Template:Did you know nominations/Inspector General Report on FBI and DOJ's Actions in the 2016 Election

Created by Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk). Nominated by Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) at 02:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC).

• I am honored to be co-credited for this article. But apart from approving the AFC and pointing Jerry to DYK I had little involvement. That said I am pleased to review this nomination.– Lionel^(talk) 04:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• @Jerry the Bellybutton Elf: Here are two things that standout:

1. The article needs a little work on referencing. Every para must have an inline citation. For example this: "...which had a deleterious effect on the FBI's credibility." Also the Focus section need a cite.
2. The hook needs to be exciting. E.g. you could use Clinton's "But my emails" quote. Or Trump's "den of thieves." Trumo is so colorful. Anything he says is perfect for a DYK hook lmao. – Lionel^(talk) 04:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jerry the Bellybutton Elf: Wow, Jerry article looks great! One last referencing thing. In addition to every para needing cites, every quote needs a cite. I see one last item that needs a ref: "in response to requests from Congress, various organizations, and members of the public". And the hook is bigly winning. – Lionel^(talk) 07:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral
  :
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Overall: I had to source a quotation in the lead. Earwig reported copyvio probably but this article liberally uses public domain content. I put Focus section in a quote. Trump hook may seem contentious however Trump has lowered the bar for contentious lol. Can't really read the text on the pic, but it's discernible that it's a government report. Great job, Jerry. – Lionel^(talk) 05:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

level of criminality unsuitable for the Main Page. ^Falling_Gravity

05:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• csdnew
  00:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Narutolovehinata5 with all due to Falling, the policy he cited to reject the hook, WP:BLPCRIME does not apply in this case. BLPCRIME says: "This section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures." Comey is a public figure. Because there is no policy to disqualify the hook I am unstriking ALT1.– Lionel^(talk) 01:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

csdnew

02:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Lionel: The "den of thieves" apparently refers to a bunch of people who worked under Comey, not just to Comey himself (the alleged "ringleader" of this group). Falling_Gravity 03:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Trump did not identify individual members of the "group"--you can't have a BLP issue with an unknown person in a group. BLPCRIME: "This section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals..." I don't think I'm going out on a limb here when I say that I don't think anyone puts much stock in anything Trump says. And it's very hooky.

Let's see what other editors think... – Lionel^(talk) 02:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Giving prominence to so dubious, libelous, and deceitful a comment by Trump is pretty bad. Let's face it, Comey has always had a sterling reputation, and only his judgment is in doubt about his decision to restart the email investigation (which hurt Clinton and helped Trump), while Trump has never been accused of being honest, only of speaking his mind. He is a RS for what he says, but never a RS for the veracity of what he says. --

talk

) PingMe 03:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, even if this was not a Trump-related hook, the hook wording would still be very questionable. Regardless of our opinions on Trump, this hook, even if it didn't fall under

csdnew

10:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I would personally say it does not fall under BLPCRIME, but there are still concerns for BLP as even though trump frequently makes similar statements, "ringleader" is very pejorative. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm seeing what perhaps appears to be some let's say for lack of a better word resistance to the Trump hook. Maybe we (Jerry the Bellybutton Elf) should consider an alternate... – Lionel^(talk) 02:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I have been thinking and can't really come up with a good hook if mentioning quotes about people is off limits. What about mentioning the famous Peter Strzok text, his broken promise to "stop" Trump from becoming president? Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I think a hook that somehow does not involve Trump, or at least not President Trump, may need to be done here. Writing a non-political hook about the topic can be quite tricky, but it's possible.

csdnew

00:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• ALT2:... that President Trump reacted to the Inspector General report on FBI and DOJ actions in the 2016 election by denying the report's conclusion that the FBI acted with no political bias against him, and by falsely claiming that the report "totally exonerates him" with respect to the Special Counsel investigation.^[1][2][3]

WP:DYKHOOK. Also, it should be the form of a question. ^Falling_Gravity

23:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• ALT3:... that President Trump reacted to the Inspector General report on FBI and DOJ actions in the 2016 election by denying the report's conclusion that the FBI acted with no political bias against him?^[1][2][3]

Okay, how about that? --

talk

) PingMe 00:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

That hook is not hooky. Not in the least bit creative or interesting. That fact of the matter is noone really cares about the "Trump lies people die" narrative. Oh wait--am I getting my talking points mixed up?– Lionel^(talk) 00:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

talk

) PingMe 02:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

This is my first one of these but I think it's common sense that the hook shouldn't be actively repeating the opinions of activist journalists from the LA Times and NBC. It's gotta be factual. Also Naruto just said that we should try to stay away from Trump and both of those hooks are about Trump. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 01:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

So far we've avoided activist opinions, although Wikipedia does document such things. We do NOT only document "truth" or "facts", but also opinions in RS. When we do, we attribute them. Your first suggestion deviated far from the facts by highlighting Trump's deceptive, non-factual statements, so your objection to opinions in RS is rather odd. Trump is less "reliable" than nearly any other source. He's only a RS for what he says, but not for the factuality of what he says. There's a huge difference.

