Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:47, 8 July 2017

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the James Comey article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Barack Obama (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Barack Obama, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Barack ObamaWikipedia:WikiProject Barack ObamaTemplate:WikiProject Barack ObamaBarack Obama Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Chicago Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: FBI This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject FBI.

Template:Friendly search suggestions

Height

He is 6'8" - Did he play basketball or volleyball?64.53.191.77 (talk) 23:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

He plays basketball but didn't play on the varsity team at W&M but did play in the intramural league.Cbs527 (talk) 04:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

He's 6'8"! That's unusual enough to merit some mention somewhere in this article.--23.119.204.117 (talk) 13:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I added this fact, together with a citation to a newspaper article, but Bbb23 removed it. Nechemia Iron (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

It's trivia. It doesn't matter if it is reliably sourced or even if it's reported in more than one source. It has nothing to do with his notability. It's a silly thing to include in an encyclopedic article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

It has a lot to do with His notability. And it's VERY unusual. Are you 6 feet 8 inches?

I removed it once again since you butchered the clarity of the sentence to insert that obscure piece of trivia. -- ChamithN (talk) 06:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Reasons for dismissal

The article currently states 'During his testimony, Comey repeatedly misstated several key findings of the e-mail investigation into Clinton. As a result, President Trump dismissed Comey as FBI director on May 9, 2017.' Er... I'm really not sure that's true. Even assuming it was completely apolitical, the news is currently citing that the removal was for the handling of the press conference last year.--Gilderien Berate|List of good deeds 01:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you are exactly right.- MrX 01:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

No, you're not sound on our policy in this matter. See WP:NOTTRUTH and WP:BLP for guidance on this question. Generally, material added to Misplaced Pages must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them.

In this case, we editors don't evaluate whether a firing was "political" or "apolitical" - that's WP:OR.

Mr. Comey is a living person, protected by WP:BLP. Statements in our article about him must be verifiable in reliable sources, it must represent a neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV) and we can't decide the facts for ourselves (see WP:OR).

Correct procedure might be to:

• summarize the letter in which President Trump described the reasons for Mr. Comey's dismissal.
• locate reliable WP:SECONDARY sources which describe notable comment on the reasons for Mr. Comey's dismissal. We must be careful to cite a spectrum of notable opinions on the reasons for Mr. Comey's dismissal.

In other words, we don't just cite news reports of Attorney General Sessions' statements on the reasons for Mr. Comey's dismissal, we give other points of view provided they are from sufficiently notable people. Given the controversy on this topic at present, it's probably wise to limit the number of sources to a few, each representing a notable point of view on the matter. Nor can we be arbitrary in how we decide that (say, discounting the viewpoints expressed in the Wall Street Journal, Fox News Channel, or National Review because they present reporting and editorial opinion not shared by most other news outlets). We must cite a range of notable viewpoints in our article to make the reader aware a difference of opinion exists. loupgarous (talk) 09:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think either of us needs remedial lesson on Misplaced Pages content policies given that both of us have vastly more experience editing Misplaced Pages than you do. If you are defending the claim that Trump fired Comey because "Comey repeatedly misstated several key findings of the e-mail investigation into Clinton", then please cite the specific WSJ, Fox News, and National Review articles that support that view and we can work from there.- MrX 11:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Why is this still referenced for dismissal cause when the DOJ claims it is "False" - no other reliable sources are identified. See references.

"days after Comey reportedly requested increased resources from the DOJ for the FBI's investigation into Russia’s interference in the presidential election, a report which was later denied by the DOJ."Jbieber2001 (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Sorry, I am new -- I would like to make a suggestion to edit of an article.

The reason for the edit is because it is highly relevant to departure of James Comey, which is an important historic event of this year.

To be added AFTER THIS SECTION:

(((On May 10, Trump told reporters he had fired Comey because he "wasn't doing a good job". On May 11, President Trump told Lester Holt in a NBC News interview that Comey was "a showboat" and "grandstander", that his dismissal was "my decision" and "I was going to fire regardless of recommendation", directly contradicting the earlier statements by the White House and Vice President Mike Pence. )))

On May 12, Trump tweeted 'James Comey better hope that there are no "tapes" of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!' , which the media interpreted as a threat to Comey.

