Wikipedia

Talk:FBI search of Mar-a-Lago/Archive 1

< Talk:FBI search of Mar-a-Lago
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Robertsky in topic Requested move 9 August 2022
Archive 1Archive 2

this article needs a sourced rewrite

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

as this eventually becomes a featured article and a political science touchstone, you might as well get on it. Saintstephen000 (talk)— Preceding undated comment added 18:21, 9 August 2022

Agree. I came to this article looking for a timeline primer of date specified events that string together this topic of interest (in other words: the raid) and was left with more questions and a desire to issue tag this article. If that is not the scope of this particular page, I think that there needs to be a SEE ALSO that covers the NARA discovery of missing documents and all subsequent matters from that genesis event that relate to this warrant so a lay reader can reach the article intended. MJHTrailsolid (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Title

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Is "raid" the most commonly used term to describe this? I'm seeing a lot of sources using the term "search". 331dot (talk) 09:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

No. RS call it a search. When they use "raid", they are quoting Trump. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I think it appropriate to point out in the first paragraph that while news agencies across the country referred to it as an FBI raid, it wasn't until democrat leadership, Kamala Harris specifically, started asking to call it a search instead that people began to call it a search. If this article intends to accurately reflect the event, it should absolutely be documented that politicians requested the media to change terminology being used. It should also be pointed out that the the action fits the definition of a police raid in wikipedia 75.49.123.61 (talk) 03:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Please stop trying to spin this - it was a raid, despite what Kamala Harris is now saying. Not Illogical (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Were there any arrests or arrest warrants? If not, it was a search. 2603:8080:7D05:7200:E1B8:1CB3:8AA9:4239 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

People are not "quoting Trump" when calling it a raid. Numerous sources across the political aisle have called it so. See these examples. https://www.mediaite.com/tv/such-an-aggressive-move-cnn-analysts-andrew-mccabe-and-paul-callan-agree-dangerous-doj-raid-must-be-about-more-than-documents/

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-director-declines-comment-mar-lago-raid-decries/story?id=88214381

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-benefits-from-announcing-fbi-raid-first-politics-media-experts-2022-8

https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/09/politics/trump-2024-bid/index.html

https://www.economist.com/united-states/2022/08/10/the-raid-on-mar-a-lago-could-shake-americas-foundations

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/09/opinion/trump-mar-a-lago-raid-republicans.html

There are MANY more just like these.

Requested move 9 August 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago107 comments50 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Participants are split between the use of 'raid' and 'search'. On the side of 'raid', the arguments are generally based on the technical definition of the term, while on the side of the 'search', the arguments are generally arguing that 'raid' in this event is contentious (i.e. WP:IMPARTIAL, value-laden label, etc). The discussion has gone on to be a debate over what is 'raid' vs 'search'. A couple of editors have also suggested that the scope of the article should be expanded and rename in some other form, which fresh discussions are better for this.

Side note: one editor had suggested to make either version as redirect to the other, and it appeared to have been done at the start of this conversation. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 04:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

FBI search of Mar-a-Lago → ? – modified by P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 00:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 02:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Interim closure
INTERIM CLOSE. DISCUSSION SHOULD CONTINUE
I am reluctant to just SNOW close this completely but there is clear early support, to say that it should be moved. However, this is an event that remains fluid and could have further developments (in other words how sources are describing it today may change with-in the 7 days of this RM). Further the discussion has literally only been open a few hours so while I am going to action a move based on the discussion so far - the move improves the encyclopedia - I would suggest discussion should continue for at least a while longer - and perhaps a full 7 days - to establish a firmer consensus. Note: a different editor performed this move while I was typing this close but had that not happened I would have done it after submitting this. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Raid of Mar-a-Lago → FBI search of Mar-a-Lago – Are any sources calling this a raid(other than Trump and sources reporting his quote)? 331dot (talk) 12:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Support. I've even seen a legal analyst specifically arguing against calling this a "raid": "...the FBI executed a search warrant at Trump’s residence, Mar-a-Lago. Not a raid. No crashing in of doors or destruction of property. This is a judicially authorized proceeding, in which a federal judge independently reviews an FBI agent’s sworn affidavit and must conclude they agree that there is probable cause for the search." https://joycevance.substack.com/p/search-a-lago Brad (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion of close

