaries (which of course are widespread, no doubt about it) in a more summary fashion, it will become much more legible. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 02:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

The thing to do in such cases is to have a summary of various notable opinions and positions in broad general terms, rather than listing specific opinions and persons. This can be difficult to do while avoiding synthesis, but it's really what a lede is suppose to do.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

The commentaries now used are totally one-sided. No commentaries are mentioned that point out many leading Democrats previously called for Comey's ouster, for example. If someone wants to deal with commentaries later in the BLP, fine, but this collection of commentaries in the lead is not NPOV. Moreover, we're not supposed to use a commentary unless the commentary itself is news, i.e. has been cited by a reliable source. Without mention in a reliable secondary source, opinion pieces are merely primary sources and have no place in this lead; "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources" (emphasis added). Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, hold on. Two things. First of all, it's the timing, and you know it--not to mention all the other stuff: the contradictory explanations, the testimony that some of the president's statements were just wrong, etc. Second, the problem with commentary is that invites commentary on commentary. Like this: commentator D says the firing is ridiculous. Commentator R says but you said he should have been fired. Commentator D' says but that was months ago, and besides we don't believe the reasons. Commentator R' says...well, etc. If we wrote this article two months from now it would be easy to generalize--right now we're just listing one after another. OK, a third thing: we can use commentary on an event if the commentator is noteworthy and the source reliable, of course. Now I am not opposed to serious pruning, and I think you know that, but the nature of this very thing is the commentary--but that also includes the commentary (including explanations) from the president, from Huckabee, from Spicer, from Pence. And that's why these articles are so tirritating: the commentary has become the story. I think that if you represent the positions fairly in summary you can avoid getting into detail and citing every pundit... Drmies (talk) 02:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, an opinion piece really is a secondary source: a commentator looks at a situation and writes about it. The lines get blurred when the commentator becomes the story, and in this story some of the actors, and that includes the president with his tweets, also become commentators. So the problem you signal, I don't see that here--I see that in other situations we don't have to get into here. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, User:Drmies, the main objection to Trump's action is to the timing rather than to the dismissal itself, and that should be mentioned in this lead. It isn't mentioned now, neither by the cited commentary, nor by the cited news articles. Don't blame me for that, I just got here. The lead needs to include it, and I will, but first I want to get rid of the primary sourcing in the lead. If "the nature of this very thing is the commentary" then editors should be able to find secondary sources that discuss that commentary. Per WP:OR: "Further examples of primary sources include... editorials, columns, blogs, opinion pieces...." You didn't know that? Or maybe this article has special rules? Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

"You didn't know that?" Why are you choosing this denigrating word choice? Good luck, and please don't ping me anymore. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I'll answer your question without pinging you. You said above, "Well, an opinion piece really is a secondary source: a commentator looks at a situation and writes about it." WP:OR says otherwise: "Further examples of primary sources include... editorials, columns, blogs, opinion pieces...." You're an extremely experienced editor, administrator, and arbitrator, so I am confused. Perhaps you mean that WP:OR is not pertinent here. Or, perhaps you were not aware of what WP:OR says about this. I don't know. That's why I asked. No denigration was intended. You've already called me a "schmuck" at this page, so let's not get all sensitive all of a sudden. And come to think of it, consider your remark above "OK, hold on. Two things. First of all, it's the timing, and you know it...." That kind of implied that I'm somehow ignoring what I know to be true. Come on, Drmies. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Now we (ya'll?) are discussing two different issues: how to summarize opinions in the lede and whether the timing/previous opinions on Comey should be mentioned. For the timing thing see my comment below. For the opinion thing see my comment above. Most opinions in reliable sources were critical, and so the lede simply reflects that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

---

I agree with Volunteer Marek: "The thing to do in such cases is to have a summary of various notable opinions and positions in broad general terms, rather than listing specific opinions and persons." Obviously the basic and not-reasonably-contested facts, as reported by the reliable sources, should get put up front (I'd say should comprise 85% of the lead section). But we should also include in the lead a reference to most common perspectives/opinions (I'd say many 15% of the lead section), introduced appropriately. "A number of critics said X (citations)" or "Some commentators have written Y (citations)" is fine here. (We shouldn't have a laundry list of names in the lead, nor is it required: general attributions may be used "in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph").

Now, obviously how to summarize these views might be difficult, but that doesn't allow us to ignore them. --Neutrality^talk 22:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

"Massacre"

I'm a bit leery about including "Tuesday Night Massacre" in the lead, in bold. As Drmies said, "it's not known informally as that at all. it's just a buzzword. I'm sure the reactions will contain this phrase--it does not need to be here." None of the three cited sources strikes me as a reliable secondary source. The first cited source, a piece by Chemi Shalev, is labelled as "analysis" whereas WP:RS says "analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." The second cited source in Mediaite is also problematic because the reliability of that source is disputed.[17] And, the third cited source from Fortune is a problem because it's not clearly labelled as opinion or news, and Fortune regularly calls it a "massacre" when Trump fires someone.[18] Anyway, even if all three of those cited authors were reliable, and happened to call it a "massacre", that would not necessarily make it a common synonym. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

As I wrote in the #Name proposal RfC above, every dismissal by Trump gets called a "Nixonian" "massacre". Probably by the end of Trump's first year in office, all weekdays will have been massacred. — JFG ^talk 11:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't like this phrase either and I think its usage is being exaggerate here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and here's another reason: this being Trump, we should probably save the terminology against the possibility there'll be a literal massacre. EEng 15:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Concur with the sentiment: I'm a bit leery about including "Tuesday Night Massacre" in the lead, in bold as well as that we should reserve the term "massacre" for actual massacres :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the statement; the charactirisation is premature at the very least. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Folks, please STOP, STOP, STOP. The notability of the "Tuesday Night Massacre" name is established. That discussion is closed. Please stop re-opening it regardless of personal opinions. Whether you like this name or not it is how the media and the public are referring to the event.

The naming of the article itself is a completely different and unrelated issue. That is also settled.

If some months or years from now there is some reason to believe that this name has fallen out of favor and is no longer appropriate this can be revisited but please no more disengenuous edit wars on this. -- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.34.43 (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for asking, Mr. IP, but who put you in charge of deciding when a "discussion is closed"? EEng 00:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello MC. You are mistaken to assert that the name is established. There were some knee-jerk reactions with eye-catching headlines on the first or second day of the news, but this "massacre" name has all but disappeared from RS discussing the affair later. Therefore it is not a common name and should not be emphasized. Also, please learn to sign your posts for clarity of dialogue. — JFG ^talk 00:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Tapes

This edit removed from the lead that Trump has hinted he may have tapes of his discussions with Comey. Is that too trivial for the lead? I think not. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we should mention that Trump implied that there are tapes, but the previous wording was WP:SYNTHy as if intended to lend veracity to Trump's statements.- MrX 18:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

The "tapes" thing is definitely lede worthy but come on, the wording of that sentence was obnoxiously POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

If it's lede worthy, then people should stop removing it from the lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, the "make sure there are no tapes" tweet can be read both ways: either "Watch what you say cuz I got you on tape!" or "I hope you didn't tape us at dinner, you rascal you!". Curiously, the media has mostly read it the first way… — JFG ^talk 00:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Opinion polls

Moved from article. Not encyclopedic content, but secondary RS discussion may be appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 01:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

