Talk:Durham special counsel investigation

Partisan and misleading actions by Barr and Durham

Soibangla, I wonder if a section devoted to this topic would be informative? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

yeah, I've been keeping that in the back of my mind but it hasn't yet gelled. It's scattered in bits and pieces across multiple sources. Chait and others have written a bit about it since the NYT story. Maybe reporting on Durham's report will help. soibangla (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

here comes the Senate Judiciary Committee

Durbin Statement On Reported Abuses By Special Counsel Durham[1] soibangla (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

That's interesting, assuming it follows the recent reporting about Durham and Barr Andre🚐 23:20, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Independent analysis

Technology expert Brian Krebs (a reliable source under WP:EXPERTSPS) provided some analytical commentary, saying the inquiry could lead to a chilling effect disincentivizing experts from sharing information with the FBI in the future. DFlhb (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

There are still unanswered questions about the weird contacts between Trump-, Mercer- and Devos-associated servers and Alfa Bank. These were not routine contacts. More should be added to the article. The suspicion remains that there was more to Manafort sharing polling data. More data packets and coordination had to have happened in both directions. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

This seems like WP:OR, and unrelated to my post. Keep in mind that DNS lookups are data packets transmitted between the origin server (Alfa bank) and a DNS server. DNS lookups don't involve packets being exchanged between Alfa server and the Trump server; they are merely a prerequisite for such a transfer, but don't indicate such a transfer took place. (I say "WP:OR", because that's exactly the kind of material I spent half an hour looking for sources for, and haven't yet; if I'd found it, I'd have posted that, rather than the Krebs link) DFlhb (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Caution

We need to exercise caution when applying the new Durham conclusions to this article. His report is still new, shows lots of partisan bias (just like any statements from Trump and Barr), and contradicts many findings by Mueller and Horowitz. We need to be patient and then use secondary reliable sources that have analyzed and digested Durham's conclusions as our sources, not depending on the primary source. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

This isn't inaccurate. It's a straight up fabrication leading the reader to believe the exact opposite of the truth. 140.141.135.64 (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I mean the article. Your comment is fine. 140.141.135.64 (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

restoration of challenged content

Seveneleven19 I reverted your edit, you are obliged to follow BRD rather than restore. Please self-revert and bring the matter here. Your assertion the original content is incorrect is false.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Durham_special_counsel_investigation&diff=prev&oldid=1155184935 soibangla (talk) 03:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and enforced BRD, leaving a good edit summary. Now Seveneleven19 can discuss here and seek a consensus for their change. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

POV article

This article is very poorly written and non-neutral. While mainstream sources call the final report "devastating to the FBI" (CNN) and say it "sharply criticizes FBI’s 2016 Trump campaign probe" (Wash. Post) , this article goes to extreme lengths to minimize the criticism, downplay the findings, insinuate the investigation was politically motivated, etc... Red Slapper (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree to the extent that the article casts some doubt as to the validity of the report in the lede, i.e. "Although the report alleged FBI confirmation bias and a "lack of analytical rigor", it did not allege political motivation and Durham failed to find what Trump alleged to be a "deep state" plot against him." It ought to say what the report did say, rather than emphasize what it did not, per MOS:DOUBT. Doubt as to the report's findings should be directly attributed to sources (i.e. Washington Post reporter John Q. Public stated that the report "failed to find..." GuardianH (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Reference #1:

Mr. Durham delivered a report that scolded the F.B.I. but failed to live up to the expectations of supporters of Donald J. Trump that he would uncover a politically motivated "deep state" conspiracy...it accused the F.B.I. of "confirmation bias" rather than making a more explosive conclusion of political bias."

Reference #16:

Special counsel John Durham found no evidence that the US justice department and the FBI conspired in a deep-state plot...Durham’s inquiry failed to uncover any blockbuster revelations suggesting the bureau targeted Trump out of political motivations

(emphasis mine) These are statements of what the report did not say. Oftentimes what people don't say is more important than what they do say, and not reporting what wasn't said can enable lies of omission, but it can be hard to find journalists who have such a mastery of the topic that they know how to spot them. These references were written by Charlie Savage and Hugo Lowell, respectively, two guys who have been all over this and related stories better than just about anyone else one can name. They know everything that was alleged before and during the investigation, including by Fox News hosts and guests, so now they look to see if the final report actually alleges it. And it didn't allege a politically motivated deep state plot, and these reporters state as such. soibangla (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

MOS:DOUBT has to do with the specific words used to introduce claims, not the actual content of the claims themselves. If reliable sources report on the significance of the report not finding some things, then the article should mention that. Shells-shells (talk) 23:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, though, the conclusions of the report should not be described using the words 'alleged', 'asserted', etc., unless there is a good reason to cast doubt on them. As of now, reliable sources do not seem to have significantly criticized the accuracy of the report's conclusions—in fact, they seem to generally report that the report mostly retreads old ground and repeats already-established findings. Shells-shells (talk) 23:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for changing that, I was soon to. soibangla (talk) 23:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Since the Durham's conclusions and statements are often at odds with Mueller and Horowitz, and are largely his very partisan and Trumpian opinions, not real "findings", we should attribute them as we would any other partisan source. Done properly, it shouldn't look like a deprecation. Whenever such conclusions are widely criticized in RS, that's what we usually do. If RS were peacefully just accepting his conclusions, we would just state them, but that's not the case. He's getting shredded and trashed for a report described as what amounts to an op-ed.

When one reads his failed prosecution of Danchenko, one sees how Durham pressed forward with false accusations and misunderstandings, which ended up not getting traction, so he lost the case. Reading the report, we find him repeating the same errors and false and unproven charges. He didn't even change the report to reflect the fact his arguments didn't hold up in court. In the report, he is still prosecuting a failed case. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:27, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

We need a Reactions section soibangla (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Bingo! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I would like to see specific examples of how this article goes to extreme lengths to minimize the criticism, downplay the findings, insinuate the investigation was politically motivated, etc so the POV template can be removed as soon as possible. soibangla (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

One example is the repeated removal of the main finding of the report (as noted by mainstream sources like CNN and the WSJ), that the FBI investigation should never have been opened, because there was no evidentiary basis for that. There are many others, but we'll start with that one. Red Slapper (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

"Main finding of the report"? No, that's not a "finding" but Durham's fringe, Trumpian, opinion, and it runs contrary to many RS and other investigations, such as Mueller's and Inspector General Horowitz's. His statement that an investigation should not have been opened on Trump campaigners, who were doing very suspicious things with Russians and in Russia, reads like a literal Russian asset speaking. It makes no sense to drop the ball with such stuff going on. The things they were doing definitely justified a full investigation, as other investigations and sources make plain. Be careful, because it seems like you're pushing a fringe opinion. Our articles, based on many RS, make plain the investigations were proper and fully predicated on good evidence. That Durham takes another tack and echoes Trump's deceptive narrative just shows how partisan he is. His report should not be taken at face value, and many RS are tearing it apart. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

You may think it is fringe, but that is the conclusion of the report, and we are hiding it (unlike mainstream sources which highlight it), which is why I placed that tag on it. Red Slapper (talk) 01:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

As I explained above, it's Durham's opinion, one not backed by other, much better, investigations and reports. Seriously, Durham is fringe. In his report, he's prosecuting a case he lost in court. His arguments and conclusions don't hold water. You can't trust him. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

"the FBI investigation should never have been opened, because there was no evidentiary basis for that."

Durham muddies the water by implying the Steele dossier was the trigger for the opening of the Trump-Russia/Crossfire Hurricane investigation. Right there he's wrong. The FBI didn't even have the first reports when they opened their investigation. They had loads of suspicious information to justify opening the investigation into Trump and his campaign. They just needed proof that Trump knew, and they got it. They had evidence of hacking, already back from 2014 and 2015, evidence that Trump talked with Russians at the Miss Universe contest in 2013 about running for president (long before making Americans aware of his plans), myriad suspicious and secretive meetings all over Europe between Trump's people and actual Russian spies, and finally they got evidence that Trump knew and didn't report the Russian offer of stolen emails to help his campaign.

That was plenty of probable cause to open a full investigation. They already had been collecting evidence, but were targeting Russia. Now they just needed to change the target to include Trump's campaign. The "Russian interference" investigation turned into the "Trump-Russia" investigation of how much Trump and his people were helping the Russians. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, Durham's personal opinions and interpretation haven't really been given the sort of coverage that would justify putting them in the lead. The lead's purpose is to summarize the overarching impact, not to quote-farm every person involved; and the overarching summary in mainstream WP:RS coverage is that the report found nothing. --Aquillion (talk) 08:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

This is nonsense. Durham is not some random "person involved" , and the report is not just "his personal opinions" - it's the result of a years' long investigation. You may think he got it all wrong, you may question his methodology, but we are not here to report on your views, but on the report itself,

Mainstream sources put this conclusion front and center. CNN put it on the headline of its coverage. we are hiding it, which is why this article needs to be tagged as violating the neutral point of view. Red Slapper (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Red Slapper, I have added Durham found there had been inadequate predication to immediately open a full investigation rather than a preliminary investigation to the lead. Please proceed to specify other POV concerns you have. soibangla (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Red Slapper, if you have the time, please would you begin enumerating the many others of POV issues you've identified in the article? I'd like to get busy addressing them to preclude a common occurrence of a POV tag going up but never coming down. soibangla (talk) 17:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think your latest edit addressed my first concern. Rather than echoing what mainstream sources like CNN and WSJ wrote (which is that the Durham investigation concluded the Trump investigation should not have been opened), you wrote a mealy-mouthed sentence that implies the issue was with the immediacy or the the scope, rather than the decision to open an investigation based on no evidence.

But if you want to get a head start on a few other issues:

• Durham alleged the defendants had deceived the FBI, rather than alleging the FBI acted improperly toward Trump - we are not in the business of suggesting what he should have charged (certainly not in wikipedia's voice), only report on what he charged. So that needs to be changed to Durham charged the defendants with lying to the FBI
• Although the report alleged FBI confirmation bias and a "lack of analytical rigor", it did not find political motivation or what Trump alleged to be a "deep state" plot against him. - Special Counsel's report are findings or conclusions, not allegations.
• It is undue weight to give the lawyer of one of the main bad actors in this saga, who was fired from the FBI over his actions, a lengthy last word in the lead. I'd recommend we excise it from the lead completely, or at a minimum, balance it with a quote from someone who views the report positively.

These will do far a start, for the lead alone. There are many more. Red Slapper (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I do not object to changing "alleged" to "found" in that sentence, nor to removing the McCarthy or Goelman comments. We certainly are not in the business of suggesting what he should have charged, but that's not remotely close to what the sentence does. It's a statement of fact of what he did and did not do.

Maybe I missed it, but please would you provide the WSJ source you reference? Did you also reference a WaPo source earlier? I'd like to see that one, too. I take issue with CNN reporting "Durham concluded that the FBI should never (emphasis mine) have launched a full investigation," as I don't see the report says that nor do I see other RS reporting it. Maybe someone else can. CNN seems to be an outlier here. Durham says the FBI was too hasty to jump straight to full, not that they never should have. Consequently, I did not write a mealy-mouthed sentence.