Page has been moved back to its original name. Pinging @Pennsylvania2:. While a user did prematurely move the page, Barkeep mentions they would have done the move had the user not. Not sure if you saw this post by them on the talk page or not. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Continued move discussion

This is just a thought but what about "FBI raid of Mar-a-Lago? Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 19:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Just leave it. Once it becomes clear which witch hunt this is associated with (the Jan 6 mostly peaceful protest, the document fiasco, IDK what other Democrat concoction) then the move should be to that article and most of this a section in it. If that's known now, then that's what the move ought be --LaserLegs (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose I am not sure why this is getting discussed further if a consensus was found already. Search is clearly more accurate as it was (as far as is known today) a lawfully executed search warrant with no physical force used and no arrests made. We can surely mention that certain people are referring to it as "Raid" in the article. CrazyPredictor (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Support the Wikipedia definition of the word raid as defined on Police raid clearly fits this scenario. Also @CrazyPredictor please read why the discussion was closed, as you clearly have not done so Cookiegator (talk) 23:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Support In a previous entry on this page, somebody claimed that the word "search" was not widely used at the outbreak of the news, I'm not sure if this is relevant but it might suggest that a more ambiguous "search" is politically motivated? Nevertheless, from an outside perspective, Australian sources such as ABC (neutral source) and the Sydney Morning Herald (left-wing slant) call it a "raid", and it seems to fit Wikipedia's own definition of a Police raid; it is indeed an unexpected visit by police or other law-enforcement officers with the aim of using the element of surprise in order to seize evidence (classified records taken by Trump into Mar-a-Lago)
ABC: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-10/trumps-fbi-mar-a-lago-raid-and-his-legal-entanglements/101316784
SMH: https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/fbi-under-pressure-to-explain-trump-raid-at-mar-a-lago-20220810-p5b8nh.html
The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/09/donald-trump-fbi-raid-documents
9News: https://www.9news.com.au/world/donald-trump-mar-a-lago-resort-raided-by-fbi-former-president-claims/e724ec62-fc64-4e38-b280-d9f97f29991d
The Conversation: https://theconversation.com/as-the-fbi-raids-mar-a-lago-donald-trump-reaches-for-unconvincing-historical-parallels-188455
BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62486406 675930s (talk) 04:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
When RS use "raid", they are quoting Trump (NBC, WaPo, Guardian, NYT, NPR, Politico, CBS), can't judge by clickbait in the headline. Wikipedia is not a reliable source for WP editing purposes (WP:CIRC), and in this case the search doesn't fit WP's definition of "police raid", either. See my comment below. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
The Australian sources are NOT quoting Trump in calling it a raid – they are calling it a raid in their own right 675930s (talk) 10:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Can I ask what you see as the difference between a "search" and a "raid" that makes the latter term a better choice for this article title? (See also the above comments by Space4Time3Continuum2x.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
raid is more specific Cookiegator (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Is that because "raid" implies a lack of consent for the search? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
According to the Police raid article, a "raid" has "the aim of using the element of surprise". If I understand correctly, some advance notice was given for this search, and an attorney for Trump was present at the scene, and there was no forced entry to the facility. I think of a "raid" as something much more chaotic that involves a lot of shouting and running around, and often handcuffs, etc. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I believe your information is inaccurate. They had to coordinate with Secret Service, obviously, however the the FBI timed the raid to ensure Trump was out of town. Additionally, the national archives had been working with Trump for quite a while to look at things, and they were never turned away. This was absolutely intended to surprise, and given the level of cooperation so far it's puzzling that they needed a warrant at all. The National Archives had been given everything they've asked for to date.
Raid is the more accurate term for this action. KdocXX (talk) 04:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Citation needed for these statements. Obviously, the National Archives wasn't given everything if the FBI just had to pop in and pick it up. They left with a bunch of boxes and documents. Andre🚐 04:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Here's an article discussing things from June. Demonstrating full cooperation with the National Archives: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/09/fbi-seized-boxes-in-trump-raid-in-florida-lawyer-says.html