	Combined	Republican	Democratic	Independent
President Trump's decision to fire James Comey
Approve	39%	79%	14%	32%
Disapprove	46%	13%	78%	45%
No opinion	15%	8%	8%	24%
Gallup poll conducted May 10–11, 2017, ±4.0%*
President Trump's dismissal of James Comey was...
Appropriate	38%	79%	13%	30%
Inappropriate	54%	13%	84%	61%
President Trump's fired James Comey due to...
Clinton email investigation	24%	43%	13%	21%
Russia investigation	46%	22%	67%	47%
Something else	22%	27%	18%	26%
Allegations of Trump campaign contact with Russia
Serious issue	54%	17%	86%	54%
More of a distraction	40%	78%	13%	40%
NBC News/SurveyMonkey poll conducted May 10–11, 2017, ±2.5%*
President Trump's firing of James Comey
Right decision	33%	61%	10%	34%
Wrong decision	34%	9%	63%	26%
Not sure	33%	30%	27%	40%
How much does it bother you that President Trump fired James Comey?a
Bothers me a lot	55%	—	61%	50%
Bothers me somewhat	24%	—	17%	32%
Bothers me a little	13%	—	12%	14%
Doesn't bother me at all	7%	—	8%	3%
Not sure	1%	—	2%	1%
What did President Trump fire James Comey for?b
Clinton investigation	22%	39%	12%	18%
Different reason	47%	26%	68%	43%
Not sure	31%	35%	20%	39%
Why did President Trump fire James Comey?c
Disrupt Russia investigation	47%	24%	75%	40%
Unrelated to Russia investigation	26%	47%	8%	27%
Not sure	27%	29%	17%	33%
HuffPost/YouGov poll conducted May 10–11, 2017, ±4.4%*
What is your view on President Trump's firing of James Comey?d
Right to remove	35%	62%	16%	30%
Should have kept	33%	10%	58%	28%
Don't know/No opinion	32%	28%	26%	42%
President Trump's decision to remove James Comey was...
Appropriate	37%	63%	17%	33%
Inappropriate	34%	11%	61%	29%
Don't know/No opinion	29%	26%	22%	38%
President Trump's decision to remove James Comey was...e
Appropriate	36%	58%	20%	31%
Inappropriate	41%	17%	65%	38%
Don't know/No opinion	24%	25%	15%	31%
President Trump's decision to remove James Comey was...f
Appropriate	47%	70%	29%	44%
Inappropriate	28%	10%	46%	26%
Don't know/No opinion	25%	20%	25%	30%
Who do you think should be most responsible for handling the investigation?g
FBI Director	22%	30%	13%	22%
Special prosecutor	36%	26%	48%	32%
Independent commission	24%	24%	22%	25%
Don't know/No opinion	19%	20%	16%	21%
Politico/Morning Consult poll conducted May 9–11, 2017, ±2.0%**

* U.S. adults

** U.S. registered voters

^a Asked of those who think President Trump made the wrong decision.

^b President Trump said he fired James Comey because of Comey's handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server. Do you think:

• Trump fired Comey because of the Clinton investigation
• Trump fired Comey for a different reason
• Not sure

^c James Comey was leading an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and whether any Trump campaign associates colluded with Russia. Do you think:

• Trump fired Comey at least partly to disrupt the Russia investigation
• Trump's firing of Comey was unrelated to the Russia investigation
• Not sure

^d As you may know, President Trump recently removed FBI Director James Comey from his position. Which of the following statements comes closest to your view, even if neither is exactly right?

• President Trump was right to remove James Comey as Director of the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation)
• President Trump should have allowed James Comey to continue as the Director of the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation)
• Don't know/No opinion

^e As you may know, there have been reports that some Trump campaign officials are being investigated by the FBI for alleged connections or contacts with the Russian government during the 2016 elections. Knowing this, do you think President Trump's decision to remove James Comey as the FBI Director was...

^f As you may know, it was recently reported that, during a testimony before Congress, the former FBI Director James Comey misstated several details about a previous investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private server for emails while serving as Secretary of State. Knowing this, do you think President Trump's decision to remove James Comey as the FBI Director was...

^g As you may know, several Trump campaign officials have been under investigation by the FBI for alleged connections or contacts with the Russian government during the 2016 elections, and the investigation was led by former Director of the FBI, James Comey. Knowing this, who do you think should be most responsible for handling the investigation?

References

New title better linking this to the Russian investigation?

Since both White House Spokesman and Trump have stated this was over Russia, should we change the title somehow to reflect that? If so, how? Casprings (talk) 03:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

No. The dismissal of James Comey should have its own article entitled "Dismissal of James Comey". However, I do find it ridiculous that Wikipedia does not have an article dedicated to describing (in a NPOV way) the Congressional investigation into the accusations of Trump's past and/or present collusion with the Russian government. Regardless of what the investigation's conclusions end up being, the investigation (together with the public and the media reactions to it) is clearly American history in the making. selfworm^Talk) 03:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Claude Taylor

I've removed this content, addressing Claude Taylor's claims that there are a number of sealed indictments relating to the Russia-Trump investigation. Taylor's statements may or may not be correct, but it's speculation and I don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia article yet. If the New York Times, Washington Post, AP, etc. started to report on this, then maybe there would be an argument for inclusion, but as of now we have (1) one opinion piece in Newsweek; and (2) two Inquisitr posts that basically quote Taylor's tweets. I don't think that's enough for the claim being made. Neutrality^talk 03:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Taylor is not RS. The Newsweek piece is an opinion column which briefly mentions Taylor. Not enough. It's not even notable at this point.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

It's also the current top-story in German newspapers, such as Stern. It seems notable enough to include, due to the large amount of attention it has received. I'd just put that the allegations are currently unverified. Link: http://www.stern.de/politik/ausland/donald-trump--geheime-anklage---schlaegt-das-fbi-jetzt-zurueck--7452516.html PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Following MOS in the lead sentence

I seem to be in a dispute of sorts with Neutrality on the lead sentence. The last version I attempted to introduce in order to comply with MOS:BOLDTITLE was

The dismissal of James Comey, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, by U.S. President Donald Trump took place on May 9, 2017.

Neutrality seems to prefer something like

James Comey, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, was dismissed by U.S. President Donald Trump on May 9, 2017.

Neutrality has cited WP:BOLDITIS as a a justification. Unfortunately this is starting to degenerate into an edit war.

Simply put, as general principle WP articles should attempt to follow MOS as much as reasonable. Side policies like WP:BOLDITIS are meant to say, in essence, that if an exceptional situation arises where the standard MOS policy does not make sense, then individual articles should not be held hostage to it. These side policies are not, however, meant to say that MOS should be violated simply because a given editor (or editors) prefers something different. This is not an exceptional situation. Not that my choice of wording is necessarily the only option, but there is no good reason that the phrase "dismissal of James Comey" cannot appear in the lead sentence to follow MOS. Even aside from MOS compliance, my version makes the topic explicitly clear in the sentence itself whereas the other version makes it a tad more vague.

-- MC

MC, I was not aware of WP:BOLDITIS until today, and therefore would have done it the way you did. But now I see that, when the title of the article is merely a description of the article topic, not a given name, then WP:BOLDITIS says to not use bold. However, WP:BOLDITIS is not a guideline or policy, so it could easily be wrong. Indeed, it conflicts with MOS:BOLDTITLE which is an official guideline and which says to use bold if the title "can be accommodated in normal English" even if the title is a description rather than a name. Go figure. Anyway, don't run over to get WP:BOLDITIS fixed because you might get in trouble for changing the rules to advance your position in a content dispute. Go figure, again. The issue is whether this article title can be accommodated in the lead sentence using normal English. In this instance, your version is a little awkward, but I hesitate to call it abnormal. My advice: don't waste your time on it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The issue here is encyclopedic style. I am not saying my version is the only option. But the current version does not clearly indicate the article's topic nor does it follow MOS:BOLDTITLE. WP:BEGIN says "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is." The current version talks about Comey and Trump and the FBI and firing, etc. but it is unclear that the topic is actually the firing itself. Again, if we are going to violate MOS:BOLDTITLE there should be an actual reason. -- MC

Compare, for example, Fall of Constantinople. The lead sentence reads

The Fall of Constantinople ... was the capture of the capital of the Byzantine Empire by an invading army of the Ottoman Empire on 29 May 1453.

It does not read

The invading army of the Ottoman Empire captured Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, on 29 May 1453.