There are many more I'm ready, please proceed. soibangla (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

In the sentence Durham alleged the defendants had deceived the FBI, rather than alleging the FBI acted improperly toward Trump what do you think the second part ("rather than alleging the FBI acted improperly toward Trump") is oding, if not implying that's what he should have charged? Red Slapper (talk) 02:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Valjean, the part of the article stating that Durham implies the Steele dossier was the trigger for the opening of the Trump-Russia/Crossfire Hurricane investigation is incorrect. See page 9 of the Durham Report. There, the report states that the impetus for opening the Trump-Russia/Crossfire Hurricane investigation was the "receipt of unevaluated intelligence information from Australia", i.e., the report about two Australian diplomats' meetings with George Papadopoulos in London. The quote about "raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence" from the CNN reported appears in the subsequent paragraph and relates to the information about Papadopoulos. The article currently states that Durham was making an "apparent allusion to the Steele dossier", which is incorrect. I'll make an edit. DrQuinnEskimoWoman (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

See the following section. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

"raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence"

DrQuinnEskimoWoman, regarding your edit

Durham wrote:

Our investigation also revealed that senior F.B.I. personnel displayed a serious lack of analytical rigor toward the information that they received, especially information received from politically affiliated persons and entities. This information in part triggered and sustained Crossfire Hurricane and contributed to the subsequent need for Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation

(emphasis mine)

NYT:

But in using the word "triggered," Mr. Durham’s report echoed a conspiracy theory pushed by supporters of Mr. Trump that the F.B.I. opened the investigation in July 2016 based on the so-called Steele dossier, opposition research indirectly funded by the Clinton campaign that was later discredited[2]

He was alluding to the dossier. He was wink-winking at it because many people continue to believe it. Many have called it words to the effect of "raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated." He was saying "dossier" without saying dossier.

Would Alexander Downer's alert require much "analytical rigor?" No, he's a former foreign minister of a Five Eyes member and he said what he said. The dossier would require a lot of "analytical rigor."

Was Downer a "politically affiliated person or entity?" No, but FusionGPS, Perkins Coie, Steele and the HRC campaign were. Wink-wink.

This is consistent with the insinuations about the dossier he tried (but failed) to introduce in the Sussmann trial to implicate the Clinton campaign, and what he continues to insinuate in his report.

soibangla (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The secondary source accurately points out this partisan inconsistency, the type that permeates this so-called "report" (actually a partisan op-ed). Durham started this investigation at the orders of Barr, and both of them were in Trump's pocket and sought to undermine any inference that Trump might in some way be responsible for creating the atmosphere that required the investigations into his suspicious behavior.

Durham never changed gears after misusing his partisan prosecutorial powers, resulting in a big faux pas and losses in court. He just blundered on and wrote his report as if his failed charges were still weighty and true, when in fact they lacked weight and did not convince. They are clearly partisan and worded in an amateurish way that constantly reveals he's writing from his own biases.

You are so right that only the dossier was associated with "politically affiliated person or entity" and required any form of "analytical rigor". The Australian government, OTOH, was a deadly serious source, and combined with what the FBI already knew from their targeted investigation of ONLY Russian actions, this just caused them to change their target from ONLY Russia, to include Trump and his campaign, as it now became obvious, with solid evidence, that Trump knew, was accepting, and was encouraging criminal Russian interference. He was acting as a co-conspirator and accessory to the crime. He has always aided and abetted Russia's undermining of American society and confidence in elections. They, not Americans, are his friends.

The secondary source is correct. We should just point out that, in spite of slyly implying the Steele dossier was the trigger, in his report he still makes clear that it was not the dossier that was the trigger. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and clarified it and added the source. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

First sentence

The first sentence of this article is a transplant from the middle of the John Durham article, from which this article was forked. The sentence remains in its original location and its original form, but it is unacceptable as the lead sentence in the lead section of an article, because:

1) As a lead sentence, it is excessively long and unwieldy.

2) It fails to describe the topic of the article. Durham's name is not even mentioned until deep in the second sentence, which is also long. The lead sentence does not comply with Policy and Guideline recommendations. See:

MOS:FIRST (Manual of Style/Lead section): "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English." Also see:

WP:ISAWORDFOR (Wikipedia is not a dictionary): "A good encyclopedia article can and should begin with a relatively short but discrete explanation of the subject of the article (the person, place, concept, event, or 'thing' of the title)."

The lead sentence can be simplified and made to perform its assigned purpose by adapting the second sentence from the lead. The adaptation provides the basis for a new version of the first two sentences, as follows:

"In April 2019 federal attorney John Durham, at the direction of the U.S. Justice Department, began a review of the origins of the FBI investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. In December 2020, Attorney General William Barr announced that in October he had appointed Durham as a special counsel, allowing him to continue the investigation after the end of the administration of president Donald Trump."

The existing lead sentence can, in effect, be re-transplanted back into the body of the article, by placing it (with any appropriate edit tweaks) as the first sentence in the section, "Investigation into origins of FBI investigation 'Crossfire Hurricane'". The import of the sentence will not be excluded from the revised lead; the information is already contained at the start of the second paragraph in the sentence that begins, "Durham's investigation was predicated...".

In my text about Durham's appointment as special counsel, I omitted the phrasing "had secretly appointed Durham". I have seen two sources that use the word "secret" or "secretly" in this context: a statement by Rep. Adam Schiff quoted in Politico (and probably elsewhere) and a CNN article using "secret" in its reportage without quoting anyone. Both articles also reported that Barr gave a reason for delaying the announcement: to avoid influencing the upcoming election. So, it was one-sided for this article to use "secretly" without also giving the explicitly stated official reason for withholding the announcement. The information--the "secret" appointment as well as the belated justification--can both be described in the body of the article; I don't think the lead needs that level of detail. The lead certainly does not need the unbalanced description that now exists, which weakens the article's adherence to NPOV. I find other problems in the introductory section--and the article--related to accuracy and neutrality. I will address those in a separate Talk section. In this thread, I'm confining my comments to address revision of the first sentence and the description of the special counsel appointment. DonFB (talk) 10:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree the lead needs some work; it's been on my to-do list, but you and others can certainly run ahead with that. Regarding "secretly," please see 0:48 here[3]. I look forward to your other comments. soibangla (talk) 13:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Feel free to tweak. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, not done, really. I saw virtually no change, except for a minor format modification (bolding the title in opening text). Your edit, regrettably, did not address any issue I raised here in Talk, where you offered no opposition, nor any response for that matter. Feel free to comment here on the discussion page. DonFB (talk) 04:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

DonFB, this thread is about the first sentence, but you made a lot more edits than that, so I wholesale reverted your edits as it was too complicated to fix it all at once. Then I went back and analyzed each aspect of your edits and restored several of them. The new first sentence is preserved as it introduces the topic well. So don't think I rejected all your edits. I didn't.

You made a lot of edits to the first paragraph that need to be discussed here. I suspect you'll find agreement for some, but let the discussion deal with that. We just need a consensus. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 12:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The lead sentence has remained improperly conceived and written. It still failed to fulfill the most basic requirements (recommendations, if you prefer) of Policy: to "tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is" (MOS:FIRST) and to be "a relatively short but discrete explanation of the subject of the article (the person, place, concept, event, or 'thing' of the title)" (WP:ISAWORDFOR). Futhermore, it remained no less unwieldy than the version I commented on in my first post here. It also displayed another problem. It showed unseemly haste to villainize Trump, by jumping immediately to his culpability and behavior that led to the Durham probe. That information is not wrong, but it's in the wrong place, a place that should, according to policy, be occupied by the aforementioned "relatively short but discrete explanation" of the topic of the article. Introducing such provocative rhetoric in the immediate beginning of an article does Wikipedia no favors. Its continued presence as the first sentence of the lead section, along with, for example until recently, the one-sided response by a Strzok lawyer, betrayed the article's POV tendencies, as at least one other relatively level-headed editor has noted.

Other issues in the lead:

The article's first sentence (that I have since rewritten) included the following text:

"...Donald Trump's false accusations that investigations of him and his campaign's suspicious ties to Russia and its interference in the 2016 United States elections were part of a deep state plot and a "hoax" or "witch hunt" that was initiated by his political enemies."

In the next paragraph, we see a reprise of the essentially the same information:

"...unproven conspiracy theory pushed by Trump that 'the Russia investigation likely stemmed from a conspiracy by intelligence or law enforcement...'" (generously providing the word "conspiracy" twice in the same sentence).

My initial rewrite condensed all that text to: "Beginning in 2017, President Trump and his allies had attacked the FBI probe...". In the version I just posted, I restored some of that purple prose, including: "deep state plot", "hoax", "witch hunt", and "conspiracy", while excising the redundancy.

Farther down, the sentence beginning, "When Inspector General Michael Horowitz..." is another specimen of unwieldy prose. (In desktop Firefox at 110% magnification, it occupies six full lines.)

In my previous rewrite, I broke it into two sentences containing two explicit points: 1) the contradiction; 2) the redirection of the Durham probe to focus on the Clinton campaign. I've left it alone for now, but it fairly demands simplification. The current version includes a lengthy quote from the NYT:

current:

"...turned to a new rationale: a hunt for a basis to accuse the Clinton campaign of conspiring to defraud the government by manufacturing the suspicions that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia, along with scrutinizing what the F.B.I. and intelligence officials knew about the Clinton campaign's actions".

(That's only about half the full sentence.)

My (reverted) version condensed and paraphrased it:

"...Barr and Durham looked for a reason to accuse the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton of trying to create suspicions that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia."

Simply unnecessary and cluttering the text of the current version is the trailing phrase: "along with scrutinizing what the F.B.I. and intelligence officials knew about the Clinton campaign's actions". The sentence needs to be cleaned up, along the lines I've recommended.

In the third paragraph of the lead section we see the text: "...one of whom pleaded guilty to a charge unrelated to the origins of the FBI investigation". This refers to Clinesmith. I did not change or remove the sentence, but I will address its substance now. I refer you to the Politico article about Clinesmith of Jan. 29, 2021 by Josh Gerstein, which contains this information: "The only person charged in the Justice Department’s investigation into the origins of the probe of former President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign and its ties to Russia was spared prison time for altering an email used to support a surveillance application." [4] If an editor knows of a reliable source that says, in effect, this case is "unrelated to the origins of the FBI investigation", it needs to be brought forward. Otherwise, the phrase "unrelated...investigation" should be excised from this article.

In the fourth and final paragraph of the lead section, we see the sentence: "Although the report alleged FBI confirmation bias and a 'lack of analytical rigor', it did not find political motivation or what Trump alleged to be a 'deep state' plot against him." This looks like a textbook example of MOS:EDITORIAL (Manual of Style/Words to watch), to wit: "More subtly, editorializing can produce implications that are not supported by the sources. When used to link two statements, words such as but, despite, however, and although may imply a relationship where none exists, possibly unduly calling the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second" (my ital). In my initial (reverted) edit, I changed the text to two sentences, breaking the evident editorialization. I have not read the multiple citations for the sentence in full, so I request editors who want that sentence unbroken to show that such editorial linkage exists in the sources; otherwise the statements should be separated. In the same sentence, in another case of subtle POV, the text prior to my original revision and also my latest edit said, "Athough the report alleged FBI confirmation bias". In my first rewrite, I changed that to: "The report accused the FBI", because in a source I did peruse, a headline and photo caption use "accused", not "alleged". However, such tangential sourcing may not be sufficient, so in my current revised text of the lead section, I used "concluded", with a citation to the NYT. Perhaps sourcing exists that says the Durham report "alleged" bias; if so, let's see that source. If none exists, "concluded" should stand. "Alleged" connotes uncertainty; "concluded" connotes certainty. DonFB (talk) 07:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I think we can stipulate that anything related to the origins of the FBI investigation had to have occurred before or on July 31, 2016. Clinesmith altered the document on June 19, 2017.[5] Off the top of my head I don't know of a way of making this plainly evident point without unnecessarily complicating the lead. I think you're drawing a flawed inference from the Gerstein piece. soibangla (talk) 13:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we can stipulate that at all. Clinesmith's (BLP vio redacted) was clearly related to the way the FBI conducted itself during Crossfire Hurricane. Red Slapper (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

But it did not pertain to the way the FBI conducted itself related to how it opened and conducted its investigation into Trump-Russia. Crossfire was over by June 2017. soibangla (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

An FBI lawyer (BLP vio redacted) emails used to procure illegal FISA warrants is not related to how the FBI conducted itself in this investigation? That perspective is, how shall we say, interesting. And laughable. Red Slapper (talk) Red Slapper (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

in this investigation. Yes, this investigation. Crossfire ended in May 2017, Clinesmith changed the email in June 2017. soibangla (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

soibangla, I suspect there is some confusion here, maybe typos. You write that "Clinesmith changed the email in June 2017." But the first FISA warrant application for Page was in October 2016. What's going on, because, without thinking, I used your dates below. If you wrote incorrectly, that changes the argument and revisions will be needed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