There is an ongoing discussion on whether this was or was not a threat, but of course the media *reaction* is completely factual. Thank you!! Dreche4k (talk) 09:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

References

1. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/863007411132649473
2. http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/12/politics/donald-trump-james-comey-threat/
3. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-james-comey-threat-tapes-conversations-fbi-director-firing-russia-ties-a7732336.html
4. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/12/donald-trump-threatens-james-comey-fbi-tapes
5. http://news.sky.com/story/trump-tweets-threat-to-ex-fbi-boss-james-comey-if-he-leaks-conversations-10874269

Done – Train2104 (t • c) 20:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Article on Comey's replacement started.. come help out

Article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Christopher_A._Wray

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Can the relevant parts of the lead and article be updated with some of this information? 77.66.12.7 (talk) 05:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

 Not done - Specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".- MrX 12:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

James Comey Hearing deserves its own article

It's my opinion that Comey's congressional hearing, due to heavy media coverage and analysis, is deserving of its own article. Let's have a discussion; what does the wikiverse think? Inspector Semenych (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

No. Why is there always a rush to create a new article for each day's news cycle? It's WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. Fold the relevant details into existing articles. If things really merit article splits, we get to that when it's necessary. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it was important event, but the basic effect was to add to articles that are already out there. The big one bing Russian interference in the 2016 United States electionsCasprings (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Yup. TimothyJosephWood 18:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Also Dismissal of James Comey, though I don't believe that needs to be a standalone article, as it was also created contrary to NOTNEWS and RECENTISM. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I can think of some worse example to be sure. Basket of deplorables is still an article, albeit after a messy AfD. For about three days Covfefe was it's own article, and I'm pretty sure if you load that AfD on an older computer it's a fire hazard. TimothyJosephWood 19:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

We need more AfDs, after enough time has passed for the RECENTISM to fade. There's also Comey memos for this particular subject. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

This is already one of the most eagerly anticipated, most-watched, most-discussed and most-controversial events to happen in Congress in years, and one of the most historic testimonies before the Congress in this Century, so far.

The former Director of the FBI testified that he didn't trust the President of the United States, whom he felt was making inappropriate demands for loyalty, and possibly committing the crime of obstruction of justice -- and apparently lying about his reasons for firing the FBI Director.

This wasn't an agricultural subsidies hearing, or a debate on a defense budget item, or a petty feud between factions. It was an unprecedented set of accusations -- from the nation's (former) top cop -- against the nation's President and his entourage, and against the nation's principal foreign adversary.

This was basically about whether or not the President is a crook, whether or not the nation has been betrayed by one of its former top generals, and whether or not the U.S. electoral system is directly under attack from Russia !

No matter which side you're on, this was the biggest single event in Congress this year, so far -- arguably dwarfing even the Health Care defeat.

It merits its own article. In months or years to come, perhaps, if this all comes to naught, the article could be condensed and squeezed back in to the Comey subject, but this is currently a HUGE story in itself, on multiple levels, and it would seem senseless and irresponsible to treat it as a non-event.

~ Penlite (talk) 11:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

This entire comment is literally the definition of WP:RECENTISM. TimothyJosephWood 12:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The hearing clearly is a highly significant historical event, much anticipated and watched by millions around the world and extensively discussed and analysed. It is without any doubt at all clearly notable and clearly deserves its own article. It is only a question of someone writing that article. I would welcome anyone to go ahead and create it. --Tataral (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing

The Source for Comey is a registered Republican should read

Comey, James (July 7, 2016). Hillary Clinton Email Investigation. C-SPAN. Event occurs at 01:35:55. Retrieved July 7, 2016. I have been registered Republican for most of my adult life. Not registered any longer.

Currently it is about 8b minutes off. It reads:

Comey, James (July 7, 2016). Hillary Clinton Email Investigation. C-SPAN. Event occurs at 01:43:06. Retrieved July 7, 2016. I have been registered Republican for most of my adult life. Not registered any longer.Relsnops (talk) 02:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Done. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 03:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Supreme Court Consideration section: Footnote 72 does quote the individual cited, John Brittain, but the exact quotation is not found there. (I discovered this by going to the source to see if the misspelling, “Bushies”, was part of the original quote or a transcription error; no answer, as only part of the quote given in Misplaced Pages was in the source article.) As a relative newbie, I am stumped: go to Mr. Brittain’s organization’s page or an internet search to find the actual quotation? Edit the Misplaced Pages article to use only what was said in the footnoted source? Something else? I don’t think cutting Mr. Brittain]s comments entirely is helpful, but the footnote of an exact quote should lead to that exact quote, no? Sallijane (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Video

Anyone aware of whether there is an official US Government video version of the testimony that would be public domain and able to upload to Commons? TimothyJosephWood 12:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Alleged memos

During the hearing of Comey, he stated that he had written the memos and orchestrated their leaks. Is it wise to keep language such as "allegedly written by Comey" in the article? Supertanno (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Comey is otherwise not suitable for Donalt Trump crash. He is al to male. Mr President has it been "swallowed". (How that could watch them all, yes) Against President Trrump "our" should use someone like Monika Levinski. On the other hand. Mr President the confidence to can the population against win. By, - of big power Russia, publicly to distance from Diplomate-terroriste. The i! st first. And. The insurgents (anti Moskva / anti-SHWGK / anti-GRU / anti-FSB-SWR) Misplaced Pages - Uwer's to support it via small donation to Misplaced Pages Proect. So for all the interested parties become clear-not is the same of the Government in Washington and the Government in Moscow.Tatarsfann (talk) 11:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The Letter/Wiener's Laptop