You can find lots of similar examples. There is a reason for that. -- MC

If the current version of the lead sentence does not clearly indicate the article's topic, that can be fixed without using the article title. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. Violating MOS is not an end in itself. The point is the article's title must be used unless there is a compelling reason not to. -- MC

Come up with a lead sentence that flows better. Otherwise it's not worth fussing about, IMHO. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

2605:6000:ec16:c000:38c1:c602:9adc:a4c7: WP:BOLDITIS does not conflict with MOS:BOLDTITLE. Look at the part of MOS:BOLDTITLE that says "If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it. Instead, simply describe the subject in normal English, avoiding redundancy." The shorter version follows that rule. It also reads far better, avoiding the wordy "took place on..." Neutrality^talk 01:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality, the point here is that your preference for one style of phrasing or the other is not really relevant. The statement is "If the article's title does not lend itself", not "If there is wording that you like better". Again, I am not necessarily saying that my wording is the only option but, nevertheless, there is not a justifiable reason to avoid using the title in the lead sentence. And again, your version does not make the topic clear anyway so there is a secondary reason not to use it. Encyclopedic style should be preserved as much as possible. --MC

Misleading sentence in lead section - edit

I have fixed the following misleading sentence in the lead section:

Other experts and politicians supported the firing or said it was legal.

I have changed it to more accurately reflect the sources:

Other Republican politicians supported the firing.

References

The first sentence had many, many problems — it was downright inaccurate.

• First, and most importantly, no source supports the assertion that "Other experts supported the firing." If this claim is to be advanced we would need a source.
• Second, "Other politicians" obscures what the sources actually say — that it was only some Republicans that supported the firing, and no Democrats, or virtually no Democrats.
• Third, "said it was legal" is misleading in the context of "Some say X, others say Y" pair of sentences. There's no dispute that the president is statutorily permitted to fire the FBI director; that is an accepted fact that all sides agree upon.
• Fourth, it is misleading to discuss the Rudalevige in terms of "support" for the firing - the analysis explicitly indicates that indicates that the fact that something may be legal doesn't make it "a good idea."

I don't think that this edit will be controversial but I thought it important to explain my thought process.

--Neutrality^talk 00:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

If there's no dispute it was legal, then why is it misleading to say so? The cited sources do, and yet you've totally removed that aspect from the lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't object to mentioning the president's authority to fire - what I object to is presenting that fact as "support" for the firing. I've just now added added information about the president's authority to fire (and the ten-year term) under the Background section. Neutrality^talk 00:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

If you don't object then would you please rephrase to your liking instead of axing it from the lead? Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you look under the "Background" section immediately below the lead section, and tell me if that is amenable to you? The fact of Trump's authority to fire him seems apparent/implied, so I don't know that it necessarily must' be in the lead. (I think the average reader would understand that if the president somehow lacked that authority, the lead section would say that. Neutrality^talk 01:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Neutrality's edits. I also tried to remove "or said it was legal." earlier today and was reverted. The legality of the firing is not really contested, nor is it noteworthy.- MrX 01:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Neutrality, can you keep it within the length of the original sentence that was in the lead? I agree that anything much lengthier than that is unnecessary in the lead. This is a notable fact, as evidenced by the cited source and the stuff you've put later in the article, but it does not require more than a few words in the lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

If we really think it should be in the lead, I would accept the following sentence (add appropriate cites):

Comey was fired four years into a ten-year term as director. [Cites] The president has the authority to fire the FBI director, but exercising this authority is rare: Comey's dismissal was the second time in U.S. history that an FBI director had been fired. [Cites]

--Neutrality^talk 01:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Something like that might work, but I'd make at least two changes. First, I'd not refer to the entirety of "U.S. history" (the FBI only dates back to 1908), but rather since the ten-year terms were established in year [X], or just say he's the 2d of the 7 to be fired. Also, the issue here isn't whether a president has the authority, but whether Trump exercised that authority in a legal way, which the cited source says he did. As MrX says, this is not a big deal, so I prefer something as brief as the original sentence, but if you prefer something longer then that might work. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Simplified version? "This was the second time in the FBI's history that a director was fired by the president [cites]"? Neutrality^talk 01:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

That again axes from the lead the issue of whether Trump used his firing authority in a legal way in this particular matter. The cited piece from WaPo by Andrew Rudalevige, a Professor of Government at Bowdoin College, says he did. So:

Other Republican politicians supported the firing, while political scientists said the firing was done legally whether or not it was a good idea.

As for the other thing, saying this was the second firing is of uncertain accuracy and importance; technically, Sessions was pressured to resign, I think, rather than actually fired, and I don't know how many of the others were pressured to resign too. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

References

I have to contest this. First, I would prefer to cite legal scholars on matters of law, rather than political scientists. Second, nobody disputes that generally, the president may fire an FBI director. But that is a completely different proposition from whether "Trump used his firing authority in a legal way in this particular matter." The Los Angeles Times two days ago, in an article headlined: Trump's statements linking Russia investigation to Comey firing could lead to legal problems:

A growing number of legal experts say President Trump has opened himself up to a charge of obstruction of justice this week when he said “this Russia thing with Trump” was on his mind when he fired FBI Director James B. Comey. ... Trump’s repeated references to the Russia investigation in interviews, tweets and the letter firing Comey could be interpreted as an effort to “obstruct or impede” the investigation, the legal experts said. “If one of the reasons the president fired Mr. Comey was to subvert or influence FBI investigations of Trump campaign associates, it is hard to resist the conclusion that this was obstruction of justice,” said Ryan Goodman, a New York University law professor and the editor of the Just Security blog. Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe agreed. “I think President Trump inadvertently laid a solid basis for an obstruction of justice count in a bill of impeachment with his fateful Lester Holt interview...."

Given that the issue is highly, highly contested, we cannot say that "experts" generally determined that this particular firing was legal. Neutrality^talk 02:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

You are not being neutral, User:Neutrality. Here is what the lead currently says: "Criticism of Trump's decision came immediately from various experts on governance and authoritarianism,[13][14][15][16] and various politicians from across the political spectrum.[4][17][18] Other Republican politicians supported the firing.[19]" You are arguing to keep citing experts in governance and authoritarianism while completely ignoring that there are political scientists like the Bowdoin Professor on the other side of this. Instead of simply arguing against any formulation that informs readers of the latter, please suggest an edit. How about including the word "some"? Don't you see how obnoxiously non-neutral it is to cite all these experts to support only one side and ignore experts in the other side? Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Keep it civil, please. The Bowdoin professor (1) is a political science professor, not a law professor, and (2) more importantly, his piece does not address the obstruction-of-justice topic at all. Again, to repeat: nobody contests that (a) the president can remove an FBI director, but that is different from arguing (b) that this particular firing carries no legal implications. Indeed, I don't read the Rudalevige piece to suggest anything different. He talks about (a) but never addresses (b). We cannot take his piece and then impute a broader conclusion that he himself does not make, especially in the face of contrary authority from other experts. In addition to the LA Times article summarizing legal experts' views on the question, there is also this piece from Politico that talks about it ("Several other lawyers challenged that view, noting that acts like hiring someone may be perfectly legal under most circumstances but illegal if done to thwart an investigation or advance some other unlawful goal.").

If we wanted to put together a good sub-section in the body about this (i.e., text summarizing the range of legal opinions), then I am open to that. But a very expansive statement in the lead section flatly saying "totally legal" without nuance is not supported by the range of sources and is liable to mislead the reader. Neutrality^talk 02:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, respectfully, you are not being neutral. You apparently want the lead to continue citing experts on governance and experts on authoritarianism, but you seem unwilling to cite any such non-lawyer experts on the other side. You've even pointed just now to a Politico article featuring lawyers on both sides, and yet no lawyers and no non-lawyers can apparently be cited in the lead if they support Trump's position. We don't have to await new sections in the article body to provide simple NPOV in the lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

"yet no lawyers and no non-lawyers can apparently be cited in the lead if they support Trump's position" - You misunderstand. That is not my view at all. Again, I'm fine with a summary but it actually must be supported by what the sources say. As I said above, we cannot say "Experts say X" when in fact experts are split on whether X is the case. And preferably what we summarize in the lead, if anything, would reflect a nuanced discussion in the body citing to the Politico summary, the LA Times summary, etc. (I'm inclined, by the way, to not stick any of this in the lead section, because at this juncture it's just a battle of experts speculating).