He was charged for what he did in the third and final renewal of the original application of Oct 2016. soibangla (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

"At the request of the FBI, the Department filed four applications with the FISC seeking FISA authority targeting Carter Page: the first application on October 21, 2016, and three renewal applications on January 12, April 7, and June 29, 2017....FISA coverage targeting Carter Page from October 21, 2016, to September 22, 2017." about Four FISA Applications, p. vi Did Clinesmith's action directly affect the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th application? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Only the 4th, so his action did not contribute to initiating surveillance. This is important to keep in mind. soibangla (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

"Clinesmith, in internal messages, indicated that he believed Page was a “subsource” but never a source, and when a superior asked if he had it in writing, Clinesmith forwarded an email from a CIA liaison but added his own words to it to underscore his view that Page was “not a source.”
“Relying on the altered email, [the supervisory FBI agent] signed and submitted the application to the court on June 29, 2017,” prosecutors said."[6] -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Take it up with the DOJ: "FBI Attorney Admits Altering Email Used for FISA Application During "Crossfire Hurricane" Investigation" [7] Red Slapper (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Red Slapper, that example demonstrates nicely why our policies don't consider article titles to be RS. Clinesmith's error was made after the Crossfire Hurricane investigation ended, not "during" it. There is no evidence that that detail of the title is true. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Red Slapper, since you're here, may I see the WaPo and WSJ sources you mentioned but did not link to? And please feel free to continue enumerating the many more POV issues you've perceived. soibangla (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• Wash Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/05/15/durham-special-counsel-trump-report/
• WSJ: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/05/15/durham-special-counsel-trump-report/

Red Slapper (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't see CNN reported the report was "devastating to the FBI," as you said in your OP. Can you point that out? Do you have the WSJ source? soibangla (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Red Slapper, your BLP violations have been redacted. Don't call his good faith alteration what you called it. It was an alteration based on differences in the definitions of sources and CHS used by the FBI and CIA, so he misunderstood the situation and did what he thought would make the content more accurate by adding a few words, while still leaving all evidence in plain view. That's likely why he got off so light. There was no evidence of a serious effort to deceive, but his shortcut was still illegal, which he acknowledged. Your characterization, which implies he was acting in bad faith, is way off. Don't do it again. You need to understand what happened better before saying more. Read Inspector General report on the Crossfire Hurricane investigation#FISA applications and Durham special counsel investigation#Conviction of FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

There's no BLP violation here - he plead guilty to doing this and was convicted of criminal activity. We have multiple reliabl;e sources saying he doctored/falsified/forged email - [8],[9],[10] Red Slapper (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

How the FBI acted in the investigation and why it opened the investigation are two very different things. We have a parallelism here:

1. The Steele dossier could not have had any influence on the opening of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation (the FBI got Steele's reports in September 2016, long after they had opened their investigation on July 31, 2016).
2. Clinesmith's shortcut alteration of a FISA application could not have had any form of influence on the Crossfire Hurricane investigation (he did it in June 2017 after the investigation ended in May 2017).

It's important to understand these things. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

As I wrote above, take it up with the DOJ. "FBI Attorney Admits Altering Email Used for FISA Application During "Crossfire Hurricane" Investigation" " Red Slapper (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Red Slapper, that example demonstrates nicely why our policies don't consider article titles to be RS. Clinesmith's error was made after the Crossfire Hurricane investigation ended, not "during" it. There is no evidence that that detail of the title is true. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

But there is clear evidence, in the body of that article, and in numerous others, that Clinesmith's criminal conviction was the result of the Durham investigation, so it is not "unrelated". Red Slapper (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

no one disputes Clinesmith's criminal conviction was the result of the Durham investigation (though the case was referred to Durham, he didn't originate it) so we don't say it's unrelated to the Durham investigation. We have never said that. We've always said it's unrelated to the origins of Crossfire, which is correct, both qualitatively and temporally. Clinesmith committed his offense after Crossfire was closed. Do you dispute what I just wrote? The DOJ headline is incorrect, and it might not be just a simple error. It might conceivably be Barr clickbait. soibangla (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

It may be correct that it was unrelated to the origin, but this article is about the Durham investigation as a whole, and that conviction was a result of the investigation. Adding the "unrelated to the origins" sentence creates a NPOV problem. Red Slapper (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I have now changed that phrasing such that readers must now do some mental calculations to reach the conclusion that it was unrelated to the origins, rather than flatly stating the obvious that would save readers the trouble. Does this meet with your satisfaction, or would you like to add words to the effect that Clinesmith was convicted as a result of the investigation? If that's what you need to get over this, then please do it. Enough talk, please edit the article and let's go with BRD. soibangla (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

There's no need for that long detailed info. All that's needed is a short sentence "An FBI lawyer pled guilty and was convicted of altering an email and making a false statement, and sentenced to probation." All the rest is a distraction. Red Slapper (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

your POV is noted. please edit the article as you see fit. soibangla (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Done. Red Slapper (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

"It may be correct," or it is correct? Please answer. If you insist on the former, the POV problem might not be mine. soibangla (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

It depends on how you define "the origins". If you define it extremely narrowly, as only the immediate events that triggered CH in May 2016, then it is correct - the doctored email did not start CH. But if you define it more broadly, then it is not correct. Take a look at this section, for example, note its title and its scope.

Either way, since this article is not just about the origins, but about the Durham investistiagotpn as a whole, the charges are clearly related, and we have sources saying so. Red Slapper (talk) 17:45, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Clinesmith is not mentioned anywhere in the Crossfire article. Please edit this article to proceed through standard BRD and maybe I will notice you again. soibangla (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

The point of pointing you to the Crossfire article was to show you that the "origins" of it can reasonably extend far beyond the events of May 2016. And since that article's "Origins" sections goes all the way to 2019, Clinesmith's actions fall within that timeline.

But as I wrote above, this is a sidetrack. This article is not concerned only with the origins of CH.

You just wrote "please edit the article as you see fit.", which I did, ony to have you immediately revert it, with a misleading edit summary. It is getting hard to assume you are editing here in good faith.

But there's no rush, I am happy to keep trying to get to an agreement here, and until then, the POV tag stays. Red Slapper (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

My edit summary was not misleading. Your edit contains a material error. Fix it and I won't further challenge it. It is getting hard to assume you are editing here in good faith? Right back atcha! soibangla (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

It was misleading in that it implied you were only correcting "two counts" to "one count" when in fact you undid my entire edit, removed that he was an FBI lawyer, and restoring the irrelevant details Red Slapper (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

It was not misleading in the least. This is the second of your edits I've reverted because they contained material errors or did not correctly reflect what a source said, in both cases in a misleading way to Durham's benefit. Just because I asked you to stop talking and edit the article doesn't mean you are absolved of BRD scrutiny. Ensure your edits are factually airtight and I won't challenge them on factual grounds. So just fix your edit and restore it. This should not be so difficult. soibangla (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

It was misleading, as I explined above. BRD applies to you, as well, and you do not own this article. Red Slapper (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

"Altered" is the most accurate term and implies what the courts found, which was no deliberate effort to deceive. Sources throw all types of terms around, but here we stick to the ones that are not BLP violations. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

There is simply no BLP violation here. Altering a document is forgery. Red Slapper (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

No, forgery implies an intent to deceive. Forgery: "Forgery is a white-collar crime that generally refers to the false making or material alteration of a legal instrument with the specific intent to defraud." Seriously, you are revealing your ignorance of what happened. You need to understand what happened better before saying more. Read Inspector General report on the Crossfire Hurricane investigation#FISA applications and Durham special counsel investigation#Conviction of FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:18, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Soibangla, et al: I've shown an RS that explicitly says Clinesmith was involved in "investigation into the origins of the probe". I am very wary when an editor says "We can stipulate such and such". If your claim can be stipulated, perforce there must be a source for it. Attempting to include or exclude content by arguing granular details of dates in the absence of a secondary RS that interprets the dates is simply OR/SYNTH. DonFB (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

100 hundred years from now, people can still be "involved in "investigation into the origins of the probe"." Your source says it was "the Justice Department’s investigation into the origins of the probe", not "Clinesmith was involved...". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:22, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

DonFB, when I replied above, I had Red Slapper in my mind and thought I was replying to them. I think there is some confusing language here, so am not sure we are communicating clearly. Please try again with other words. I don't want to misunderstand you (again). -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:34, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I note that your word "involved" is not in the quote you provide. Clinesmith was charged only for something he did 1+ month after Crossfire was handed to Mueller and closed. That's why it can be stipulated as indisputable, unless someone wants to consider time travel. soibangla (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, Red Slapper, your claim that Clinesmith's alteration affected the Crossfire Hurricane investigation is just impossibly wrong. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Not sure if "your" refers to me, but the comment and the one immediately above it make no effort to discuss sourcing--the fundamental method by which the site operates. DonFB (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about that! I was replying to Red Slapper. I'll add that above. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Our article says the (Clinesmith) case was a

"charge unrelated to the origins of the FBI investigation". That directly contradicts the RS. DonFB (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

No, Politico says Clinesmith was charged under the origins investigation, but it does not say he was charged for involvement in the origins of Crossfire. The IG referred Clinesmith to Durham, who has full discretion to prosecute anyone for any crime he comes across during the course of his investigation. Think of a cop who comes to a home on a domestic disturbance call; is he prohibited from arresting someone for the 10 kilos of coke he spots on the coffee table because it's outside the scope of his original investigation? Of course not. soibangla (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

So is Clinesmith's case "related to the origins of the FBI investigation"? Let's look at the facts. We're dealing with the "investigation (1) into the investigators (2)", so we end up easily conflating the two investigations. That creates confusion. Are we talking about 1 or 2? 1=Durham and 2=CFH. Chronologically, 2 comes before 1. If you're not confused yet, then kudos to you! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Soibangla, you said: "Politico says Clinesmith was charged under the origins investigation, but it does not say he was charged for involvement in the origins of Crossfire." I agree, and that's why it's inaccurate for our article to say: [Clinesmith] "...pleaded guilty to a charge unrelated to the origins of the FBI investigation", which directly contradicts what you just said and Politico, which said: "charged in the Justice Department’s investigation into the origins of the probe of former President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign and its ties to Russia". My comment earlier which sounded incorrect to you/Valjean was: "Clinesmith was involved in investigation", in which I meant that the Clinesmith case was involved. Editors' deductions, conclusions, speculations based on their interpretations of chronology do not override RS. DonFB (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I will also point out that the "unrelated" assertion in the lead section is not included in the Clinesmith section in the body of the article, which means it should not be part of the lead--it's not a trivial matter, and has no referencing in support, only in opposition. DonFB (talk) 23:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I did not write one word of the Clinesmith section, I can't cover everything, but I'll take a look at it now. In the meantime, can you provide more than one sentence in one source to make clear you have not drawn an incorrect inference? soibangla (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide any source that says the charge was "unrelated"? I'm not holding you responsible for any given part of the article. But substantive assertions with no referencing (and in this case with a contrary source) are subject to challenge and removal. DonFB (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I thought it was originally sourced, but I'll endeavor to find one. I remain confident you have not provided a contrary source. soibangla (talk) 00:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

which directly contradicts what you just said is simply wrong. What I originally wrote, pleaded guilty to a charge unrelated to the origins of the FBI investigation, remains indisputably correct, and I maintain you have drawn an incorrect inference from Politico, just a single source that may have awkwardly phrased just a single sentence from which you drew an incorrect inference, and I am confident I have adequately explained this. soibangla (talk) 23:34, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I never claimed that. Don't invent strawman arguments. Red Slapper (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Red Slapper, my apologies. It was someone else who made that exact claim. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

This is clearly easy to confuse. There is a large difference between "involved in the investigation of the origins" and "involved in the origins". We're all acting in good faith and can figure out wording that conveys all the nuances. This is likely best done with our own wording that summarizes the facts, rather than an exact quote that only deals with one part of the facts. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

DonFB Red Slapper Valjean: have all the issues of this thread been resolved? it's become unwieldy and I'd like to close it so we can start anew. soibangla (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm ok with the fixes to the pov and "unrelated" issues. The overlong Horowitz sentence still needs attention. If no one objects, I intend to reinstate my earlier edit, which divided it into two reader-friendly sentences and paraphrases the too-dense quote. I would also like to drop the "right wing" moniker from the Andrew McCarthy sentence--seems gratuitous; the point he makes stands on its own. DonFB (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

It's not gratuitous, but part of his attribution. It's a rather significant fact when the right-wing's own man tells them to calm down and not excited and fooled. The result did not mean what they thought it did. Danchenko did not retract his allegations. He just protected the identities of his sources, a common practice. McCarthy's authority as a respected source with the right-wing lends his explanation more weight with them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, well I expected the argument you offer would be the likely justification for the attribute. I won't fight over it, but I'm going to make a point that's been on my mind about what I believe has been the spin of this article (and any number of others on related political topics). Your comments evince a desire to make political points, not merely to ensure factuality. A comment such as "the right-wing's own man" is not, it seems to me, part of a dispassionate discussion about things editors should be talking about, like sourcing, reliability, verification and so forth. You added, "The result did not mean what they thought it did." Well, that's your opinion (and of liberal/Dem/progressive pundits), and you and they are entitled to it, but your evident desire for the article to express that opinion strikes me as inappropriate. Your focus seems not simply to be on the legitimate need for balance in an article, but to send a (political) message about the topic.

