Cannabis Sativa

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Hardwarz (talk | contribs)
79 edits
No edit summary
Line 227: Line 227:
::::[[User:Anythingyouwant]], go for it. But keep it neutral. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 01:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
::::[[User:Anythingyouwant]], go for it. But keep it neutral. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk: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... [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 01:47, 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... [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 01:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

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


== I assume this article is secure against vandalism? ==
== I assume this article is secure against vandalism? ==

Revision as of 01:53, 13 May 2017

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))[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Use "Dismissal of FBI Director James Comey" for above reasons. Avisnacks (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Support "Dismissal of James Comey" per User:Al83tito and User:JFG. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 00:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • Support – Shorter is enough, per WP:CONCISE. — JFG talk 21:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - "Dismissal of James Comey" seems most appropriate at this time. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and keep the previous title as a redirect. Proposed title is more concise.- MrX 22:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 23:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks. This RM is the better format. — JFG talk 07:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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![reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This is significant and should absolutely be mentioned.- MrX 16:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Napolitano did not return "Two days later" - he returned two weeks later. Neutralitytalk 18:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Tendentious editing

https://en.wikipedia.org/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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

In your edit here[17], 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dismissal_of_James_Comey&diff=prev&oldid=780114120

Leave a Reply