I'd be curious to get some other editors' opinions on this. Neutrality^talk 03:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

You have edited the lead so that we now have experts on "governance" and experts on "authoritarianism" opposing Trump's action, but no experts on Trump's side of it. That seems neutral to you? And we have available sources taking his side of it, including the Bowdoin Professor, the Harvard Law Professor. You want to leave this lopsided POV presentation in the lead? Please take it out until you feel ready to install a balanced presentation. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

(1) That's not responsive to anything I've written above and (2) I am not the one who introduced the governance/authoritarianism material (although it looks fine to me). Neutrality^talk 03:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

It's responsive to your edit which made this "expert" material completely unbalanced. If I have time tomorrow, maybe I'll fix it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Move image of termination letter up

The image of the termination letter is currently way down in the article, and I think it would be better to have it up top, either in place of Comey's picture or immediately below Comey's picture. The image is kind of redundant where it is now, since our article text quotes the whole thing, so nothing would be lost by moving the image up. The letter is discussed in the lead, so it's image ought to accompany the lead for convenience of readers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Done. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit to the lead

this edit to the lead by User:PerfectlyIrrational has too many problems for me to fully list. Here are some of them:

• "Although some Republican politicians supported the firing." This is not a complete sentence. See also WP:Words_to_watch#Editorializing.
• "Although a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll showed 78% - including a majority of Republicans - supported a special prosecutor." This is not a complete sentence. See also WP:Words_to_watch#Editorializing.
• "'There has been no [known] effort to impede our investigation to date'". This is a direct quote and we should not insert our own editorial comments into it. The full quote from the cited source is this: "'There has been no effort to impede our investigation to date,' McCabe said in response to a question posed by Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida.'You cannot stop the men and women of the FBI from doing the right thing, protecting the American people and upholding the Constitution.'" Please stop editorializing in our lead.
• "Letter from Donald Trump informing FBI Director James Comey of his termination from FBI director." Bad syntax. Try "termination as FBI director".
• Everyday words understood by most readers in context should not be linked per WP:Link. Such as the word "false".

Accordingly, I will revert. Please try again, and keep in mind WP:NPOV. Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Reverted here. User:PerfectlyIrrational do you dislike using the talk page for some reason? Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I just don't generally use it, it's nothing in particular. PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 20:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, if you won't respond to any of the bulleted concerns that I expressed above, and instead revert when I try to address them, then this editing process will probably become quite aggravating for both of us, PerfectlyIrrational. You want that? Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The objectionable sections have been removed or redone. PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

That's incorrect, starting with the image caption at the top the article. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing

It is my belief that this entire wikipedia page needs to be completely removed and rewritten. It is clear there is no neutral editing going on. There are conclusions already being drawn from unsettled theories, many so called sources are actually from opinion piece articles rather than actually news based on fact. It's clear there is a liberal centric bias written into every corner of this 'Dismissal of James Comey' wiki page.

Here's a prime example: "Trump had asked Comey in January for a pledge of personal loyalty to him alone", which at Today's press briefing (5/12/2017), Sean Spicer was asked a question about that and said it was untrue. There is a LOT of Trump hate in this wiki page in general, and I think there is ZERO room for this type of bias.

This is just one of many issues, and to edit them all would be not only tedious, it would require a near complete rewrite. I think what needs to happen is this wiki page needs to be stripped down to the bare facts of Comey's dismissal, then locked from any editing at all. We don't need conspiracy theories or opinion sources or anyone trying to piece together false conclusions as part of his dismissal record at wikipedia. There is a lot in this article that is just completely unfounded, and frankly, completely unnecessary. They've turned a wiki page of Comey's dismissal into a conspiracy theory attack page hit piece against the president of the United states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardwarz (talk • contribs) 00:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry, but that statement is framed in the following: "According to at least two Comey associates interviewed..." and it's got reliable sources. Besides, Sean Spicer saying something is untrue doesn't therefore make it untrue. That's not hate, that's reflecting what reliable sources say. Drmies (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I personally avoid adding "sources say" text to Wikipedia but I'm not opposed to such content on principle so long as it's accurately attributed (which it is: two close sources) and reported by the most reliable and high-quality journalistic outlets (which it is). I'm open to re-wording the text if you have suggestions. I'm also open to removing it from the lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

There are no sources that say that, this was completely made up and posted as news. Unless you can come up with a credible source rather than hearsay, it should be treated as untrue and thus has no place.

• Hardwarz, "this was completely made up and posted as news" makes no sense at all. Nothing is "posted as news"--this was published in reliable newspapers. You may know that the US has freedom of the press, and that there is a long tradition in democratic countries of having the press keep a check on government, or at the very least informing the public what the audience is up to. Drmies (talk) 00:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, there was a section called "reaction from scholars", yet ONLY listed negative reactions. That is inherently not neutral. Just a prime example of the bias inherently present throughout this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardwarz (talk • contribs) 00:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

In your edit here[19], you're removing text that accurately conforms to the reliable sources used. If there are other reliable sources out there that contradict this content, add that content. Don't delete reliably sourced content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree. If you find reliable sources with opinions to the contrary, by all means, add them. All sides are better than none. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 00:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

To add, if Sean Spicer says it, and news agencies decide to report on it.....isn't that multiple sources contradicting that Trump asked Comey for loyalty? And what if they decide to not report on Sean Spicer (aka the white house official response) does that make it not a source somehow? NO. The fact is, unless someone has a new source, then all old sources are completely invalid due to Sean Spicer's answer. Either way, it's clear that there is a lot in this article that is not neutral.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Are you saying that all reporting becomes null and void as soon as Sean Spicer says something that conflicts with the reporting? I'm pretty sure the exceptions to the use of reliable sources on Wikipedia do not include "unless Sean Spicer says otherwise"... Also, stop removing entire sub-sections. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources will print what the press secretary says because it is what the press secretary says and will attribute the denial back to the press secretary. That is different from reliable sources independently reporting that what Spicer says is true. So no, it is not multiple sources contradicting that Trump asked Comey for loyalty. Spicer is one source no matter how many publicly he makes that claim. The administration has already changed its own story on why Comey was fired and continues to offer explanations which are then disproven by independent sources. I find the argument that whatever the administration (any administration) says is to be taken as fact to be highly problematic and contrary to the notion of a free and independent press. Knope7 (talk) 02:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

In regards to my edit, it had nothing to do with sourcing, it had everything to do with clear Tendentious editing. You cannot give the reactions of one side but leave out any competing reactions. Clearly a reaction by scholars only listing negative reactions, is tendentious editing, and biased in nature, therefore not neutral. I'd say that if you cannot give at LEAST one competing reaction, then one should not list reactions at all.