Here's another one talking about Trump turning things over to the National Archives: https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/3593418-fbi-raids-trumps-mar-a-lago/
The National Archives were given everything they had asked for to date, and had not been denied once. Your statement, "Obviously, the National Archives wasn't given everything if the FBI just had to pop in and pick it up", is a misrepresentation of what I said. My evidence backs up my statement that they had been "given everything they've asked for to date". It also demonstrates full cooperation to date. 75.49.123.61 (talk) 05:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Are you the same person as KdocXX? Sorry, just confused. I agree that the sources do say in June that Trump had turned everything over. Obviously, he must have withheld something if the FBI left with boxes full of the documents in question.[5] "investigators from the FBI and the DOJ met with Trump attorneys at Mar-a-Lago in June, seeking more information about classified material that had been taken to Florida after Trump departed the White House. Following that meeting, where investigators looked around the room where the documents were being stored, the Wall Street Journal reports that "someone familiar with the stored papers told investigators there may be still more classified documents at the private club" beyond what Trump turned over to the National Archives earlier this year." Andre🚐 05:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Or, he didn't withhold anything, and gave them everything they asked for, and cooperated fully. Perhaps they saw some more boxes and thought "maybe there's classified stuff in there". At this point, all we have is evidence that he cooperated fully and gave them everything they were asking for. Until the warrant is unsealed, we will not know why it happened. It's obviously unknown whether or not the FBI got "documents in question", because we only know they grabbed boxes of documents, and have have zero knowledge about what was in those boxes. If something was withheld, you're going to have to provide a credible source that says that. At this point, you've just quoted an anonymous source saying there might be something more, which is not credible at all, and doesn't even imply that something was withheld, only that there might be more in other boxes.
No idea who KdocXX is. I see the name above, and that is my comment, I have no idea why it shows a username. I have never had a wikipedia account. 75.49.123.61 (talk) 06:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
That's just a ridiculous argument. If he had cooperated fully, the FBI wouldn't be raiding his home. Andre🚐 12:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Kamala Harris never said this, it was a former aide of hers that is now an MSNBC commentator.[6] Andre🚐 20:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't need to address your incredulity without supporting evidence.
Your comments even further strengthen that the title needs to be changed to raid. You yourself refer to it as a raid throughout, it is clear that this is parlance in which people view the event, and calling it a "search" is political spin.
Let's fix the title to accurately reflect the event 75.49.123.61 (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Are you referring to me? I said I was neutral on "raid" or "search." I am fine with either name. But I disagree that there's evidence that this raid/search was politically motivated or somehow unjustifiable. It was clearly due to the many criminal actions of Trump and his administration. Mishandling classified information and flushing documents down the toilet etc. Quite serious crimes. Andre🚐 16:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
There is some evidence though that supports the term "search". The AP is the biggest user of the term "search" over raid, as the first page of these google results (counting only results that link to APNEWS.com) use the term "search". Personally, if the news conflicts on the usage of the term, use Google Trends to figure out recognizability.
Google Trends Data in the past 7 days does have a clear bias towards the term raid. Ultimately, either Search OR Raid works and describes the event accurately, but if Wikipedia wants the most recognizable name which describes the situation, then "Raid" would be better than "Search". InvadingInvader (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
The title should be updated to "Raid". Even the editors on here arguing to keep it as "search" are using the word "raid" to describe it. 75.49.123.61 (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
If you're referring to me, I did not argue for "search," I am fine with either name. Andre🚐 16:27, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
*raid is usually a colloquialism, often a hyperbolic feelings-based exclamation to describe events that are called something else by institutions and academia.