You concluded by pointing out, correctly, that McCarthy is "a respected source with the right-wing", which "lends his explanation more weight with them". All true, but how is that relevant to crafting a factual, neutral, well-sourced article? The statement shows a push toward making certain that the article sends a message to a political faction (with whom, I think it is fair to conclude, you vehemently disagree). The desire to identify McCarthy in the article lead as a member of the right wing whose gravitas "lends his explanation more weight with them" reveals an effort to be sure a particular political group in the article readership knows one of their own disagrees, not simply to provide a sourced opinion by a pundit whose name might not mean anything to them. I won't battle over this, but in thinking about it more, I will recommend that the McCarthy text either be moved out of the lead and into "Reactions", or be supplemented (balanced) in the lead with an opposing pundit quote--with both commentators identified by their political attribute, or neither of them described, and let readers evaluate their statements on the merits. DonFB (talk) 00:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

DonFB Valjean, are you satisfied with how paragraph #4 now reads? NB: By "now," I meant prior to this edit. soibangla (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC) soibangla (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

The current version works. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

well ok then! cough soibangla (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Not for me it doesn't. Red Slapper (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I restored the FBI lawyer part for you. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Long Horowitz sentence

DonFB, you are absolutely right that the sentence is long and unwieldy. Let's deal with it in its own section. It's buried above with too much else going on. You wrote above: "Farther down, the sentence beginning, "When Inspector General Michael Horowitz..." is another specimen of unwieldy prose. (In desktop Firefox at 110% magnification, it occupies six full lines.)"

Here's the sentence:

When Inspector General Michael Horowitz contradicted that theory by testifying to Congress that the FBI showed no political bias in starting the investigation into Trump and possible connections with Russia, Barr and Durham, in the words of a New York Times' report, "turned to a new rationale: a hunt for a basis to accuse the Clinton campaign of conspiring to defraud the government by manufacturing the suspicions that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia, along with scrutinizing what the F.B.I. and intelligence officials knew about the Clinton campaign's actions."

You continued:

In my previous rewrite, I broke it into two sentences containing two explicit points: 1) the contradiction; 2) the redirection of the Durham probe to focus on the Clinton campaign. I've left it alone for now, but it fairly demands simplification. The current version includes a lengthy quote from the NYT:

current:

"...turned to a new rationale: a hunt for a basis to accuse the Clinton campaign of conspiring to defraud the government by manufacturing the suspicions that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia, along with scrutinizing what the F.B.I. and intelligence officials knew about the Clinton campaign's actions".

(That's only about half the full sentence.)

My (reverted) version condensed and paraphrased it:

"...Barr and Durham looked for a reason to accuse the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton of trying to create suspicions that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia."

Simply unnecessary and cluttering the text of the current version is the trailing phrase: "along with scrutinizing what the F.B.I. and intelligence officials knew about the Clinton campaign's actions". The sentence needs to be cleaned up, along the lines I've recommended.

Now resume here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:31, 27 May 2023

I don't really have anything to add; the question is whether you (and other editors) support my proposal or have suggestions for changes. My plan is basically to copy and paste my earlier (reverted) edit of the passage, visible in History. DonFB (talk) 00:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

References

government stenography in lead?

Yodabyte made some edits to the lead today that I find troublesome. It is certainly true that Durham wrote "especially information the FBI received from politically affiliated persons and entities," and "there was significant reliance on investigative leads provided or funded (directly or indirectly) by Trump's political opponents."

But are those fully accurate statements, or are they misleading statements? Are we in the business of uncritically regurgitating what someone says, particularly in the lead, and especially when many have found the investigation and the final report to be politicized?

Durham is clearly referencing the dossier in these two instances. But his charter was to determine whether Crossfire was properly predicated or politically motivated. He found the answer 'no' in both cases.

After he said "especially information received from politically affiliated persons and entities," he said "This information in part triggered and sustained Crossfire Hurricane and contributed to the subsequent need for Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation." I don't know how many times this needs repeating, but the dossier had no role in triggering Crossfire. Moreover, there would not have been a subsequent need for the Mueller investigation had Trump not fired Comey, which raised suspicion of a cover-up. If you have nothing to hide, why would you fire the guy who has explicitly told you he's not investigating you, only to trigger a broader investigation that does include you? Trump brought on Mueller himself by firing Comey; any suggestion that Mueller came along for some other reason is a whitewash of history. The dossier did not lead to Crossfire, which in turn did not lead to Mueller. The dossier was used only to get a third renewal of a FISA on Page, one month after Crossfire was closed. Yes, the FBI relied on the dossier for one aspect of its investigation, but Durham does not provide any context for readers to see it had nothing to do with opening Crossfire, and because the opening was his charter, without context readers may presume Durham is referencing the dossier in the context of the opening. He is engaged in some sleight of word here, intended to insinuate "Hillary did it." When they have nothing, Hillary is always their fallback culprit. Already Maria Bartiromo and Jim Jordan have floated the idea of investigating her again. But I digress...

So, should we include in the lead his exact words, verbatim and uncritically, even though his words are inaccurate and misleading? If we do, we are assuming that because he's a special counsel in our government, his words can be accepted at face value. Would those who believe the government lies all the time find that acceptable, or only when it's from a government they like? soibangla (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Sourced info--quoted or paraphrased--contradicting the Durham quote is the solution to the problem you perceive. But the lead should not become an arena for excessive back and forth on these issues. Not acceptable would be a change to article text based only on an editor's personal analysis of the convolutions of the saga. DonFB (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I am confident my "personal analysis" can be fully supported by reliable sources, but at the cost of bloating the lead, when that content should be in the body. Lacking some brief means of qualifying Durham's assertions in the lead, I am inclined to remove Yodabyte's edits. soibangla (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

This is a major finding of the report, so I do not support removing it from the lead.Red Slapper (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I concur with Red Slapper on this matter. DonFB (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

So should I chalk you up as agreeing that our lead, in particular, should uncritically regurgitate what a government official has said, in the face of widespread criticism from the getgo that the inception of the investigation was politically motivated, and his actions in the Sussmann trial as documented in this article strongly suggests that, and his final report has likewise been widely criticized as such?

The New York Times found that the main thrust of the Durham inquiry was marked by some of the very same flaws — including a strained justification for opening it and its role in fueling partisan conspiracy theories that would never be charged in court — that Trump allies claim characterized the Russia investigation

soibangla (talk) 23:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Suggested text for the lead:

"The Durham probe was criticized as subject to some of the same failings that Trump and his allies accused the FBI investigation of showing." DonFB (talk) 23:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I do not find it ethical, and certainly not consistent with my understanding of the principles of this encyclopedia, that such important and contentious wording, which is demonstrably inaccurate and misleading, from a government source that has been widely criticized as politicized from the start, should be included in the lead without specific qualification. soibangla (talk) 23:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

What source supports your allegation the specific text we're discussing has "wording which is demonstrably inaccurate and misleading"? DonFB (talk) 00:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Before I find myself repeating things that I've written and sourced in the article for months, as well as things that I've written and sourced here for days, I need to ask you a basic question: do you agree Durham's words, added today, "information that they received, especially information received from politically affiliated persons and entities" and "investigative leads provided or funded (directly or indirectly) by Trump's political opponents" refers specifically to the dossier, just without actually saying the dossier? Or would you contend he didn't say "dossier," so it can't be proven that's what he meant?soibangla (talk) 00:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Your question demonstrates the problem with your approach that I alluded to when I wrote of "personal analysis". Neither I nor you should interpret the meaning of the content in a source, whether primary (especially not primary) or secondary and insert such personal deduction as article text, or remove text based on such editorial analysis. You are diving deep into the weeds of the controversy and emerging with your own sweeping political conclusions about what it all means, instead of trying to craft the article from a neutral point of view. I offered a reasonable suggestion to help balance the lead, based on your own comment which referred to the generalized evaluation by the NYT, but you moved the goalposts and rejected it because it was--generalized. At this point I want to know what, if any, Durham quote or conclusion you'd be prepared to tolerate in the lead of the article, which, as a reminder, is about the Durham probe. DonFB (talk) 01:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I did not move any goalposts, I said there needed to be a solution and you put up goalposts I find inadequate. emerging with your own sweeping political conclusions about what it all means, instead of trying to craft the article from a neutral point of view I am attempting to have a reasonable discussion with reasonable people to ensure this contentious article has a NPOV. This investigation has had deep political implications from the start, so we should not simply accept the Durham report as prima facie truth. The content added today does not comport with that effort, and I'm getting the sense there's some POV projection here. Of course, this might be caused by people not paying close attention to this matter until a few days ago. I go way back on this.soibangla (talk) 01:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I see no effort to swallow the report uncritically--if anything, the opposite is true, given the abundance of sourced counter programming throughout the article. On the matter of goalposts, my edit suggestion was based directly on your NYT excerpt, which did not show a rebuttal to the specific Durham quote, nor have you responded to my query if you've found one. Instead, you're arguing against the edit not based on sourcing, but on sweeping assertions about events. You say you "go way back on this", which seems to underlie your desire to argue for your personal interpretations of the minutia of the events. However, articles should be written exclusively based on what sources say, not things like an editor's answer to a question such as, "do you agree Durham's words...refers specifically to the dossier, just without actually saying the dossier? Or would you contend he didn't say "dossier," so it can't be proven that's what he meant." My opinion (and yours) on that question are irrelevant. It is not up to editors to decide the meaning of a primary document, to say nothing of the nuanced interpretation your question seeks. Yep, sorry you now have to deal with an interloper such as myself; I'm confident you'll manage to cope. DonFB (talk) 02:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

This thread relates specifically to the edits made to the lead today, which do not include any qualification such as the NYT passage I just provided. I would not have opened this topic otherwise. I am specifically discussing that without any available qualifications it should not be in the lead. I am confident that what I just wrote shows Durham's statement is inaccurate and misleading, supported by the NYT, and the persistently disproved role of the dossier that Durham continues to assert "in part" triggered Crossfire. It is flatly false. We are not stenographers who should uncritically regurgitate his words, especially in the lead, and especially considering the highly politically charged nature of this topic. I would appreciate if you would refrain from questioning my motives or impugning my integrity. soibangla (talk) 03:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

You will need to show a source that supports your personal opinion that "Durham's statement is inaccurate and misleading". Failing that, the text should remain as is. My edit suggestion to help balance the lead stands. DonFB (talk) 03:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I could massively overcite reliable sources in the body to firmly establish that "in part triggered" Crossfire has been shown to be false ad nauseam for years, thus rendering his words inaccurate and misleading, which is somewhat anodyne phrasing considering it seems implausible he is unaware of this basic fact. As I said, I seek to avoid bloating the lead with it. That's why I asked for ideas as to how to briefly qualify his words, such that they could remain in the lead, but I find your solution inadequate. Anybody else have better ideas? If not, it should not stand unqualified in the lead. soibangla (talk) 04:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Your approach clearly takes the route of SYNTH, attempting to draw a big conclusion from multiple sources, none of which addresses the specific quotation/allegation from the report that you're complaining about. I'm also open to other ideas to ensure balance in the lead (though I believe mine is perfectly suitable), but removing the quotation based on no specific source, but rather a chain of your political inferences, would be highly improper. DonFB (talk) 06:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

The bottom line is that RS support that Durham didn't come up with any deep state conspiracy. He lost 2 cases and he got 1 guy some probation on a technicality. Huge disaster and politically charged nonsense. All RS corroborate the statement that Durham was incorrect. That isn't SYNTH, we should treat FRINGE as FRINGE. Andre🚐 00:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Anyway, stipulating he's talking about the dossier, see p. 18 of his report for this:

Our investigation also revealed that senior FBI personnel displayed a serious lack of analytical rigor towards the information that they received, especially information received from politically affiliated persons and entities. This information in part triggered and sustained Crossfire Hurricane and contributed to the subsequent need for Special Counsel Mueller's investigation.