That's false equivalence. If there are scholars out there that laud the decision to fire Comey, add those, provided that they are notable and covered in reliable sources. Don't just whine about some hypothetical content that's missing: be fruitful and contribute to this article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Just wanted to add false balance to be helpful. TricksterWolf (talk) 00:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

"I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Are you saying that all reporting becomes null and void as soon as Sean Spicer says something"

Yes actually, because that is a new source, whether news agencies report on it or not. The old sources were hearsay, when Sean Spicer says it, he's representing the white house, from the 'horses mouth' if you will......therefore it should be taken as truth until proven otherwise. Therefore yes, Sean Spicer's words do nullify previous sources that were based entirely on hearsay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardwarz (talk • contribs) 00:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. There is a statement from the White House that Comey lost the confidence of the rank and file of the FBI and Acting FBI Director McCabe contradicted this statement. That does not mean that the White House statement is nullified. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 00:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• Hardwarz, please sign messages on talk pages. Also, I agree with Snooganssnoogans who said "I don't understand the point you're trying to make": the grammar and punctuation are deficient, and you're all over the place, both literally (with your paragraphing and sentences) and figuratively (hopping from one point to another). And that "it [stuff that comes from the White House] should be taken as truth"--well, that kind of disqualifies everyone from participating in a democracy. In other words, you couldn't be more wrong. Drmies (talk) 00:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

You guys are clearly going off message, and clearly trying to cherry pick. Fact: New sources trump hearsay. Old sources based on hearsay, are not sources at all.

I will reiterate: This entire wiki page about Comey's dismissal is completely interlaced with biased and tendentious editing. It should be stripped down to the raw facts of his dismissal, then locked entirely from any further editing. I will not argue every single contention here against multiple users trying to gang up and twist neutrality or argue every one of their defenses of bad sourcing. It's just a simple fact, and clear to see, that Tendentious editing is happening excessively in this article. Hardwarz (talk) 00:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. First of all, we don't "lock" articles from further editing. We only protect articles from editing for temporary periods of time because of vandalism or edit warring. Secondly, we put the facts in the article and leave opinions from notable people and groups in the reactions section. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 00:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Hardwarz, I'm sorry, but Wikipedia may not be for you. You obviously can't tell "sources" from hearsay, you don't understand what reliable sources are, and you don't get the basic facts of the case here. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I visited this BLP (yes, it's a BLP) for the first time today. I only looked at the lead. I must say that I found the lead in deplorable shape, and only have time to slightly improve it today. Shame on the editors who allowed it to be so biased and unreflective of reliable sources, so POV and propagandistic. It serves as a nice introduction to what Wikipedia really is, when it comes to controversial political subjects. User:Hardwarz can look forward to being quickly banned from this article if he's not extremely careful. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Anythingyouwant, go for it. But keep it neutral. Drmies (talk) 01:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, it's not "biased" and "unreflective", only to the extent that, as they say, reality has a liberal bias. It is, of course, yet another example of how gaggles of Wikipedia editors jump on the news the moment some scandal happens--and so this fairly run of the mill political event grows to over 80k in three days. And then it's up to schmucks like you and me to clean it up... Drmies (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Drmies is this article subject to 1RR? If I am going to be a schmuck, I do not want to be a schmuck who loses more editing privileges than I have already lost. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, good point. See WP:AC/DS: yes, discretionary sanctions apply, but I do not see that a 1R rule was issued. The moment disruption really gets going, an admin may step in and issue more stringent rules, but I don't see that happen yet, and I hope it won't be necessary. I certainly don't see any reason for anyone to step in--but do let me know if you are troubled by editor's behavior. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 02:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Drmies If you could quit maliciously editing this page, that'd be great thanks. Hardwarz (talk) 01:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hardwarz:, if you have a problem with an editor's conduct, please take it to WP:ANI. This page is for discussing edits, not editors.- MrX 01:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I think they're pissed cause I reverted their removal of other folks' comments on this talk page. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Drmies Look I'm not going to play the 'who can edit things to appear they're right' game with you, nor am I going to argue with you. This is for discussion, not a malicious argument.....and you are completely off topic.

Let me revitalize the purpose of this section: The discussion of the non neutral nature of how this wiki page is being framed/written. Also known as, tendentious editing. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the wikipedia page on tendentious editing before you 'contribute' more comments to this section, and if you have nothing to add to the topic at hand, then you should probably not try to derail this sections discussion any further. Hardwarz (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• Your purpose was to simply state that the whole thing was tendentiously edited and all that. If you can't cite a simple example of a tendentious edit, with decent evidence, then we don't have much to talk about. Drmies (talk) 02:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Drmies, Once again, if you have nothing to add to the topic of this discussion, then do not reply further. Any further replies of this nature will be taken as malicious and reported to WP:ANI where direct punitive action will be sought and taken. This is not a section meant for you to attempt to get in the last word or derail the topic with convolution like you clearly have attempted to do. There is nothing for 'we', i.e you and I, to discuss with the way you've been behaving.

Fact is, I've made my case very clearly that virtually every way this wiki page has been worded and framed, has either been a direct attack at Trump, framed in a negative connotation toward Trump, or have been based completely in hearsay that doesn't even have credible sourcing, and actually has sourcing directly from the White House saying otherwise that is being ignored. In fact, the very idea of saying shot in the dark hearsay has more credibility than official statements from the White House, is in and of itself a clear bias. There are many omissions, and framings in this article that try to paint pictures, and hide other facts, to the point that one would need to write a small book worth of examples to address them all. You however clearly don't want this to be about proper unbiased and neutral editing, you want this to be about political arguments, and this Drmies, is simply NOT the place for political arguments.

Let's go for some examples though: ---

"Senator Charles Grassley has stated that Comey briefed him and another senator on the targets of the FBI's investigation and they heard nothing contradicting Trump's termination letter to Comey.[9]"

Seems like a true statement, but Diane Feinstein admitted the same thing....yet somehow she's not listed here at all.....and it's clear that she's omitted because she attacked Trump for months pretending as if she didn't know that piece of information. Yet was forced to admit that she knew Trump wasn't under investigation, which exposes her attacks as clearly partisan and taking advantage of the fact that the public did not know Trump wasn't actually under investigation. ---

"According to The Washington Post, sources knowledgeable about the matter stated that this and other assertions Trump made about events leading up to the dismissal were false,[6][7]"

Again, this is an opinion, not a source. I mean honestly, who is anyone to contradict the reasoning's of the President of the United States? And what does any of this have to do with the base information of Comey's firing other than to be used as a venue to attack Trump for firing him? It may be relevant to the sphere of media surrounding it, but not at all sourced with any fact or proof, and not at all belonging in a wikipedia page about James Comey's dismissal. This is supposed to be a page about facts, about neutral truth, not partisan opinion and partisan hit jobs. ---

"has been heavily disputed, as any recordings he holds are believed to be government property under United States v. Nixon and can be not be destroyed"  

"Can be not be destroyed"? Maybe not tendentious, but a clear sign that we have 12 year olds running around here editing things without even thinking them through. And this error has existed for quite a while already.....so clearly the focus of this article is not fair and accurate writings. The bar here, has clearly been lowered by quite a bit. ---

"Several sources within the FBI have stated that the White House's firing of Comey was a culmination of high-level efforts to interfere in the Russia investigation.[29] "

Which again, relies on hearsay rather than actual sourcing, and implies that the firing of Comey would affect the investigation into Russia at all.....which the acting Director Andrew G. McCabe already clearly and publicly said that Comey's firing would not affect the investigation in any way. So not only is this whole sentence unnecessary, it clearly has malicious intent in the direction it's trying to lead the reader. ---

And let me point out, that all of these examples, are just from the opening of this wiki page, before even the table of contents is displayed! And I could have actually thrown a few more examples from that opening. But I think I've adequately made my point. This entire wiki page is interlaced with non neutral conclusions, hit jobs, and bad opinion based sourcing, or sourcing that is based on hearsay with no actual real sources. You can only go so far with 'anonymous' sources before you need to step back and say. "hey maybe let's wait for some actual sources that can be corroborated."

And one could ask "Well why don't you simply fix it all". Firstly, I'm one person. Secondly, it would all be quickly undone with the 'undo' by malicious actors, and would quickly turn into an 'undo' war, won by whoever is the most vigilant, rather than by who is correct. Which is exactly why I proposed that this article be stripped down to the base facts of Comey's firing, and protected from random editing.