raid to describe an executed search warrant makes mockery of a military "raid" operation, for example. best to go with a dry tone for article titles. Saintstephen000 (talk)

  • Support - Sure looks like a raid when you have armed FBI agents standing guard outside -Topcat777
No, a raid is when the door is busted down and the authorities storm the place being raided. This was a lawfully executed search warrant which was lawfully obtained. During such things, agents secure the area("armed FBI agents standing guard outside") and that does not indicate a "raid". 331dot (talk) 11:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Please support this claim in the post-1990, criminal justice literature. I’m familiar with a little bit of it, having briefly studied the rise of right wing violence in the US, as well as the disintegration of civil liberties as the police were militarized. From what I can tell this FBI raid was a police raid by every available definition in that literature, many of which were made under similar circumstances (such as executing search warrants to recover documents). The only difference here is that there is an Orwellian-like attempt by the government and media to change and alter the use of common words and phrases so as to attempt to defuse and mitigate the MAGA response from the lunatic fringe. It’s important to be upfront about this. Viriditas (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Did you notice which way they're facing? Guarding against trouble from outside, not from within. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:11, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose (that is, keep it at "Search"). The search warrant was approved on Friday, August 5. Had it been a raid the FBI would have descended on Mar-a-Logo the same day, or Saturday at the very latest. Instead the FBI entered Mar-a-Logo three days later, namely at 9 am on the following Monday, making it a very civilized search remotely unlike any raid. Furthermore the concern was that Trump may have removed documents whose disclosure could put the nation's safety at grave risk (do you really want a repeat of 9/11 this time with nuclear weapons?), making the point of the whole exercise to search for such documents. This search was not a raid in any customary sense of the word, leaving me greatly puzzled as to why anyone other than a Trump supporter would be motivated to parrot Trump's term of "raid" for this search. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 06:02, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Clarification Needed - When people say Support or Oppose here without elaborating, how do we know they mean they support a move back to what it was originally ("Raid") or if they oppose the change that was already hastily made? Kire1975 (talk) 06:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose The name should stay at "Search". While it's true that Trump was unhappy about the search, it is rare for people to be happy about warrants being executed on their property and this is not what would distinguish a search from a raid. A raid is a search warrant that is unannounced to the property owner and is executed rapidly to prevent persons at the location being searched from tampering with or destroying the evidence or items to be seized. For example, in the case of a drug investigation the police would likely conduct a raid as providing advance notice might give an opportunity for throwing away drugs or other incriminating evidence the police are seeking. In the case at Mar-a-Lago, I have not heard any claims that Trump intended to destroy the documents. Rather, it appears he simply wished to retain possession of the documents indefinitely. That the FBI notified his attorneys so that they could be present for the search (lack of notice to the general public is irrelevant here) would further support the idea that the FBI did not expect the documents to be destroyed and would make the more general "search" a more appropriate term than "raid". Aogaeru4 (talk) 13:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - Everyone above has already provided reasonable enough technical reasons on why this classifies as a raid per the English language and how event reporting has already linked this to a raid instead of a search. The incident severity and circumstances led me to instinctively use the 'raid' term to try and discover this Wikipedia page as a lay reader, therefore I must agree that the current title using 'search' is incorrect. In addition, I suggest that this article needs to evolve to something with an expanded title. For example: Presidential records investigation and FBI raid of Mar-a-Lago. MJHTrailsolid (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose move. I was neutral previously. I find the common name argument persuasive but I also think 331dot and Vaughan Pratt make good points. I think we should leave it where it is for now and discuss moving or merging it a little bit later when more information arises as to its relevance in the bigger picture of the investigation or case. Andre🚐 16:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose this search was part of a Justice Department investigation that also discovered of classified White House records recovered from Trump’s home in Palm Beach earlier this year. This is more than just the search of Mar-a-Lago. 124.105.189.10 (talk) 20:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Neutral I lean a certain direction on this, but my vote is simply to close the discussion and take the move discussion tag off the article. This has become a debate over what the word "raid" means and if a "raid" must be classified as one rather than otherwise. This discussion has been going on for over half a week now and it's not getting anywhere. Let's just make the other of the two options not chosen for the title a redirect and get rid of the move discussion box. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. Second the motion. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is the abstract of J.M Davis "Raids - A Guide to Planning, Coordinating, and Executing Searches and Arrests", the book that provides specific guidelines for safe and successful police raids by local, State, and and Federal law enforcement officers, along with a brief survey of current arrest, search, and seizure laws, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. Does that sound like the FBI operation on August 8? Where does it fit in that they informed both the Secret Service (so that they can open the doors) and the resident's lawyer beforehand so that they can be present? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
    User:Space4Time3Continuum2x: How does it not sound like what happened on August 8? Kire1975 (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
    We shouldn’t be using a loaded term. Raid has different meanings. People "raiding their refrigerator" at 3 a.m. because they got the munchies is very different from police raiding a drug lab or the Golden Horde raiding Vienna. When U.S. law enforcement personnel have reason to expect resistance to prevent execution of a search warant, i.e., that they’ll have to use force to search and seize, they’ll arrive in tactical gear. They’ll knock and announce themselves, break down the door if necessary to gain entry, etc. In this case, the FBI showed up at 9 a.m. in khakis and polo shirts, presented the warrant, were let in, and conducted their search. Cornell Law School ’s legal encyclopedia explains search warrant requirements and manner of execution.