This sentence is a bit troubling from my standpoint: "His decisions have been regarded by a number of analysts, including Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight, to have likely cost Clinton the election." The "number of analysts" is actually three avowed liberal blogs sympathetic to Hillary Clinton: 538 (mentioned), Vox (which cites 538), and Vanity Fair. As has been established, it's acceptable to use biased sources, but not to sway the tone of the article with these biased sources. It's important that the reader is not given the impression that the "analysts" are in any way independent or disinterested. SInce I see no reason to single out Nate Silver from the trio, I removed his specific reference from a few rephrasing suggestions I came up with:

• a) "...regarded by several liberal blogs to have likely cost Clinton the election."
• b) "...regarded by several liberal blogs to have likely cost Clinton the election. Others are skeptical of this notion and dispute that the letter had any discernible effect."
• c) "His handling of the discovery on Wiener's laptop was met with bipartisan criticism."

Another option that actually may be my preferred choice is to remove this tidbit altogether, as one letter a man wrote probably does not belong in the opening paragraphs of a biography of that man's life. Thoughts? Hidden Tempo (talk) 03:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Literally none of the sources you describe as "liberal blogs" are, in actuality, liberal blogs. Vanity Fair is a well-respected dead-tree magazine. Same with 538; it's an analysis site written by Nate Silver and others (and hence we cite it as an analyst) published by a mainstream media organization. I'm not aware of any significant description of 538 as "liberal" among reliable sources. Vox is a news and analysis site, and it's the only one of the three which could be fairly described as "liberal" in terms of any significant editorial slant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I mean we could go back and forth all day about what qualifies a magazine/blog for the "liberal" or "conservative" label. I don't know if you can find a single story published by Vanity Fair or Vox (or Nate Silver, for that matter) that reflects favorably or reports positive information related to Republicans and/or the president, but I couldn't. Anyway, as I stated, the third option is my personal preference anyhow. I rewrote the lead in a new section below this one if you want to take a look. I'm open to keeping the final two sentences, but I stand by my assertion that the reporting of one New York Times reporter relying on an anonymous alleged "letter" is undue, POV, and unnecessarily detailed for the lead.Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The statement, as written, is well referenced. Nate Silver is an analytic journalist whose analysis has been reported by a large number a media outlets including the self described "fair and balanced" network Fox News which I doubt many would refer to as "liberal". The sources are provided so that the reader can reference the information directly. None of these sources are "avowed" (self described) "liberal blogs". To add "liberal" to the statement without reliable sources that verify such would be expressing an editor's point of view which an encyclopedia does not do.

What would be acceptable, if you feel it is necessary, would be a contrasting analysis backed up by reliable, independent sources with in depth coverage.

This is far from a "tidbit" - Comey's actions, of which this letter and it's possible influence on the election is part of, are currently being investigated by the FBI, the Inspector General’s office and Office of Government Ethics and is a major part of his professional career and should be part of the lead. CBS527 18:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Nate Silver (as far as I'm aware) has made no effort to hide his liberal leanings, but you're right, "avowed" wasn't the right word. I probably meant to say "devout." And I'm in no way insinuating that liberalism is a bad thing or that liberal blogs are automatically discredited, but if you're going to use the word "analysts" to describe 3-4 liberal writers/bloggers, I think the word "liberal" is a highly relevant descriptor. If we absolute must put the opinion of these liberal writers/bloggers that Comey's letter is why Clinton lost, then yes, I do think it's necessary to add something to the effect of: "Others believe that the letter had no effect on the outcome of the election, and have referred to suggestions to the contrary as 'a groundless liberal myth.'" That link is just something I dug up, there are much better sources I'm sure that use other descriptors. What source are you using for what you just said about the FBI and IG investigating the Comey letter? Also, what do you think about my revised lead below? (putting this particular piece aside, for now) Thanks. Hidden Tempo (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Revising the lead

Upon taking another look at the lead, I think it's probably time for an overhaul/cleanup of the whole thing. We have summaries of his early life, education, and career in the lead instead of in the appropriate sections, and some POV stuff that's covered in great detail in Dismissal of James Comey. Here's a revision draft, with new material in italics:

James Brien Comey Jr. (born December 14, 1960) is an American lawyer who served as the seventh Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) from September 4, 2013 until May 9, 2017.