Hardwarz (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hardwarz, I inserted Grassley into the lead while omitting Feinstein in order to hopefully avoid deletion of the whole thing by POV-pushing leftist editors. But the whole thing has been deleted anyway.[20] Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hardwarz, some of the concerns you highlight seem valid. I have made efforts over the past few days to cleanup the worst of the non-neutral points of view. The article is too detailed, especially the lead. Let's talk about which of these you consider the most immediate issue, then we can try to get some consensus on wording and change the article according. Then we can move on to the next one.- MrX 12:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I support moving from the lead the following new material, which starts by pretending the lead did not already mention the tapes, is too detailed, is poorly written, argumentative, gives undue weight to an ACLU lawsuit, etc:

Trump later threatened Comey with the existence of multiple tapes of private conversations between Comey and himself if he testified or talked to the press. On the issue of the tapes themselves, Trump later refused to confirm or deny the existence of tapes when asked, but has stated that it falls under his right to hold private property and his executive privilege as the current President of the United States. This has been heavily disputed, as any recordings he holds are believed to be government property under United States v. Nixon and can be not be destroyed.[32][33]On May 15, the ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act request on all documents related to Comey's firing, which would include any Comey tapes that exist.[34]

I will go ahead and move this per WP:BRD. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

It's the timing

Drmies said above: "First of all, it's the timing...." Exactly so. And I've accordingly put that into the second sentence of the lead:

U.S. President Donald Trump dismissed Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey from his position on May 9, 2017.[1][2] Many of the politicians criticizing Trump's firing of Comey had previously themselves called for Comey's ouster, and their primary objection to Trump's action is not to the ouster but rather to the timing of it.[3] Comey had been under public and political pressure resulting from both the FBI's role in the Hillary Clinton email controversy, as well as its investigation of alleged Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections including possible collusion with the 2016 Donald Trump campaign.[4][5] Trump said in the termination letter that Comey had told him "on three separate occasions that I am not under investigation".[6] According to the The Washington Post, unnamed sources knowledgeable about the matter disputed the accuracy of Trump's statement in the termination letter, but they declined to describe how that statement by Trump was inaccurate.[7]

The rest of the lead is dedicated to explaining the timing issue. That's why I oppose removal of the second sentence from the lead paragraph. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

At best, this is undue for the lede as it requires a detailed explanation which is simply not suitable for the lede. It also smacks of trying to poison the well. So best just leave it out of the lede altogether.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Poisoning whose well? If this information is correct (obviously it is) then it's central to the entire article, because it explains why there is a controversy. No detailed explanation is required to convey the simple notion that many politicians have supported firing Comey in the past, and primarily object now not to the firing but to the timing. Further explanation is already provided by the rest of the lead, which describes the Russia investigation (that's the top source of the timing concern), and also describes the lapse of time since Comey's initial public involvement in the Clinton investigation (that's the other timing concern).

• "Democrats cry foul over Comey firing after previously calling for him to resign", ABC News (May 11, 2017): "Democrats in Congress are questioning the timing of Donald Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey....but less than a year ago, some of the same Democratic politicians who are now attacking Trump for firing Comey called for the director's resignation or questioned his credibility."
• "Democrats Question Timing Of James Comey's Dismissal From FBI", NPR (May 9, 2017
• Sen. Amy Klobuchar: 'Stunned' by timing of Comey ouster", CNN (May 12, 2017).
• "Timing of Comey's firing 'frightening,' says Hillary Clinton's former campaign manager", CNBC (May 10, 2017)
• "Sen. Angus King Questions Timing Of James Comey's Firing From FBI", NPR (May 9, 2017) Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I object to the proposed sentence. It puts far too much weight on the point of view that Democrats have been hypocritical about the firing, when the much more significant issue is the impropriety of the President firing the person leading the investigation into possible collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia, possibly involving Trump himself. The reason the timing is noteworthy is because it's far removed from the Clinton e-mail snafu and proximate to Comey's investigation, especially Comey's testimony before the House intelligence committee.- MrX 17:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

User:MrX, do you oppose mentioning in any way, shape, or form in the lead that many politicians called for Comey's ouster prior to Trump's dismissal? Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: Yes, it seems to be an insignificant point mostly covered in the initial reporting. Sources generally seem to be treating it as an implausible excuse to justify Comey's termination. It should be mentioned in the detail of the article, but not as part of lead.- MrX 17:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

User:MrX, which of the sources I cited treats it as an implausible excuse to justify Comey's termination? Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say the sources you cited; I said "sources generally". Here's one for you [21].- MrX 18:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Please point out where that source says the slightest thing about any politicians who previously called for Comey's ouster, or who said their concern was about timing. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree with MrX here - it's obviously about the timing so sticking in "but but but Democrats didn't like Comey!" is POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant, please don't put words in my mouth. I never claimed that the source said anything about "politicians previously call[ing] for Comey's ouster." I think I've made my view clear enough. Perhaps others editors will join this discussion and agree with your point of view. As I have nothing more to add to my arguments, my participation here has come to an end.- MrX 19:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree that this should stay out of the lead, and especially out of the first para. Re: "Many of the politicians criticizing Trump's firing of Comey had previously..." K.e.coffman (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I've inserted the following into the article body, and think it would also be very suitable for the lead:

Generally speaking, the timing of the dismissal was a main point of contention given the ongoing Russia investigation, whereas Comey's suitabilty for the job was not as big of an issue as the timing; many Democrats had previously called for Comey's resignation or doubted his credibility.

References

Any objections to that in the lead? Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Go for it, that seems neutral enough to be included. --Frmorrison (talk) 20:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I put it in, but User:MrX feels that unanimity at the talk page is not a good enough reason to insert something into the lead to balance out the lead's anti-Trump stance. He thinks the lead should be shorter, and I agree we should remove all of the material that relies upon primary sources. This info did not. The controversy is not about Comey's suitability for the job, but rather the timing of the dismissal in the middle of a colusion investigation. This is basic to the article and very obviously belongs in the lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

That makes no sense. As far as I can tell, one other person agrees with your proposed addition. For my part, your addition to the lead was inartfully written and borderline editorializing. The lead is supposed to summarize significant points. Sorry, but this is not one of them.- MrX 01:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary, exclusion of basic info like this from the lead strikes me as much more than borderline editorializing. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with MrX that that is a very inartfully written sentence that basically obscures the main thrust of what the sources say. Sorry, "whereas Comey's suitabilty for the job was not as big of an issue as the timing" is poorly drafted. Neutrality^talk 01:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Neutrality, how would you express that thought artfully? Can you draft it better? I know you like deleting things instead of improving them, but maybe you can make an exception here? Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

You know, the snark isn't going to win you any friends. Neutrality^talk 01:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I haven't been winning any anyway so it can hardly do any harm. You seriously would have tried to re-draft this if I had asked with utmost reverence? No way. Been there done that. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I may start an RFC about this tomorrow, perhaps with a more polished sentence. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

That text reads like a stream of consciousness narration of a POV. There's no little copy edit that's going to make a silk purse of a sow's ear. Or at least, not an encyclopedic purse. Best to drop it. There's plenty of other work to do here. SPECIFICO talk 02:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, isn't it lamentable that there's just no intelligible way to convey the notion that the controversy here is not about Comey's suitability for office, but rather about the timing of his removal. So regrettable. Sometimes basic facts just cannot be described by the English language. Sad! Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Anything, your editing has gone downhill since the last time I had the pleasure. It's not about timing. It's about conflict of interest. You know what that is, right? You just put your lips together and blow. SPECIFICO talk 02:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The alleged conflict of interest is because of the timing, i.e. the simultaneous Russia investigation. But thanks for being the first editor today who has given the slightest hint about how they would like to see this sentence revised. The controversy is not about Comey's suitability for office, but rather about the alleged conflict of interest arising from the simultaneous Russia investigations. Now maybe you can give a hint about how you would improve the Grassley sentence that you just blanked. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Synth can only be improved by removal. Done. SPECIFICO talk 03:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

That's too cryptic for me to parse. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Usually, when someone is fired, it's because their job performance is deemed inadequate, and they're no longer considered suitable for the job. That's not what the controversy has been about in this matter, and that's unusual, hence well worth clarifying for readers in the lead. I have tried to rephrase it given the discussion above. I would urge anyone who doesn't like this wording to propose an alternative for the lead:

The controversy surrounding Comey’s dismissal was not mainly about his suitability as FBI Director, but rather about whether the timing of the dismissal during the ongoing Russia investigation marked an effort by Trump to improperly cut short that investigation; many Democrats who had previously called for Comey's resignation or doubted his credibility also opposed the dismissal at this time because of Trump's alleged conflict of interest.