Durham confirms Crossfire was opened July 31, 2016 and FBI Main did not have the dossier until mid-September. The dossier did not in whole or in part trigger Crossfire.

NYT wrote:

But in using the word “triggered,” Mr. Durham’s report echoed a conspiracy theory pushed by supporters of Mr. Trump that the F.B.I. opened the investigation in July 2016 based on the so-called Steele dossier, opposition research indirectly funded by the Clinton campaign that was later discredited.

His statement is inaccurate and misleading. It's "wink-wink, keep your eyes on this irrelevant shiny object that points to Hillary, because that's about all I got!" soibangla (talk) 02:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you look at Mueller special counsel investigation for comparison - we report its conclusions as-is, without commentary. Is that "uncritically regurgitating] what a government official has said"? Red Slapper (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• I think that a lot of recent changes (including this one) collectively create a problem where we're WP:SYNTHing up an implication that the special council investigation produced meaningful results. Ultimately we have to respect the summary of the secondary sources we're using, and the key takeaway from all of them was that it found no evidence of wrongdoing. That needs to be the primary emphasis of the lead; other details might be appropriate for the body but right now it feels like we're misusing sources by pulling out quotes that obscure the sources' own key points. In the lead, I think it's enough to say, as the Guardian does in its lead, that Durham found no evidence of wrongdoing but was critical of the FBI as a whole; it's also important to emphasize, as the Guardian does, that the opinions Durham expressed were largely not based on new information, ie. he failed to turn up anything new even in that regard. I also take particular issue with the "however", which presents the quote as changing the context of a summary cited to multiple sources; ABC news, the only source cited for that aspect, does not actually indicate that it is important, it merely reports it as one of (several) things that Durham said. To take that conclusion, then take an unrelated quote from another source and string it together with "however" as though one changes the context of the other, is obviously synthesis; and I feel that pulling out a quote from fairly deep in a larger article, which is not given any special emphasis or focus in that article, and dropping it in the lead as though it is a key aspect of the subject is WP:UNDUE. The purpose of the lead is not to summarize every single nitty-gritty detail or every quote that was repeated anywhere, but to provide an overarching summary of what the sources say was the significance and result of the investigation. I'm not really seeing any sources supporting the idea that this particular quote is part of that, given how few of them mentioned it at all and given that the one that did didn't really give it any emphasis (certainly not the however it was spliced in with, which seems to be just be an editor's personal opinion that it answers or changes the context of the overarching conclusion.) --Aquillion (talk) 10:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
• :the key takeaway from all of them was that it found no evidence of wrongdoing - that is very much incorrect. It found improper basis for starting the investigation, it found double standards, it found confirmation bias and a lack of analytical rigor, and it produced a criminal conviction. Red Slapper (talk) 11:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  What criminal conviction are you referring to? Andre🚐 00:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• :::Clinesman was convicted of making a false statement, a felony. Red Slapper (talk) 01:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  Clinesmith also avoided prison time and was given leniency[11] and yes, he pled guilty to doctoring an email, which doesn't in any way redeem Durham's investigation. Andre🚐 16:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

"Crossfire Hurricane"

This name is taken from a lyric written by Mick Jagger for the song Jumpin' Jack Flash. This fact in unacknowledged in the Report or the present article about it. This omission is probably the only thing of note in either one. The Report was released two weeks ago and all the kerfuffle about it has made me weary, soggy, and hard to light. Wastrel Way (talk) Eric Wastrel Way (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

This bit of trivia is mentioned in Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation) , where it belongs. This article is not about Crossfire Hurricane, but the Durham investigation and report. Red Slapper (talk) 13:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

that Durham dwells so much on "Clinton Plan intelligence"

in his report, despite acknowledging the evidence is dubiously sourced from Russia, and was told as much by judge Howell when he twice tried to get a warrant to look into George Soros, makes this lead-notable, especially since the dossier they are strongly dismissive of was also dubiously sourced from Russia. oh the irony, huh?

hence this from NYT:

But after almost four years — far longer than the Russia investigation itself — Mr. Durham’s work is coming to an end without uncovering anything like the deep state plot alleged by Mr. Trump and suspected by Mr. Barr. Moreover, a monthslong review by The New York Times found that the main thrust of the Durham inquiry was marked by some of the very same flaws — including a strained justification for opening it and its role in fueling partisan conspiracy theories that would never be charged in court — that Trump allies claim characterized the Russia investigation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Durham_special_counsel_investigation&diff=prev&oldid=1157749111

soibangla (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

POV tag

If editors would identify specific content they consider POV, we can resolve any issues and move toward removing the tag. If there is not soon significant progress, I will remove the tag.

Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor[12]

soibangla (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I've enumerated several issues on 5/22 and 5/24 , which have not been addressed. Chief among these is our downplaying of the main conclusion of the report (that the investigation should not have been opened) via a mealy-mouthed sentence which incorrectly describes this as just an issue with scope or timing. Red Slapper (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

The report should be downplayed because it's bunk and completely biased garbage, per RS. Andre🚐 00:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your personal opinion. We edit based on what's in sources, not personal opinions,. Red Slapper (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Nope, not my opinion but the qualified statement of RS. Andre🚐 00:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

What you wrote above is your personal opinion. If you can't see that, you probably shouldn't be editing here. Red Slapper (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

If you think the NYT isn't RS, and that we should quote Bret Stephens, an op-ed writer, you shouldn't be editing here. All reliable sources indicated that Durham turned up empty and found nothing. Andre🚐 00:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

We don't need to quote Stephen in the article, and I never suggested that. I was using his insider opinion as support for my claim tha the NYT shouldn't be taken at face value on this issue, given the erroneous/exaggerated/false way they reported on the Russian collusion story.

A nd I'm still waiting for that qualified statement of an RS that says "it's bunk and completely biased garbage" Red Slapper (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

His investigation has produced a single guilty plea from one extremely small fish for a likely immaterial error that the Inspector General already found. ... The fact Durham even had to bring this case was a testament to the failure of his probe. He had set out to uncover the FBI’s crimes against Mr. Trump. He was reduced to trying, and failing, to prosecute somebody for lying to the FBI. [13] Andre🚐 01:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Searching and searching for "it's bunk and completely biased garbage" in that quote, from an OPINION piece, and coming up empty. Have another go. Red Slapper (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Durham’s inquiry failed to uncover any blockbuster revelations suggesting the bureau targeted Trump out of political motivations, and the report at times came across as a defense of his lengthy investigation... The Durham report ended without recommending any wholesale changes at the FBI,... Two cases that Durham took to court ended in failure. Last year, a jury found cybersecurity lawyer Michael Sussman not guilty of lying to the FBI. A jury also found Danchenko not guilty of making false statements to the FBI in October, in a case argued personally by Durham. Durham extracted a guilty plea from Clinesmith, who was sentenced to one year of probation and 400 hours of community service after admitting in a 2020 plea agreement that he had altered a government email that a colleague then used to justify to a secret surveillance court the wiretap of the former Trump campaign aide Carter Page.[14] Aka a nothingburger. Nothing devastating to the FBI. no revelations. Andre🚐 01:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Searching and searching for "it's bunk and completely biased garbage" in that quote, and still coming up empty. Have another go. Red Slapper (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

In fact that was addressed. The sentence is now fully accurate, but you want to include "never" from an outlier source, which happens to be CNN. They're all alone on that one, as far as RS go.soibangla (talk) 00:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I want us to accurately report what CNN (and others [15],[16]) have said - that the investigation should not have been opened. CNN is not an outlier, and this downplaying of the findings is going to keep the POV tag on the article until it is resolved Red Slapper (talk) 01:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Your Forbes link: A report by Special Counsel John Durham released Monday found the FBI should not have launched a full investigation into the connections between former President Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia during the 2016 election NBC: Durham said the FBI opened a full counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign “based on raw, uncorroborated information,” So, clearly, Durham said that the FBI should not have opened a full counterintelligence investigation. Durham was widely discredited by RS. What's the problem. Andre🚐 01:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

the problem is taht our article does not say "the investigation should not have been opened". Red Slapper (talk) 01:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

it says "Durham said there had been inadequate predication to open a full investigation rather than a preliminary investigation." So what's the problem? The problem is you want to say FBI should NEVER have opened it, which Durham did not say, and CNN is the outlier here. Maybe check other sources that don't quote Trump saying it. ha! soibangla (talk) 01:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Respond to the arguments I am making, not to your strawman. I have more than once addresses the 'never' issue, and it is increasingly difficult to AGF on your part when you repeat that straw man here. Red Slapper (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

AGF again? Right back atcha again. Why do you exclusively mention CNN in this context, over and over? Because it's the ONLY source that says "never," and that's what you want in the lead? And then you present two other sources that you assert supports "never," but it's Trump saying it. HAHAHA! soibangla (talk) 02:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

The only one to say "never" in both those sources was...wait for it...Trump. soibangla (talk) 01:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence in the CNN news report is {[tq|Special counsel John Durham concluded that the FBI should never have launched a full investigation }}. The issue is not the word "never" _ it's that we lack a clear statement that Durham said that the investigation should not have been opened, as multiple sources have reported Red Slapper (talk) 01:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Nope, the issue is "never," which is why you cling to the CNN outlier and ignore all other sources, except two showing Trump saying "never." ha!

I just told you that 'never' is not the issue. You get to make your arguments, not mine. Red Slapper (talk) 01:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

in fact it has been your issue from the start, it's why this protracted nontroversy has persisted. And you state the POV tag will not come down until you get your way. The lead is just fine as it is, apart from Yodabyte's removal. What other POV issues do you perceive? Let's move. soibangla (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

You get to make your arguments, not mine. It's not about 'never' . Red Slapper (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Then what is it about? Please present the many others of POV issues you perceive so we can resolve them. I have asked you before to edit the article so we can go through standard BRD, but you seem to prefer talking and talking about issues here. Edit the article like everyone else does. soibangla (talk) 03:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

our article vs NYT reporting

Durham said, "Our investigation also revealed that senior F.B.I. personnel displayed a serious lack of analytical rigor toward the information that they received, especially information received from politically affiliated persons and entities. This information in part triggered and sustained Crossfire Hurricane and contributed to the subsequent need for Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation."

article: Durham asserted this information "in part triggered" the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, echoing a disproved conspiracy theory.