    When RS first reported the incident, they used raid when they were quoting Trump (NBC, WaPo, Guardian, NYT, NPR, Politico, CBS). (Also, sometimes as clickbait in the headline, with or without quote marks, but WP doesn't do clickbait.) When RS mention the incident now, eg., New York Times, it’s generally called a "search". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:41, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
    I agree with everything you said except for the first part. You wrote, When U.S. law enforcement personnel have reason to expect resistance to prevent execution of a search warant, i.e., that they’ll have to use force to search and seize, they’ll arrive in tactical gear. They’ll knock and announce themselves, break down the door if necessary to gain entry, etc. I’m fairly certain this statement is true in theory, but false in practice. I can recall reading about dozens (likely hundreds) of incidents in the US post-1990 where they perform raids on peaceful people or scenarios where resistance is either unlikely or not even possible. This is why I oppose the Orwellian change in verbiage. Viriditas (talk) 22:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
    Sounds exactly like it, actually. Anon0098 (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
    I take it that my comment needs clarification—I assume you didn't read the abstract? The book is a guide for raids, not polite 9 a.m. searches intended to be low-publicity until former guy used the bullhorn to announce it to the world. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:41, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The word "raid" is good for newspaper and other media headlines to grab audiences' attention. But we are an encyclopedia and strive for neutral wording. We do that by avoiding weasel words, words that strut their stuff like a peacock and we run away from labeling. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
    Are you sure raid fits on any of those lists? Let's take a look:
    MOS:WEASEL:
    Words to watch: some people say, many scholars state, it is believed/regarded/considered, many are of the opinion, most feel, experts declare, it is often reported, it is widely thought, research has shown, science says, scientists claim, it is often said, officially, is widely regarded as, X has been described as Y, raid ...
    MOS:PUFFERY:
    Words to watch: legendary, best, great, acclaimed, iconic, visionary, outstanding, leading, celebrated, popular, award-winning, landmark, cutting-edge, innovative, revolutionary, extraordinary, brilliant, hit, famous, renowned, remarkable, prestigious, world-class, respected, notable, virtuoso, honorable, awesome, unique, pioneering, phenomenal, raid,  ...
    MOS:LABEL:
    Words to watch: cult, racist, perverted, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, misogynistic, sect, fundamentalist, heretic, extremist, denialist, terrorist, freedom fighter, bigot, myth, neo-Nazi, -gate, pseudo-, controversial, raid,  ...
    Kire1975 (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, "raid" is a very good fit. The above list is not exhaustive. I am allowed to ivote how I see it. That's the purpose of these surveys. If you disagree that's fine with me. I don't care. Also, it wasn't necessary to plaster the page over one single word, the word "raid." This looks like overkill to me. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Editors are fully capable of reading the pages that I linked to. I recommend you remove this. It seems a little disruptive. Also, zealotry doesn't work to well on Wikipedia. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Zealotry? That would be quite a WP:PERSONALATTACK if you weren't able to justify that claim. Kire1975 (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Apologies the personal attack----Steve Quinn (talk) 02:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