As the director of the FBI, he was responsible for overseeing the FBI's investigation of the Hillary Clinton email controversy. His role in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, particularly with regard to his public communications, was highly controversial. Comey's July 5 press conference regarding the controversy, as well as his letter to congress related to the discovery of new Clinton emails, was met with bipartisan criticism.

Comey was dismissed by President Donald Trump on May 9, 2017. A statement released by the White House said that removing Comey will help bring the Russia investigation to a conclusion. Later that day, Trump stated that he fired Comey because he "was not doing a good job."http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/10/trump-why-i-fired-james-comey-238212 In an interview on May 11 with NBC's Lester Holt, Trump criticized Comey for being a "showboat" and added that he was thinking of "this Russia thing with Trump and Russia" when he decided to dismiss Comey, referring to his frustration with the ongoing investigation into Russian intereference in the 2016 election. The New York Times published a report that in a private conversation with the Russian government, Trump stated that he "faced great pressure on the Russian investigation. That's taken off". The Times also reported that Trump stated that he fired Comey to "ease" the Russian investigation against him, calling him a "nut job". According to a personal memo allegedly written by Comey, Trump asked him to personally end the investigation into General Michael Flynn.

Those last two sentences contain highly POV language due to the fiercely contested and ambiguous nature of the conversations, however it's probably too much detail for the lead anyway and can also be moved to main "Dismissal" page). Again, the deleted information was removed from this lead draft for the sake of conciseness and for organization, as these sections can clearly be moved to the subsections. No references need to be added or removed save for the Politico article. Anybody have any objections or suggestions for this version? Normally I'd just be BOLD, but this is somewhat long-standing material and want to invite collaboration.Hidden Tempo (talk) 02:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Those last two sentence are neither too detailed nor POV. They're a huge part of this story.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

MrX, did you read my edits or did you just take a quick skim and revert the whole thing? I added the citation for the "cn" tag in the second sentence of the article (now reverted), deleted his duplicate "private sector" time as it's already in the "Private Sector" section (biographical detail is still there), and removed highly POV editorializing ("Trump then sensationally admitted that the true reason for the dismissal was that"). I also added the findings of experts (not Vanity Fair "analysts") on the Comey letter, required per WP:V when reliable sources disagree. As I'm sure you'll acknowledge, NPR, Bloomberg, and the New York Times are reliable. So. Of this material, what do you specifically object to? Hidden Tempo (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because the vast majority of it was bad. For example, you removed the third paragraph which contained a summary of his career. Information about his political affiliation should not be in the lead since he did not hold a political office. The American Association for Public Opinion Research material should be attributed to them (not 'scientists'). Also, the lead is supposed to summarize the article. This material is not even in the article. The NYT attribution that you added in two places is unnecessary. Trump's dubious rebuttals don't belong in the lead. - MrX 15:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your opinion that my edit was bad, although I of course disagree. Your response here is extremely confusing.

• I removed the third paragraph (his early 2000's career, not a "summary") since (as I just stated) it a duplicate paragraph from the "Private Sector" section. There's no reason to copy-paste the "Private Sector" section into the lead. It makes the lead needlessly long.
• I didn't put the information about his political affiliation in the lead, only added the citation (fulfilling MelanieN's cn tag. But even if you felt that it shouldn't be the lead, you left it in anyway! So you see the confusion here lol. You never answered my question. Did you read the edit or just skim it?
• The AAPOR material is attributed to them because...they did the study. Take it up with NPR, The New York Times, and Bloomberg if you feel they cited the wrong study. If writers from a fashion mag are "analysts," scientists from AAPOR cited by are unquestionably scientists. Nate Silver is given undue weight in my opinion, but the least we can do is balance his opinion out with that of actual science. Agreed? Misplaced Pages:Verifiability says if reliable sources disagree, they must both be represented. See for yourself.
• Your opinion that Trump's reasons for firing Comey are "dubious" is not relevant to Misplaced Pages. Excluding Trump's response because MrX feels that it's "dubious" is textbook POV. Again, I think the only dismissal-related information that belongs in the lead is the first exceedingly neutral sentence "On May 9th, Trump dismissed Comey," but if we must get into the weeds as to the reasons and background of the dismissal right in the lead, then we need to include Trump's response, not just what the New York Times claims that an anonymous source claims. As disinterested editors, we don't get to pick and choose which dismissal reasons we include and which ones we don't. The first reason the POTUS gave for the firing was that he "wasn't doing a good job," and that needs to go into the lead.
• You didn't respond to your implied opinion that you think the language "Trump then sensationally admitted that the true reason for the dismissal was that" is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Any comment on that? Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class Chicago articles
• Mid-importance Chicago articles
• WikiProject Chicago articles
• C-Class law articles
• Low-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Unknown-importance
• C-Class FBI articles
• Unknown-importance FBI articles
• WikiProject FBI articles
• WikiProject United States articles