The two suggestions I proposed are strictly factual, not activist opinions, although Fox News viewers would interpret them that way. They don't usually like real facts about Trump, and often don't even know them because Fox won't report them.

Naruto's suggestion can make it easier to reach consensus, but it's not binding or policy-based. Sometimes compromise is necessary, but if it smacks of censorship, that's a serious NPOV violation, so we also need to avoid that.

A good hook could document a fundamental conclusion(s) of the article. What are they? I listed two of them above: (1) the FBI acted with no political bias against Trump, and the report did not exonerate Trump with respect to the Special Counsel investigation. Are there others worth using? --

talk

) PingMe 02:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Nothing personal but now you've outstayed your welcome. Maybe you could go explore some forums or blogs away from Wikipedia and go post about Fox News viewers and spam conspiracy theories about "factuality[sic]" over there. Suggesting POV hooks isn't helpful, and it's disruptive to the discussion, as is your soapboxing about Trump and downplaying of the seismic Strzok texts. We'll take it from here. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 04:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

"Nothing personal" and you make it personal? Is that some type of newbie personal attack? After 15 years here I've seen it all, so get off your high horse and chill. We don't need any ownership or battlefield attitude here. A bit of collaborative mentality would be fine. I'm all for that. --

talk

) PingMe 05:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Let's just say it's time for ALT4... – Lionel^(talk) 11:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

What we need is a hook that doesn't try to make a political point for one side or the other. That's hard to find, because there isn't much coverage of this that is neutral - or many editors who feel neutral about it. Maybe we should go back to basics. How about:

• ALT 4 ...that the Inspector General of the
  U.S. Department of Justice investigated how the department handled its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails, and produced a 568 page report?^[1]

MelanieN (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• That's ALT0 all over again! This place is crazy lol. 21 days later we're back to square one, except this time I'm APPROVING THIS HOOK! Why did I think we could milk one of Trump's quotes for some Main Page entertainment? Thank you Melanie. – Lionel^(talk) 04:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• ALT 5 ...that the
  Hillary Clinton email investigation
  ?

  Sorry to add another hook to the fray, but this one hearkens back to the original ALT1 hook. ^Falling_Gravity 07:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• As a co-creator of the article, you can't be approving it. Seriously, somebody else needs to review this nom.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

csdnew

11:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

ALT4 and ALT5 are approved. Per the rules I am an uninvolved editor. Narutolovehinata5's wild speculation about my political inclination and what bearing if any it has on my capacity as reviewer is a clearcut personal attack "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views" WP:NPA. – Lionel^(talk) 22:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

csdnew

23:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Per the rules I am an uninvolved editor. The rules do not disqualify editors who are not "neutral" using your word. If you are trying to disqualify me as a not-neutral editor then you need to go to ANI. And here's a warning for you: do not strike my comments. Revert my comment again and I'll see you at

WP:ANEW. – Lionel^(talk

) 00:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I have requested that some outside, uninvolved person - someone familiar with DYK and not involved in US Politics articles - come and take a look at this discussion and decide whether to approve it for publication and what hook(s) to use. IMO everyone here is operating in good faith but is too emotionally involved to make the final decision. I include myself in that assessment. MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• @MelanieN:
  • where in the DYK Rules regarding Reviewers is there a prohibition against editors who have been accused of being "not-neutral"? Whatever that means.
  • How is such a "policy" not a violation of "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views" WP:NPA?
  • What is the scope of this "policy"? Is it to be applied only to Lionelt? Or only editors accused of being pro-Trump? – Lionel^(talk) 01:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment First of all, @Lionelt:, stop approving hooks. You may only be on the edge of being technically involved, but you're certainly not neutral, and you're not the only one in this discussion who isn't. Leave it to a neutral party. Secondly, as someone who works quite a bit with DYK and ERRORS, I'd be tempted not to promote this at all. Politics is obviously not barred from DYK, but I really don't think we need what is obviously such a hot-button issue on the front page with all its ensuing issues at ERRORS (because someone will complain, regardless of what the hook is). Furthermore, from a purely personal DYK standpoint, the earlier hooks are controversial, and the later ones (4 and 5) aren't very interesting, or hooky. Comments from other DYK regulars are welcomed. Black Kite (talk) 12:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
• What if we went with something like:

ALT6:... that Donald Trump and James Comey both disagreed with the results of the Inspector General report on FBI and DOJ actions in the 2016 election?

Source 1: "'The end result was wrong. There was total bias,' Trump said during a live interview on 'Fox & Friends'" LA Times

Source 2: "In a message posted to Twitter on Thursday afternoon, Comey wrote: 'I respect the DOJ IG office, which is why I urged them to do this review. The conclusions are reasonable, even though I disagree with some...'" Washington Post

I mean, at least to my mind, that's the real interesting thing about the report: various people from all sides in various ways saw it as a travesty and also as vindicating their own position. Not that often you get such widespread agreement on everyone disagreeing with each other and themselves at the same time. GMG^talk 12:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• in any form. Way too contentious and nuanced to boil down to a single short paragraph. Guy (Help!) 13:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)