I think WP:IMPARTIAL applies. As I said above, raid is or, at a minimum, can be (and is used by Trump, Trump supporters, and Trump-supporting media) as a loaded term to indicate an unjustified, unreasonable, and violent proceeding. The neutral term is search. Let's keep it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Space4Time3Continuum2x I was trying to remember that link – WP:IMPARTIAL. And I agree with what you wrote here. It is well said. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The execution of a search warrant is always a surprise, whether law enforcement show up in tactical gear and bust in your door with a battering ram or whether they show up in casual wear and ring the bell. If someone is suspected of being in the possession of stolen property or drugs, and the police informs them that they have a search warrant and will search the premises tomorrow at 9 a.m., the stolen property/drugs won't be there the next day. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
"Raid" is a term that can be used to imply victimization. A common example, "Xxxxx was a victim of a raid." To comply with a lawful search warrant issued by a judge is to honor a legal process as a citizen within a nation that follows the rule of law. Unlikely would be a statement such as "Xxxxx was a victim of a search warrant issued by a court judge according to law." "Search" does not imply victimhood and is WP:NPOV Ooligan (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Sources? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:42, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose (use “search” not “raid”) – I agree with many earlier comments on how “raid” is imprecise: After all, not all “raids” are for executing search warrants (some are for fugitive apprehensions, hostage recoveries, etc.), and not all search warrants require “raids.” I also agree that “raid” carries certain connotations/features absent from this Mar-a-Lago case (breaching a perimeter with violence, notably). Mostly, though, I can’t help but think of things most would not hesitate to call “raids,” for example, the Elian Gonzalez case, the incident at the YFZ Ranch, or the capture of Osama bin Laden. For me, even just in terms of “material deployed on the field in prep for engagement” (plus, the rather peaceful manner in which those resources were actually utilized that day), the differences are stark enough for me to advocate that “search” be used in this instance, rather than “raid,” even if the latter is used more “commonly” in both civilian and law enforcement circles. The popular thing is not always the right thing, and trying to define a concept like “raid” by focusing only on potential gray areas doesn’t do justice to the rather obvious cases that more clearly define the precise nature of "raids." (Sorry for the late reply, don’t want to beat a dead horse, but also didn’t understand this convo was still going on.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LumonRedacts (talk • contribs) 15:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose (KEEP - FBI search of Mar-a-Lago). The warrant to search issued by a judge is commonly called a "search warrant," not a "raid warrant." It is about the perception by the observer. One person's perceived raid is another person's lawful search for property that belongs to the National Archive and Records Administration, as the lawful historic and government records custodian, in order to preserve them for the people of the United States. Ooligan (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose - "Raid" is more ambiguous, since it includes arrests. "Search" only includes what happened. MBUSHIstory (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
    • No, "raid" does not imply "arrests". It implies the element of surprise. That's why raids are usually carried out at night, the early morning, or when certain persons are at the location, or in this case, not at the location. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:29, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
      They didn't say a raid implies arrest, they said it includes arrests. FBI raids can be for many purposes -- it could be a search, yes, but it could also be for arrests. So describing it as a search would introduce less confusion. ~BappleBusiness[talk] 04:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge to Mar-a-Lago