NYT: But in using the word “triggered,” Mr. Durham’s report echoed a conspiracy theory pushed by supporters of Mr. Trump that the F.B.I. opened the investigation in July 2016 based on the so-called Steele dossier, opposition research indirectly funded by the Clinton campaign that was later discredited.[17]

"and" does not bind triggered and sustained. The latter may be correct, but the former certainly is not. And the objective of the Durham investigation was to determine how Crossfire was triggered, that is, was there a vast IC and/or Clinton deep state conspiracy. Ancillary things he also found along the way are not relevant to his appointed mission, try as he and others might to make it seem that way, to exaggerate the importance of his findings (such as the Page FISA, which the IG already covered years earlier, and which Durham merely reiterates at length). Also, "and contributed to the subsequent need for Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation" is false; the Comey firing is the only thing that brought Mueller into the situation. Durham's sleight of word suggests the dossier brought Mueller into it, so this whole thing would never have happened if not for the dossier. haha

The removed edit is supported by a highly reliable source, written by a guy who closely followed the whole investigation from the start. He's kinda one of the top experts on this. The removed content should be restored.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Durham_special_counsel_investigation&diff=prev&oldid=1158019811 soibangla (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Don't believe it is clear Durham was referring ONLY to the dossier e.g. this [18] Politifact article says Durham's report found that the investigation into Trump's campaign was triggered by uncorroborated intelligence that should have been scrutinized more intensely before a full investigation was launched, there is no mention of the Steele dossier or the conspiracy theory that the dossier triggered opening of the investigation in summer 2016. Yodabyte (talk) 22:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

So did Durham conclude the FBI should not have accepted the word of the former foreign minister of a Five Eyes ally? How could the FBI have gone further to corroborate a fleeting encounter Downer had? Was Downer "politically affiliated?" Or is there some other piece of evidence Durham is referring to? Charlie Savage reports in a highly reliable source "But in using the word "triggered," Mr. Durham’s report echoed a conspiracy theory pushed by supporters of Mr. Trump that the F.B.I. opened the investigation in July 2016 based on the so-called Steele dossier..." Politifact writes "triggered by uncorroborated intelligence" that I don't see they elaborate on, but are we expected to believe "raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence" is not a reference to the dossier? soibangla (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

You can believe what you want, but you cannot apply your personal analysis of what Durham meant to the the article content. Red Slapper (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I am providing argumentation on a Talk page, to elaborate on my rationale for inclusion, but I am relying strictly on reliable sources for presentation in the article. soibangla (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

as User:Yodabyte wrote above, the reliable sources don't say that the Durham statement refers only to the Steele Dossier. That is your personal take. Red Slapper (talk) 01:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

+1 to what Yodabyte wrote above, and I would also like to caution against an over-reliance on NYT in this case. NYT had for years peddled a story which turned out to be, at best, baseless exaggerations, and at worst, a premeditated campaign of fake news. It is now being criticized for its "Russian collusion" reporting, and (some of) its reporters have published public contrition over the way they covered it. They now find themselves in an understandably uncomfortable position, so they are downplaying their own behavior. We can certainly quote them, fully attributed, but not take what they are saying as gospel. Red Slapper (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Bret Stephens, an opinion writer, talking about how his early support for Trump was wrong. No journalists have walked back their reporting, nor should they simply because conservative outlets have made deeply misleading allegations against them. soibangla (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

No, that's a very misleading representation of what Stephens siad, which is: "To this day, precious few anti-Trumpers have been honest with themselves about the elaborate hoax — there’s just no other word for it — that was the Steele dossier and all the bogus allegations, credulously parroted in the mainstream media, that flowed from it.". He is far from the only journalist to have walked back their original stories. Since you seem to have been living under a rock these past few years, you may not be aware the the Washington Post revised and/or removed large parts of their initial stories about the Steele Dossier. Another RS worth reading on this topic - https://www.axios.com/2021/11/14/steele-dossier-discredited-media-corrections-buzzfeed-washington-post Red Slapper (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

It's irrelevant. Stephens is a biased right-wing op-ed writer and not a reliable journalist for facts. He is usable only for attributed opinion at best and should be entirely excluded. Andre🚐 00:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

He's not being used in the article at all, attributed or otherwise. But he is a NYT journalist admitting that what his paper did was an elaborate hoax - no other word for it. Red Slapper (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

He is a right-leaning opinion writer who is expressing his opinion, he is not "admitting" anything because he's in no position to. soibangla (talk) 00:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

He didn't admit jack shit, he's a right-wing hack op-ed writer. Andre🚐 00:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

What does he mean by the bogus allegations, credulously parroted in the mainstream media? Parroted by the NYT, or speculated about on cable news? Does he cite a bogus allegation by the NYT reporters? Of course WaPo corrected and retracted one element of their reporting; journalists are humans who make errors, especially in large, complex, fast-moving topics, but the salient issue is that WaPo fixed them. Do you want to talk about the right-wing coverage now? soibangla (talk) 00:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not into whatbaoutism. THe Axios article I pointed you to is pretty clear on who published what false stories. Teh WaPo might get soem credit form if once they rerun the ridiculous prize they won for their wrong reporting. Red Slapper (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

The article does not contain anything about false stories. Andre🚐 00:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

"peddled a story" is right-wing bullshit. they reported a large volume of suspicious information, as did Mueller, a federal prosecutor, who ultimately could not prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt in federal court. soibangla (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

soibangla wrote: are we expected to believe "raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence" is not a reference to the dossier? Yes, its right there in Politifact "Durham also wrote that the agency had relied significantly on investigative leads provided or funded by Trump’s political opponents" i.e. information outside of just the dossier. The FBI was receiving false information from many different political actors trying to tie Trump to Russian intelligence in an obvious attempt to smear and damage him, it wasn't just the Steele dossier. Yodabyte (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't see Durham said information outside of just the dossier. The FBI was receiving false information from many different political actors, I see you saying that. soibangla (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

The FBI also received a lot of accurate information about the Trump campaign's collusion with Russia, and several people were convicted and imprisoned before Trump pardoned them. Andre🚐 00:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Funny how no evidence of collusion was ever found, then. Perhaps Schiff will finally show us that 'Ample evidence of collusion in plain sight' that has elided bith Mueller and Durham Red Slapper (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Simply not the case. Plenty of evidence was found for collusion and obstruction. Manafort and Stone were convicted. Stop parroting right wing propaganda. Andre🚐 00:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

They were convicted of bank fraud, false tax filing and making false statements to the FBI. You know, like Clinesmith. Not of collusion: "Mueller finds no collusion with Russia, leaves obstruction question open" [19], "Mueller Report Finds No Evidence Of Russian Collusion" [20], 'Mueller finds no Trump collusion, leaves obstruction open"[21] take the time study the material Red Slapper (talk) 00:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Clinesmith got probation for an accidental false statement[22] What false tax filing and bank fraud? And as far as collusion, you should probably just read our article on the Links between Trump associates and Russian officials and spies or Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections or Timeline of investigations into Donald Trump and Russia (2020–2022) or Russia investigation origins counter-narrative since it's a fact that Manafort and Stone worked on the Trump campaign. Andre🚐 00:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Clinesmith was convicted of a felony. No one was convicted of collusion. Study the material. Red Slapper (talk) 01:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Peddled a story is exactly what they did. And they have revised that story, and (some have) apologized for it. Red Slapper (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Citation needed for unevidenced assertions. Andre🚐 00:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

here you go. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/21/opinion/bret-stephens-trump-voters.html Red Slapper (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

OPINION PIECE, UNUSABLE. Pack it up. Andre🚐 00:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

PAck it up yourself. It is perfectly usable to support my arguemnt that the NYT's reporting on this story should not be taken at face value. Red Slapper (talk) 00:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Not at all, Bret Stephens' op-eds are never usable for anything except attributed opinions that are biased. Andre🚐 00:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Opinions are perfectly usable to support arguments on talk pages. And he's far from the only one to do this, I gave you Axios as one such example Red Slapper (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Axios article doesn't even MENTION DURHAM ONCE Andre🚐 00:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, but it does describe the media coverage of the Russian Collusion story as 'one of the most egregious journalistic errors in modern history" and says "the media's response to its own mistakes has so far been tepid." - which is why the NYT's coverage if its faulty reporting should be taken with a huge grain of salt. Red Slapper (talk) 00:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Nope, it's irrelevant, WP:OR WP:SYNTH WP:TE Andre🚐 00:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Those are policies that relate to article content, they say nothing about what arguments can be used on Talk pages. SInce you are apparently fond of acronyms, here are some for you WP:FORUM, WP:OWN, WP:ONUS Red Slapper (talk) 00:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose this line of argumentation. Durham was bunk and dead on arrival. Nothing that Durham wrote or said or found should be unattributed and unrebutted. Andre🚐 00:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your personal opinion. We edit based on what's in sources, not personal opinions. Red Slapper (talk) 00:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, as all sources stated, "After Years of Political Hype, the Durham Inquiry Failed to Deliver"[23] [24] He and his supporters hoped it would expose a “deep state” conspiracy within the top echelons of the FBI and other agencies to derail Trump’s presidency and candidacy. Despite expectations that Durham might charge senior government officials, his team produced only three prosecutions. A former FBI lawyer pleaded guilty to altering an email the FBI relied on in applying to eavesdrop on an ex-Trump campaign aide. Two other defendants — a lawyer for the Clinton campaign and a Russian-American analyst — were both acquitted on charges of lying to the FBI. [25] Andre🚐 00:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

The same people who peddled a hoax are now saying there's nothing wrong with what they did. What a surprise. When you find an RS taht says what you claimed ("Durham was bunk and dead on arrival") we'll address it, until then, take your personal opinions to some internet forum. Red Slapper (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but, no. You're wrong. WE WRITE WHAT THE NYT AND AP NEWS WRITE. Not what right-wing op-ed writers say. Andre🚐 00:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Do we write what CNN says? "Special counsel John Durham concludes FBI never should have launched full Trump-Russia probe"[26] Red Slapper (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe we can cite CNN that Durham concluded that FBI should not have launched the probe. But Durham also, per the same CNN piece, did not recommend any new charges against individuals or “wholesale changes” about how the FBI handles politically charged investigations, despite strongly criticizing the agency’s behavior...Durham did not recommend sweeping changes or new policies around how politically sensitive investigations are handled. AKA a nothingburger Andre🚐 00:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Those non-recommendations are already in the article. Conversely, the clear statement by CNN that Durham concluded that the FBI should not have launched the probe is downplayed and misrepresented in the lead- which is (one of the reasons) why this article has POV tag. Red Slapper (talk) 01:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Durham concluded that, and experts concluded that Durham was a partisan hack operative and full of shit, therefore we don't amplify pro-Trump talking points and conspiracy theories, cast doubt on the reliable sources, and push partisan hack op-ed narratives. We write what the experts and the best academic writers, journalists, and commentators and analysts, who are reputable and well-regarded in their field. NOT hack op-ed writers like Bret Stephens, it's honestly just insulting to our intelligence that you're here pushing that stuff. Just drop that. The article isn't POV because it treats some degree of distance and disdain toward the actors on the field. Your alphabet soup above accusing me of forum-shopping (I have posted this article to 1 noticeboard), ownership (really, show me all of my edits to this article), and mis-using ONUS - not a blank check to make your article fit a twisted POV pushing propaganda aim. Andre🚐 01:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I have repeatedly explained to you that CNN is an outlier here with the word "never." As in never ever, even after an assessment or preliminary. That it would NEVER have been proper. That's not what Durham said. Can you provide another source that concurs with the outlier CNN? Yep, CNN got "never" wrong.soibangla (talk) 01:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Enough of this nonsense: Forbes: "Special Counsel John Durham: FBI Should Not Have Launched Trump-Russia Probe"[27] The issue here is not the use of the word 'never' - it is tha twe need a clear statement, as reported by multiple reliable sources, tha Durham concluded the investigation should not have been launched, not your mealy-mouthed version of that. Red Slapper (talk) 01:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

They actually said that a full counterintelligence investigation should not have been launched. A preliminary investigation should have been. According to Durham. They were sloppy on technicalities, basically, but extremely minor stuff. He came up empty and no big conspiracy. Nothing in the NYT or AP story about Russia was debunked by Durham. In fact, he debunked Trump's conspiracy theory. Andre🚐 01:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it strikes me that the article already includes several instances of the report's conclusion that a full investigation should not have been launched. That is also what the Forbes article says beyond the WP:HEADLINE. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Yodabyte, in your edit summary you wrote "this one NYT article is very weak for inclusion in lead." I explained to you who Charlie Savage is. Are you familiar with his work on this topic? soibangla (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

---

My take on the specific disputed text, which has been deleted, restored, deleted, etc:

Article (deleted text): "'In part triggered' the Crossfire Hurricane investigation..."