References

Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I've started an RFC about it below. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

BLP Violation

Editors are trying here to stamp out well-sourced information that might tend to reflect favorably upon Trump. In the immediately preceding talk page section, I described this activity in violation of WP:Preserve which says, "Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia". Another example is that User:Casprings has deleted the following:

“ The White House responded that "the president has never asked Mr. Comey or anyone else to end any investigation, including any investigation involving General Flynn". ”

References

According to WP:BLP, "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." I also note another Wikipedia policy: WP:UNRESPONSIVE, which says "Be sure to leave a comment about why you made the change. Try to use an appropriate edit summary." Caspring's deletion was unaccompanied by any edit summary, much less any discussion here at this talk page. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I just brought over a new summation of the article to provide a better link to the Comey Memos. Casprings (talk) 10:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Should we put Grassley back in the lead?

Let us consider U.S. Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa who is presently absent from this Wikipedia article. Previously, we had this in the lead:

Senator Charles Grassley has stated that Comey briefed him and another senator on the targets of the FBI's investigation and they heard nothing contradicting Trump's termination letter to Comey.

References

This was completely deleted from this BLP earlier today, by User:SPECIFICO with this edit summary: "delete SYNTH off topic and requires reader to supply implied connection."[22] Then, it was restored by User:JFG with this edit summary: "Undid revision 780596228 by SPECIFICO (talk) This is fully on-topic".[23] Then, it was again completely deleted from this BLP by User:Volunteer Marek, with this edit summary: "belongs in response section not lede - lede too long anyway".[24]

I agree with JFG that this obviously belongs in the lead, and obviously should not have been completely removed from this BLP. It is one of the few tiny things in this BLP that happen to corroborate what Trump said in his termination letter. It is reliably sourced to New York Magazine. Further sources are available, e.g. Brown, Pamela. "Source: Comey is 'not worried about any tapes'", CNN (May 12, 2017). Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

What are you asking? It belongs in the response section. Not that hard.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, neither you nor SPECIFICO made the slightest effort to move it to the response section. You just deleted it. Zap, gone. That clearly violates Wikipedia policy, see WP:Preserve. Which subsection of the "Aftermath" are you suggesting we put it in? In any event, I said above that I agree with JFG: it belongs in the lead. So, I am seeking input from other editors about whether it belongs in the lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I've started an RFC about it below. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Instead of trying to make drama out of this you could have just added it to the response section yourself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I did move it, as in "RE-move" it. Because as I said it's off-topic synthy nonsense that deflects and deceives the reader. SPECIFICO talk 11:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: How exactly was this phrase WP:SYNTH? — JFG ^talk 12:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I am curious as well. The article specifically quotes that the chair of the senate judiciary committee Grassley saying “Wild speculation that the FBI is targeting the president in a criminal or intelligence inquiry is not just irresponsible and unfounded” and before that in the article Grassley and Feinstein were briefed by Comey on said investigation, coming to the conclusion Trumps dismissal letter was correct. Unless I am misunderstanding the matter, which is always possible, this appears to be completely on topic with the dismissal of Comey and not "synthy" PackMecEng (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

As we know from RS reporting, Trump's letter stated that Comey three times told Trump that Trump is not under investigation. Grassley did not state that Comey did not three times tell Trump that Trump is under investigation. Equivocation and deflection are common devices public figures may use to blur scrutiny of their actions, but that does not mean that this encyclopedia should juxtapose these two fundamentally and logically distinct statements of fact. SPECIFICO talk 15:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Grassley did not state that Comey did not three times tell Trump that Trump is under investigation. – Can't make sense of this. Could you kindly rephrase your thoughts without double negatives? — JFG ^talk 16:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Aborted RFC about the lead

Should the lead include one or both of the following?

A. The controversy surrounding Comey’s dismissal was not mainly about his suitability as FBI Director, but rather about whether the timing of the dismissal was appropriate; many Democrats who had previously called for Comey's resignation or doubted his credibility also opposed the dismissal at this time because of Trump's alleged conflict of interest regarding the FBI's ongoing Russia investigation.

References

B. Senator Charles Grassley has said that Comey briefed him and another senator on the targets of the FBI's investigation and Grassley strongly implied that Comey told him Trump was not under investigation.

References

Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Support A and B. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose B Grassley's interpretation of what he thinks Comey might have indicated to him about a thing, is not suitable for the article, in any form or location. ValarianB (talk) 13:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose B, oppose A as written - as Valerian says, Grassley's interpretation of what he thinks Comey might have indicated to him is certainly not lead-worthy, and dubious as to even the body. As to A, I think I understand what it's trying to get at, but it's poorly written (the issue is really not that "the timing of the dismissal was inappropriate" but that the motives have been called into question - i.e., stymying the investigations - the timing is what many point to as evidence of bad motive, not necessarily the problem in itself). "Not mainly about his suitability" is also not clear - the word "suitable" is weird here (some critics have criticized his judgment at points, not his "suitability") I also don't think that's clearly supported by the sources. Neutrality^talk 16:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose A and B - A is awkwardly worded, and factually misleading as I've explained elsewhere on this page. Grassley's reflections are not worthy of mention in the lead. There are far more significant points that should be covered and the lead is too detailed as it is.- MrX 16:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose A and B - For the reasons stated in the two responses above mine. Dbrote (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose both. A is a classic example of improper synthesis. None of the cited sources expressly support the content saying what "the controversy" is "about." B is non-noteworthy recentism. From an encyclopedic standpoint what Grassley was told and what he implied is little more than a very minor clue in the news media's ongoing hunt for more noteworthy information that will likely eventually become public (e.g. what Comey actually told Trump, which will almost certainly come out when Comey is subpoenaed). The CNN source also doesn't support the content. Neither A nor B belongs in the article body, let alone in the lead section. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose both. Per Dr. Fleischman. I also agree that those statements do not belong in the body either. --Frmorrison (talk) 18:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose both - Pure crockery. POV. Suitability not even worth refuting. SPECIFICO talk 22:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Usually, when someone is fired, it's because their job performance is deemed inadequate, and they're no longer considered suitable for the job. That's not what the controversy has been about in this matter, which is unusual, and therefore well worth clarifying for readers in the lead. Regarding Grassley, the source's headline says "Grassley Strongly Implies That Comey Told Him Trump Isn’t Under Investigation". That's as relevant as anything else already in the lead, if not much more so. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

B definitely doesn't belong in the lede. A is awkwardly worded.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if there's any chance on Earth that people objecting to the precise language might offer an alternative, so I won't have to keep making proposals that are rejected on one technicality or another. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Re A, without combing through the sources with precision, I'd be more inclined to support content along the lines of, "Many commentators and Democratic politicians who had previously called for Comey's resignation nevertheless criticized the dismissal because they said it suggested an effort by Trump to interfere with the FBI's ongoing investigation of Trump campaign in connection with alleged interference of the 2016 presidential campaign by the Russian government." Re B, I think it's unsalvageable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Re A, that would work, thanks. I plan to put it in the lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Removal of the word "alleged"

I see that User:MrX is now assiduously deleting the word "alleged" prior to every accusation against Trump and against Russia, thus rendering the guilt of both in wikivoice. I object to this preposterous and relentless abuse of Wikipedia and its policies and guidelines. Per WP:Alleged (emphasis added):

“ Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate, although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear. So-called can mean commonly named, falsely named, or contentiously named, and it can be difficult to tell these apart. Simply called is preferable for the first meaning; detailed and attributed explanations are preferable for the others. ”

Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I forgot to address your question: Is there any reason to delete the word "allegedly"?. Yes, attribution is prominently provided which makes "allegedly" redundant. The addition of allegedly tends to cast doubt, and is not a fair representation of what sources report.- MrX 19:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Baloney User:MrX. You are attributing to sources that use the equivalent of the word "allegedly", while you omit that they do so. You are turning their statement of an allegation into a statement of fact in wikivoice. It's utterly preposterous.19:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC) Anythingyouwant (talk)

Comment: It's okay as long as we directly attribute to who said it. Example: "According to Person Y, Person Z said..." Then, that is not "wikivoice", but instead directly attributed to voice of person that made the statement. Sagecandor (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

If the NY Times says "Charles Manson asserts that killing people is harmless" then is it fine for us to say "According to the NY TImes, killing is harmless"? Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

No. It is okay to say, that person said that. Sagecandor (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Of course not, and that's not remotely similar to what we are discussing. The analogous example would be "According to the NY Times, Charles Manson asserts that killing people is harmless" as opposed to "According to the NY Times, Charles Manson allegedly asserts that killing people is harmless".- MrX 19:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I have fixed this particular problem.[25] Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Right. Sagecandor (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

We do not and should not say "alleged" when it is implicit in the phrasing, because that case doubt on the allegations. In MrX's edit, I think the first alleged should stay, the second should go. We should say, "FBI's investigation of alleged Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections," but not "Comey testified to Congress confirming Russia's alleged interference in the U.S. election." TFD (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Obviously I disagree. If you refer to the talk page of the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections article, you will see that there is no consensus for adding the word "alleged" because (non-cherry-picked) sources preponderantly treat the interference as fact. - MrX 14:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• I count 4 "allege-" in Hillary Clinton email controversy and 5 in Anthony Weiner sexting scandals. I see MrX has editing the former extensively. I'd like to know where he defines what is an allegation and what is a proven fact. Because the FBI has made a declaration about the emails, it has yet to release a statement giving a definitive answer on Russian interference.--v/r - TP 12:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Butter emails? Seriously, what does this have to do with this article? Apples and oranges. (And the IC has made a determination about Russian interference, as have many independent analysts, Tillerson and even Trump himself).Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

31 edits over two years, with the last being more than 6 months ago, hardly qualifies as extensively editing. I'm not going be baited into a meta-discussion about liberal bias on Wikipedia. Go have your fun somewhere else. This is a talk page for discussing improvements to this article.- MrX 14:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Then don't allow it to influence your editing. Be consistent. The allegations are alleged and wikivoice should not be used to claim it as fact.--v/r - TP 15:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't accept your premise. If you have concerns about my conduct, kindly take them to ANI, AE, or Arbcom. If you have objections to my edits here, explain specifically which edits and what about the edits you disagree with. Vague generalizations and unfounded aspersions aren't productive.- MrX 15:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with MrX that it's completely inappropriate to make this vague attack on another editor. This is the kind of thing that poisons discourse and turns productive editors away from the project. If you have some complaint, get diffs and bring to the proper forum. If you don't, then don't make such accusations. Neutrality^talk 15:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Appears to be the very definition of false equivalence. ValarianB (talk) 16:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Of course you all feel that way. But the fact of the matter is, you're all still trying to push to describe an allegation as fact.--v/r - TP 16:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

"at the pleasure of the President"

Enthusiast01 edited Dismissal of James Comey at 06:12, 15 May 2017 changing

Nevertheless, the president has the power to fire an FBI director for any reason or no reason at all.

to

Nevertheless, though appointed for a 10-year term, it is commonly accepted that an FBI director serves at the pleasure of the President, that the President has the power to dismiss an FBI director for any reason or no reason at all. However, the dismissal raised the issue of possible political interference by a sitting president into an existing investigation by a leading law enforcement agency.

I, Anomalocaris, edited Dismissal of James Comey at 07:25, 15 May 2017, removing "that an FBI director serves at the pleasure of the President," leaving the text as

Nevertheless, though appointed for a 10-year term, it is commonly accepted that the President has the power to dismiss an FBI Director for any reason or no reason at all. However, the dismissal raised the issue of possible political interference by a sitting president into an existing investigation by a leading law enforcement agency

Enthusiast01 reverted this change and I re-reverted.

To avoid edit warring, I believe a discussion would be helpful. Here is my reasoning supporting my change:

1. At the pleasure of the President redirects to Powers of the President of the United States#Powers of appointment, where it explains:

The president must also appoint his staff of aides, advisers, and assistants. These individuals are political appointments and are not subject to review by the Senate. All members of the staff serve "at the pleasure of the President". [Refs omitted]

This implies that "at the pleasure of the President" applies mainly to his (or her) staff of aides, advisers, and assistants, who are selected by the president, do not continue from one administration to the next, and are not subject to review by the Senate. They are completely different from the FBI Director, who does continue from one admistration to the next and is subject to review by the Senate. So, at minimum, if the "at the pleasure of the President" phrase really does apply to the FBI Director, we can't use it as a wikilink here until a better article is written for it that explains how the phrase includes offices that, unlike presidential staff, continue from one administration to the next and require Senate approval.

2. Neither of the references closely following use the phrase "at the pleasure of the President". Even if this phrase is correct and worthy of being in this article, we need a reference.

3. Without formal definitions but just based on ordinary meanings of words, "at the pleasure of the President" would seem to mean "as long as the President is pleased by the officeholder's performance; should the officeholder fail to please the President, the President may terminate the officeholder's service." But that is the same as the following point, "the President has the power to dismiss an FBI Director for any reason or no reason at all." So, if all we mean by "at the pleasure of the President" is its ordinary meaning and not some special legal meaning, it adds nothing.

But, my version still has three things wrong!

1. I left a dangling modifier: "though appointed for a 10-year term, it is commonly accepted that the President": It looks like the President is appointed for a 10-year term.
2. There's nothing "commonly accepted" about it. As I understand it, it's simply the law.
3. For consistency with Wikipedia style and other use in the article, names of offices not used as titles shouldn't be capitalized.

Therefore, I am changing it one more time:

Nevertheless, though the FBI director is appointed for a 10-year term, the president has the power to dismiss an FBI director for any reason or no reason at all. However, Trump's dismissal of Comey raised the issue of possible political interference by a sitting president into an existing investigation by a leading law enforcement agency.

I will make this change. I won't edit or revert this again (except to remove vandalism) unless and until warranted by discussion here. —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Anomalocaris - I'll suggest a bit of wording simplification and a couple cites

• "Although" instead of "Nevertheless, though";
• Adjust "a 10-year term" to "up to 10 years" reflecting the intent is to limit the term and historically has not been 10-years;
• Stop at he simply has the power without the extra "for any reason or no reason at all".
• Add cites

Nevertheless, though Although the FBI director is appointed for a 10-year term up to 10 years, the president has the power to dismiss an FBI director for any reason or no reason at all. However, Trump's dismissal of Comey raised the issue of possible political interference by a sitting president into an existing investigation by a leading law enforcement agency.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Articles to cite

Important pieces that should be cited in the article somewhere:

• Benjamin Wittes, What James Comey Told Me About Donald Trump, Lawfare (May 18, 2017)
• Michael S. Schmidt, Comey, Unsettled by Trump, Is Said to Have Wanted Him Kept at a Distance, New York Times (May 18, 2017).

Don't have time to do it right now but hoping someone will get to it at some point. Neutrality^talk 05:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Those are very useful sources for background. There's also relevant recent reporting about Rosenstein's Senate testimony that I think would be useful to include.- MrX 16:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)