Latest comment: 2 years ago10 comments10 people in discussion
No, we already had this discussion in the deletion discussion. Let's not beat a dead horse. (non-admin closure) --RockstoneSend me a message! 18:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TBH, this entire page should be merged into the Mar-a-Lago page. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

oppose merge event is notable in and of itself. Andre🚐 17:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Support — Too early to make a dedicated page for this. Such an event can and should be merged until its contents distract from the actual content. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Better photo

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can we get a better photo for the infobox? Any pics of the place during the night of the raid, with police cars outside? Koopatrev (talk; contrib) 21:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

That would be the ideal photo. Right now, only shots that would be similar would be from local news media sources, but those aren't free use. I suppose they could be claimed under Fair Use, but that's not my expertise. Pictures from DOJ are going to eventually come out though and we can use those. Any have any suggestions for now? Pennsylvania2 (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

"far right"

Latest comment: 2 years ago34 comments12 people in discussion

So Wikipedia continues to maintain its Left wing bias? Is that remotely neutral? 37.252.80.168 (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Is there a specific item in the article with which you disagree? You're welcome to cite that here for discussion. Wikipelli Talk 22:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
To be fair, the term "far right" appears twice in the article, once to describe Marjorie Taylor-Greene, and once to describe users on certain social media platforms. I agree with the OP that neither one is necessary.
I have removed the descriptor for Taylor-Greene but left the one about social media users. Even though the cited sources refer to them as "far right", it's the NYT calling them that, just a single source that is known for a left bias. It would be best just to call the platforms right-wing. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
So, let me get this straight: people here label everything remotely right-wing as "far-right" just in case, and then remove some labels when caught red-handed, and then they still have the courage to make judgement calls about whether the NYT is centrist or biased? This is amazing. I read many articles on wikipedia, and maybe exept the page on Communism, I have never seen the "far-left" label anywhere. But the label "far-right"? Trump, MTG, 4chan, libertarians who disapprove of FBI raiding homes, anyone gets labeled as "far-right" just in case. And if you're nice, or if you've overplayed our hand, then we will remove some labels, but if you argue for free speech a little too much, if you argue in favor of respecting the Constitution a little too much, you might get labeled as "far-right". This is really confusing, since none of you actually has the courage to write that the Constitution is a far-right document. It probably even isn't. It gives everyone the right to vote, so that's pretty left-wing. Am I a member of the far-right too? I think we have too few neo-Nazis and too many socialists in America, and that's why it's all skewed towards the left, so anybody who argues that the FBI should leave the former president alone seems "far-right".86.122.28.167 (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
"m I a member of the far-right too? I think we have too few neo-Nazis and too many socialists in America" This is not appropriate content for a talk page. Please read WP:NOTFORUM. Andre🚐 15:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
No, the NYT does not have a "left bias". Like all major news media, it's centrist to the core. The only reason it looks "leftist" is that Trump and the Rpublicans have moved so far to the right that the Times, without ever changing its position, starts to look left-wing. It ain't. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
You really think NYT is centrist? Take a good look at this chart from AllSides, which is frankly so good that I disagree with only one thing on there: I think Fox News and The Epoch Times can trade places. https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart Unknown0124 (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of this chart or charts like it. They lack nuance and usually their methodology is pretty opaque. We don't consider them reliable on Wikipedia. USA Today, at a minimum, should probably be in the middle column, and there's no way that CNN is far-left and on the same level as left-editorial magazines like The Nation, Alternet, Mother Jones and Jacobin. At a minimum, CNN belongs with NBC, NPR, NYT, WaPo, etc., and they should all probably be in the middle for their news, not opinion. Claiming that The New Yorker, which we consider most reliable and highly fact-checked, is a left-wing equivalent of crazy right-propaganda sources like Breitbart, Blaze, Federalist, Daily Wire, Daily Caller etc., is not defensible. As you point out, The Epoch Times belongs in the far-right side. We don't consider Newsweek reliable at all anymore, so that's another point against this chart which has it in the middle. Bloomberg does not lean left, they lean right. RealClearPolitics is right-wing, not center: this alone makes the entire chart invalid. [7] All in all, just not a good chart. Andre🚐 20:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Agree with most of the above and with BMK. I also suggest that The Wall Street Journal should be another notch to the right in such a chart. Also perhaps HuffPost, MSNBC, Slate, and Vox, although I'll admit to being not so expert on this question. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Buzzfeed, Slate, and Salon are far-left partisan rags, even more extreme than HuffPost, and of the same ilk as Infowars and Blaze. Bloomberg is left leaning, but fairly close to center. RCP is about as central as they get. WSJ news is central, but their opinions are not, I would actually put their WSJ Opinions more to the right. They are one of the few publications that does a good job of keeping their news reporting separate from their opinion pieces. FoxNews and CNN both should move one column inwards. Both are definitely partisan, but not as extreme as that chart shows. CNN has been drifting further and further left though over the past 5 years, they are getting closer and closer to MSNBC levels of bias, but their written word is not that biased.