NYT: "This information in part triggered and sustained Crossfire Hurricane".

My assessment: Source supports article text.

Article (deleted text): "echoing a disproved conspiracy theory about the Steele dossier.

NYT: "Durham’s report echoed a conspiracy theory".

My assessment: Source supports "echo conspiracy theory"; source does not support "disproved".

The cited NYT report continues, "the dossier did not reach those investigators until mid-September". A reader (or Wikp editor) could conclude that means the dossier was not used in opening Crossfire. The NYT might make the same conclusion about the claim that it was used. But its article did not say "disproved"--or "debunked" or "false" or "invalid" or use some other such word. If it did, our article would be justified in using the word. No conclusion by Wikp editors about the facts stated by the NYT can be included in this article unless the NYT report or other RS states that conclusion. If there actually is a source that uses 'disproved' or 'debunked' or similar, that source should be presented. Any conclusion published by Wikipedia that is not verifiable in specific language in a source violates NOR/SYNTH, and by extension also violates NPOV. DonFB (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

DonFB did you read my previous comments about why the "echoes a conspiracy" sentence has no place in the lead? Do you believe that ONE reliable source that uses that language means it should be in the lead? As far I'm aware Durham does not say that only the dossier triggered/sustained the investigation, other information from political opponents of Trump was fed to the FBI in addition to the dossier. The way that NYT article singles out the dossier to then state Durham "echoes a conspiracy theory" is sort of a straw man, unless I am totally missing something. I don't believe it should be included at all even in the body, but definitely not in the lead unless other RS can back that claim up about "echoing a conspiracy theory". Yodabyte (talk) 09:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Durham discredited his own conspiracy theory. the trial unfolded in a way highly unfavorable to Durham’s case; the central claim that Danchenko had made up his contacts with Belarusian-American businessman and Trump campaign associate Sergei Millian was not only unproven but contradicted by some of the evidence. And while initial coverage of Danchenko’s arrest depicted him as an unreliable and opportunistic paid informant, two FBI agents who testified for the prosecution strongly defended the value of Danchenko’s information—leaving Durham in the awkward position of trying to discredit his own witnesses...both the FBI and the media were looking into the Trump-Russia connection before the dossier made its appearance. Even staunch Trump ally Devin Nunes conceded, in a 2018 memo highly critical of the FBI investigation, that the inquiry was triggered by junior Trump campaign staffer George Papadopoulos’s boasts about contacts with Russian operatives. Steele’s inquiry into Trump’s Russian connections, which began in earnest in June 2016, proceeded in parallel to the FBI investigation, which opened officially in late July 2016; while Steele had some contacts with FBI agents early on, his reports were not submitted to the FBI team in charge of the Trump-Russia investigation until September 19.[28] Andre🚐 06:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

If you're trying to convince me of something about the events of the story, I don't care. Our job is to summarize what the sources say, as if we didn't care about the politics. That was the point of my comments just above. DonFB (talk) 08:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy to provide a source to support "disproved," a dozen sources if others still think the matter remains disputable. soibangla (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm thinking you had better provide them since DonFB isn't convinced by the fact pattern of the story Andre🚐 16:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia text is not based on whether its editors are "convinced" by information. That's a formula for a useless collection of competing personal opinions, not an encyclopedia. DonFB (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

The lead summary should summarize the facts. They are sourced and referenced. You're looking for a cite for specific language. I think that can be found. The only personal opinion here is that the Durham investigation is in any way impactful or important. It isn't, and it clearly according to all reliable sources and experts, was a huge dud. Andre🚐 18:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

That is false. While many sources state that it was underwhelming, they also say it was highly critical of the FBI, found double standards and that the FBI had "failed to uphold their important mission of strict fidelity to the law in connection with certain events and activities" - if you don't think that is not importnat that is a reflection on you, not Durham. Red Slapper (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

No, it's a reflection of what the expert RS have said, as has been explained to you. Not my opinion. We cannot present Durham uncritically because RS have not accepted him uncritically. You're stating Durham's findings as if they are facts. Experts widely discredited Durham's statements and the statements made about him. Andre🚐 20:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

You are generalizing with broad strokes. There has been some criticism, sure (mostly form those media sources whose original coverage was wrong and criticized for it) but it is false that all or even most RSes have discredited Durham's statements. That's false.

I am not suggesting we eliminate criticism of Durham, where such exists, but the article needs to present such criticism in a NPOV way. The statement that 'according to all reliable sources and experts' the Durham investigation was not in any way impactful or important is simply not true. Red Slapper (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm being slightly more categorical and exaggerating in my terminology in this talk dicussion, which you're apparently having difficulty understanding, so I apologize for not being more exact and precise. But as to your second point, absolutely not, that is WP:TE. You cannot question the validity of RS according your Trumpist conspiracy that hose media sources whose original coverage was wrong and criticized for it. You've offered no sources to support that as pertaining to Durham and it doesn't belong here or anywhere else: it's POV pushing and classic WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH. The vast majority of the source material has supporting the characterization as Durham as not impactful, and not living up to the hype created by the right wing. That's the story we tell here. Stop questioning RS or you'll be reported and blocked.[indulging Dumuzid's request Andre🚐 23:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)] Andre🚐 22:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Wow, what an intemperate uncalled for threat. Helps explain why you resigned the bit.DonFB (talk) 23:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the first half of your comment here. I would suggest the second half is unhelpful. Andrevan, I know passions are high, but if we could all take the temperature down just one notch, I think it would be to the benefit of everyone. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I withdraw the remark, which was improperly personal. DonFB (talk) 00:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, it is honestly appreciated. Dumuzid (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I have stricken a portion of my comment - probably not half, but the worst part. Andre🚐 23:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Andrevan, I appreciate that -- and to be clear, while I was asking you to tone it down, the "half and half" comment was actually a direct response to DonFB. I think the threat was indeed uncalled for, but I also think the personalization was unnecessary and unhelpful. I'm all for passion, but trying to maintain a decent light to heat ration is healthy. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah yes I understand and you're right as usual Andre🚐 23:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Not a threat but a warning. It is indeed forbidden to continue questioning apparently reliable sources. Read the policy. Andre🚐 23:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• Regarding this edit, it was restored by a ban-evading sockpuppet here, but more importantly, if we exclude the sockpuppet's comments, I'm definitely not seeing consensus for it here - there seems a general agreement that it places too much emphasis on personal opinions and interpretations expressed by Durham (in fact, most of the changes lack consensus, with only Yodabyte supporting them and numerous editors opposed, so it might be worth reverting the lead to a state before The Red Slapper started participating on talk and then seeing what changes still have consensus behind them.) --Aquillion (talk) 14:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Since it seems like it was added back in without discussion, I'm going to reiterate my opposition to these proposed additions to the lead. It was a recent addition with numerous problems outlined above; it places too much emphasis on opinions by Durham that lack significant secondary focus, and I'm not seeing any consensus for it in these discussions. And it is certainly not longstanding, as the edit restoring it argues - it was added recently and has been contested repeatedly; it has never been the stable version. The only reason it was there for any length of time at all is because a sockpuppet edit-warred it back in and then gave a false impression that it had more support than it seemed on talk (though even with them I don't see a consensus - but certainly not once we discount them.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Andre🚐 00:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

predication lead sentence

This sentence currently reads:

Durham said there had been inadequate predication to open a full investigation rather than a preliminary investigation.

I hope we can all agree that the facts of this statement are fully supported by numerous reliable sources.

Yesterday, Red Slapper said on Talk:

...the clear statement by CNN that Durham concluded that the FBI should not have launched the probe is downplayed and misrepresented in the lead

The current sentence is not "downplayed." It's the first sentence after the Report is introduced.

Moreover, Red Slapper has repeatedly emphasised using the CNN source, despite numerous other reliable sources being available. Now, CNN reported "Special counsel John Durham concluded that the FBI should never have launched a full investigation..." (emphasis mine) "Never" means never, as in, no matter how much additional evidence was acquired in the future to build an airtight case, the FBI should NEVER have opened Crossfire as a full investigation. This is not what Durham said, and I don't see any other source that uses the word "never" in this context. CNN is an outlier here, and outliers should be thrown out in the face of every other reliable source not saying that.

Yesterday, Red Slapper insisted more than once that "never" was not his issue for challenging our content. If so, then why does Red Slapper keep coming back to CNN when numerous other sources are available? The editor also stated that the POV tag will remain until this is resolved to their satisfaction. I have asked Red Slapper at least twice to edit the article so we can go through standard BRD, but the editor has not.

So, I now ask Red Slapper to provide specific language they would prefer. If it includes "never," it should be rejected. But at this point I don't see what problem Red Slapper perceives in our existing sentence. It doesn't "downplay" or "misrepresent" anything, as Red Slapper asserts. It just doesn't contain the word "never," or some other issue that Red Slapper still has not identified. soibangla (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I've made this suggestion before: We should say "Durham said the FBI investigation should not have been opened", or alternatively "Durham said the FBI should not have opened a full investigation." This is supported by CNN, Forbes, NPR [29] and others. Red Slapper (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Enough talk. Make the edit. soibangla (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Done. Let's see how long before you or one of your buddies reverts it. Red Slapper (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Two quick things: (1) I would personally disagree with the current wording, at least standing alone, because I think it could easily give rise to the inference that no investigation should have been opened, which was not the conclusion of the report; and (2) with all due respect Red Slapper, any time you find yourself saying "you or one of your buddies," it's probably a good moment to check that you aren't arguing against consensus. Happy Friday to all. Dumuzid (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

There are at least 3 editors here who have expressed concerns about the article's POV - Yodabyte, DonFB and myself. And conversely, on the other side there are 3-4 editors who think the article was just fine. So no, there doesn't seem to be a consensus against my position or yours.

My comment re: reverting is based on recent past experience: This edit by me was reverted by soibangla within an hour, this was undone by them in about 90 minutes, and this one was reverted by Valjean in less than 10 minutes. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes-type investigation skills to see a consistent POV and lockstep editing patterns between those two. Red Slapper (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I suppose one might also interpret it as good faith editing by a number of people who have contrasting viewpoints and strong feelings about a given topic. Just a thought. Dumuzid (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I am not suggesting some underhanded off-wiki collaboration. But that is not required -all that's needed is a number of people with the same viewpoint and strong feelings, who are watching what each other does and act in concert. As is evident here. Red Slapper (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

My reversions were fully proper. Did you open a Talk topic on it? Sometimes people are projecting when they assert POV. Valjean and I disagreed on two significant issues in this article. lockstep editing patterns between those two is incorrect. soibangla (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I have seen your edits on more than just this article. While you may disagree on one thing or another, your general POV is nearly identical, and obvious. Red Slapper (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you have confused our alleged shared POV with our consistent use of reliable sources that are accurately paraphrased, with content you just don't like. Just throwing that possibility out there, because I know these sorts of things happen. soibangla (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe, but I don't think so. Red Slapper (talk) 16:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

well good for you then. now, where's that many others of POV issues you've identified? soibangla (talk) 16:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

For the lead, the remaining issue is Durham alleged the defendants had deceived the FBI, rather than alleging the FBI acted improperly toward Trump - we are not in the business of suggesting what he should have charged (certainly not in wikipedia's voice), only report on what he charged. So that needs to be changed to Durham charged the defendants with lying to the FBI. The statement currently in the article is sourced to this, which does not support the "rather than alleging the FBI acted improperly toward Trump" part Red Slapper (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

The statement is not sourced to CNN, as you assert, it is sourced to WaPo, which has been there quite a while, and says "In both trials this year, Durham argued that people deceived FBI agents, not that investigators corruptly targeted Trump."[30] It is perfectly acceptable to mention what people did not do, if sources explicitly state it, which WaPo did. I recall we went over this days ago and we're going round and round in circles. soibangla (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

No no, enough of this. Either edit the article or revert specific content so we can go through BRD. soibangla (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

What's this game you are playing? You asked me what issues remain, I tell you, and then you're upset when I do? Red Slapper (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Please go through BRD like everyone else does. That way, we can address your many others of POV issues you've identified in an orderly fashion. soibangla (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

This is the "D" part of BRD. You asked me what I think needs to be changed, I did, and we're discussing it. Red Slapper (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

What's this game you are playing? Right back atcha again. BEBOLD, then maybe there will be an R and a D. soibangla (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd rather get to an agreement on the talk page than get into a cycle of. edit/revert etc. What's your issue with that?

If you agree with my proposal above, say so, and I will implement it. if you don't , let's hash it out here first - what the point of me making an edit you disgree with only to have you revert it and have me come back here to discuss? Red Slapper (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

the point is that maybe your changes will not be challenged at all, but the only way to know is to BEBOLD, and you should not assume that simply because, what, three? of your edits were reverted as defective before, that they will all be reverted. The irony here is that you have declared this entire article as POV. You don't have good cause to make everyone spend all day Talking with you. And we go round and round in circles with this. Enough! Edit the article. soibangla (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this seems pointless. Do you agree with my suggested edit, yes or no? Red Slapper (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

The statement that the Trump campaign claimed the FBI acted improperly toward Trump is not in dispute. Andre🚐 16:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

What's that got to do with the price of tea in China? This is a sentence about the Durham charges, not the Trump allegations. We should say what Durham charged, not what he didn't charge, especially when the source does not support it. Red Slapper (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

No, we say the entire context including what Trump wanted Durham to do when he appointed him, and how he failed at that. Andre🚐 19:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

why would we want to put this irrelevancy ("what Trump wanted Durham to do") in the article when it is not in the source? Red Slapper (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

It's plainly mentioned in every source. Andre🚐 19:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not in the source used in the article. Perhaps you are thinking of some other source, and can provide it. Red Slapper (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

The report Monday from special counsel John Durham represents the long-awaited culmination of an investigation that Trump and allies had claimed would expose massive wrongdoing by law enforcement and intelligence officials. Instead, Durham’s investigation delivered underwhelming results, with prosecutors securing a guilty plea from a little-known FBI employee but losing the only two criminal cases they took to trial.[31] Andre🚐 19:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Where in that quote does it say Durham did not "alleg[e] the FBI acted improperly toward Trump "? Red Slapper (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you're being overly picky on the exact language, we are allowed to summarize, use synonyms, and connect the same dots that the sources connect so long as we don't reach new conclusions, which we aren't here. He and his supporters hoped it would expose a “deep state” conspiracy within the top echelons of the FBI and other agencies to derail Trump’s presidency and candidacy...Despite expectations that Durham might charge senior government officials, his team produced only three prosecutions. Quite clear. Andre🚐 20:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Durham’s report suggested that the FBI moved too quickly to open a full investigation, but stopped short of denouncing the FBI’s and Justice Department’s decisions to investigate ... Preliminary investigations, he wrote, are constrained by time limits and fewer approved investigation techniques. [32] Andre🚐 23:20, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

RfC: "in part triggered"

Should the current lead sentence...

The report concluded the FBI had showed confirmation bias and a "serious lack of analytical rigor" toward the information they received, especially information the FBI received from politically affiliated persons and entities.

be amended to include this bold content...

The report concluded the FBI had showed confirmation bias and a "serious lack of analytical rigor" toward the information they received, especially information the FBI received from politically affiliated persons and entities. Durham asserted this information "in part triggered" the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, echoing a disproved conspiracy theory promoted by Trump supporters.

This question is rooted in what Charlie Savage exclusively reported in The New York Times:

Mr. Durham went beyond criticizing the wiretap applications, writing: "Our investigation also revealed that senior F.B.I. personnel displayed a serious lack of analytical rigor toward the information that they received, especially information received from politically affiliated persons and entities. This information in part triggered and sustained Crossfire Hurricane and contributed to the subsequent need for Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation."

But in using the word "triggered," Mr. Durham’s report echoed a conspiracy theory pushed by supporters of Mr. Trump that the F.B.I. opened the investigation in July 2016 based on the so-called Steele dossier, opposition research indirectly funded by the Clinton campaign that was later discredited.[33]

The NYT does not use the word "disproved" but that can be readily sourced if this edit is ultimately adopted.

This matter has been previously discussed in this Talk thread. soibangla (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• No we should not be editorializing or synthesizing material from multiple sources to advance a viewpoint not in any single source. I will go further and say that even if the NYT article did say "disproved", we should not be parroting a single source that claims this, certainly not from a source that has been the recipient of much criticism over its coverage of this whole affair.

Red Slapper (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, this should be included because it comes from the expert sources and how they describe the scenario. Andre🚐 16:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• :Which expert source says "Durham asserted this information "in part triggered" the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, echoing a disproved conspiracy theory"? The NYT article certainly doesn't. Red Slapper (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• It's a summarization of several sources which are discussed at length above. WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY, summarization is allowed in the lead. Andre🚐 16:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

NYT certainly said that, with the exception of disproved, which I clearly disclosed would be sourced simply so we don't have go through a two-step process because some editor seeks to disrupt the process. soibangla (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Then source it, without synthesizing. To be clear: find a SINGLE source that says the Durham report echoed a disproved conspiracy theory. Red Slapper (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Once again, I disagree with your interpretation of SYNTH as two sources to support two items in one sentence. If others say here they agree with your interpretation, I will remove "disproved" from this RfC. soibangla (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Disagree all you want, but that is what SYNTH days: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Red Slapper (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

You seem to profess a remarkably confident level of knowledge of this and other policies for an editor who has been here for just 8 months. Impressive! soibangla (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

That's a bad faith snark that should be stricken. DonFB (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Summary is necessary to reduce the information in lengthy sources to an encyclopedic length -- even when the information being summarized comes from multiple sources. It's not necessary to find a source that summarizes the information. As long as what's in the article is an accurate, neutral summary, and each of the statements is verified by an appropriate source, then the summary is also verified by the same sources. Summary is not forbidden by any Wikipedia policy. Andre🚐 18:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

You are not summarizing lengthy content here, you are synthesizing. Red Slapper (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure about inclusion at this point, but it strikes me that the New York Times does in fact support this wording or something like it. It first says: Mr. Durham’s report echoed a conspiracy theory pushed by supporters of Mr. Trump that the F.B.I. opened the investigation in July 2016 based on the so-called Steele dossier and in the next sentence says In fact, as Mr. Durham acknowledged elsewhere in the report, the dossier did not reach those investigators until mid-September. We can certainly quibble about exact wording, but it strikes me that saying the 'conspiracy theory' was not true is an accurate summary of the source. Again, that doesn't mean it should necessarily be included, but wanted to make sure everyone is on the same page. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: If restored, the text should be clarified as follows: "conspiracy theory promoted by Trump supporters". Must be explicitly referenced. DonFB (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  No objection on my part to attributing that conspiracy theory, but I'd modify that to "Trump, his campaign and his supporters" to clarify that his supporters aren't just acting independently but are amplifying his direct statements. Andre🚐 20:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  With all due respect, that wider wording does indeed seem a bit synth-y to me; if the text is restored, I think "Trump supporters" is best supported. As ever, happy to go with consensus. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  he and his supporters[34] Andre🚐 20:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  Can you point me to the language in that article that supports your wider wording? To be clear, I would agree with the proposition in an informal, non-Wikipedia sense, but as contentious as this topic is, I rather think we should be (small c) conservative with our descriptions. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not picky about the exact semantics of it, but every article is clearly about Trump and his supporters, not his supporters alone, so that would be misleading. Mr. Trump and some of his allies in the news media went further, stoking expectations among his supporters that Mr. Durham would imprison high-level officials[35] Trump was quick to claim vindication for his claims that a massive deep state plot was designed to thwart him from power seven years ago, even though the report made no such firm conclusion.[36] “It’s a bit of a dud,” Ryan Goodman, an NYU School of Law professor, told CNN’s Erin Burnett, arguing that Durham’s contention that FBI agents had found countervailing evidence that they ignored to upgrade a preliminary probe into Trump into a full-scale investigation was questionable. Elliot Williams, a CNN legal analyst, said that the report failed to live up to Trump’s accusations. In that Durham did not find “systemic abuses” that Trump partisans had hoped to see. Andre🚐 23:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  Again, I completely agree in an informal sense, but for me, it's a bad fit simply because the New York Times article clearly and specifically defines the "conspiracy theory" it is talking about: that the Steele Dossier sparked Crossfire Hurricane. The idea that the report did not live up to expectations or failed to uncover a "deep state plot" strikes me as something else--though perhaps also worthy of inclusion. Just not under the aegis of the Times piece. Although perhaps we could do it the other way around? I confess I am old and it has been a long week, but I am thinking! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  I see what you're saying. Here's a source showing Trump's campaign such as Ronna McDaniel and Jay Sekulow repeating the theory.[37] That should cover Trump's campaign. As for theory from Trump that the dossier started the investigation being debunked, covered by Horowitz here: [38] Horowitz refuted the claims propagated by Trump that the Russia investigation had its roots in the unverified, salacious allegations in the dossier. Andre🚐 23:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment Per WP:SAY, we shouldn't use "Asserted." Adoring nanny (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes per Andre, endorse suggestion by DonFB. 2603:7080:8F00:49F1:58B:3BD4:1DAB:AEB4 (talk) 01:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

No - The Durham report says triggered AND SUSTAINED, but the conspiracy theory was only about the OPENING of the investigation in July 2016. The NYT article is very vague about the Steele dossier triggering the investigation, but then somehow links it to the conspiracy theory pushed by Trump and supporters of Trump. Soibangla even wrote above that Durham is "alluding to the dossier. He was wink-winking at it" but this is just an assumption. Durham never says anything about the dossier and there was other information being fed to the FBI by political opponents of Trump, not only the dossier. The wording about "echoing a conspiracy theory" has nothing to back it up except innuendo and assumption and it should not be included in the lead or in the body. Yodabyte (talk) 23:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Not as proposed. The word "echoes" does a lot of work in the NYT article. Its dictionary meaning is "to repeat details that are similar to, and make you think of, something else" [39]. It is compatible with the report both confirming and refuting the conspiracy theory (is it still a conspiracy theory if it's confirmed?). Alaexis_¿question? 08:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• No.Charlie Savage et al are guessing what "this information" refers to in the report's previous sentence, i.e. was it "the information they received" or was it "the information from politically affiliated persons and entities". The rest of the report discusses the information they received, e.g. Downer, so the sentence could have been clearer, that's all. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Yodabyte edit

Yodabyte, the edit you just made was extensively discussed and resolved here on Talk. IIRC, you were blocked for a time during that discussion, and another participant with similar arguments as yours was indeffed after being found to be a ban evader.

I recommend you self-revert and bring this matter back to Talk. soibangla (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

In addition to your recent edit summary abut Durham's findings being incorrect, everything you just said above is also incorrect. Nothing was "extensively discussed and resolved" and I was never blocked for anything relating to this article, please stop making stuff up. Yodabyte (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Maybe my recollection of where you were blocked is incorrect, I apologize if my recollection is incorrect. It was extensively discussed and resolved here. You are using the CNN "outlier" article which is not consistent with what multiple other reliable sources reported, and what Durham explained in his report. Durham did not say a full investigation should "never" have been opened, but rather it could have been opened after an assessment or preliminary investigation. soibangla (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

CNN is not an outlier, there are other RS that state a full investigation should not have been initiated. In fact it should be pretty clear (unless I'm totally missing something) that based on the final report the investigation should not have progressed past a preliminary stage since evidence was very weak and much of it was politically motivated false information being fed to FBI. Yodabyte (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)