Most of the bias of the ones that lean left and right is the omission of important information or the ignoring of important news. To get a full understanding of any news story you have to read both a right leaning publication and a left leaning one, and go to primary sources, full length videos, and transcripts as much as possible. 75.49.123.61 (talk) 02:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
It's a well-known and well-attested fact that RCP's editorial has a right lean. I've never seen any evidence that Bloomberg leans left either. Andre🚐 02:59, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
You need to distinguish between editorials and news. Editorials are by definition opinions of the editors. RCP's news does a good job of staying pretty close to center. Opinions are what they are, and RCP can definitely lean right on their opinions. Bloomberg used to be more central, once Michael Bloomberg threw his hat in the ring for the democrat nomination they started moving left, and they still lean that way. It is typically their omission of important news that shows their bias. 75.49.123.61 (talk) 03:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Citation needed on that. What I've seen is that RCP is right-leaning in anything they actually publish, which isn't simply reblogging other outlet's work. From the NYT article I posted above, "stories that most other news outlets, including some that lean conservative, would not touch because the details were unsubstantiated or publication of them would raise ethical concerns." Mike Bloomberg has been both a Republican and a Democrat, he's from New York and is moderate and centrist, but was easily the most conservative person in the Democratic primary contest. The outlet, though, hasn't been run by the man for years. He had to completely check out of it when he became Mayor of NYC. Their coverage is slightly right-leaning from what I have seen. Andre🚐 03:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Agree to disagree. From what I have read on these sites, Bloomberg is slightly left leaning, and RCP news is pretty straight down the center. 75.49.123.61 (talk) 03:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I concur with Beyond My Ken. Andre🚐 20:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
The NYT has had bias problems going back several years. Following the 2016 election, they hired centrist and conservative writers to help fix their internal bias problem, saying that the paper "didn’t have a firm grasp of the country it covers". She quit in 202 citing a worsening culture of political dogma within the organization, saying she was harassed and bullied constantly by her colleagues. (https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2020-07-14/bari-weiss-new-york-times-resignation) (https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter). There is no indication that their internal culture has improved since she left 2 years ago. It's hard to say they are even left-leaning anymore, they are probably solidly left now, with some flashes of far left progressivism in their opinions.
Prior to that in May 2005, they released a set of internal recommendations the paper should take to "restore journalistic credibility", following the printing of over 200 retractions from false stories written about the Gulf War: (https://web.archive.org/web/20150529175829/https://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/09/business/panel-at-the-times-proposes-steps-to-increase-credibility.html) This lack of credibility actually led to delays in the publishing of their story about the NSA's data collection tools, collecting metadata from Americans. 75.49.123.61 (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Bari Weiss is not a credible or reliable source for anything. From her "new university project" to the "intellectual dark web," she is a faux-intellectual cashing in on cheap clickbait rageclicking pseudo-journalism. That's why no real media outlet wants anything to do with her. Andre🚐 02:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Your opinion is noted, that doesn't change her experience at the NYT, nor does it change that the NYT recognized its own internal biases and tried to address them. It is not new information that the NYT has internal bias problems, they admit it openly, and have yet to be successful to fix it. You can shoot the messenger, but that doesn't change what the NYT is, a left leaning newspaper with opinions that reach further left. 75.49.123.61 (talk) 03:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
The NYT's internal boards, publications, studies, etc. are actual evidence that they are reliable and not very biased. They do a lot of fact-checking and soul-searching, unlike some other outlets I could name. Andre🚐 03:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, they often check themselves, I gave you two examples above where they did and found themselves too biased. There is no evidence they've successfully turned it around since 2017. Nothing in their reporting indicates they are center at this point. I think you've watched them shift left but think the center moved with them, which is just not the case. 75.49.123.61 (talk) 03:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I'd say the NYT is generally pretty moderate, center, and even conservative at times. They tend to take a pretty establishment, mainstream view, and are in no way comparable to sources like Jacobin or Alternet, which are actually left-leaning sources. Most of the folks in my feed have noticed them publishing so many Trump-voter-in-a-diner stories, and giving a platform in the op-ed pages to people like Ross Douthat, David Brooks, Bret Stephens, etc. The fact that they publish reports about themselves finding bias is actually great evidence that they are and should be considered generally reliable for factual reporting and good for inclusion in Wikipedia. Andre🚐 03:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Agree to disagree. To be clear, I've never claimed nor implied that they should be removed from wikipedia, just be honest about their reporting. Once you recognize that no news site is completely unbiased, you are better equipped to find the full information by reading multiple reports. If you only want to include straight down the center reporting you won't have much to work with. It's just a shame that wikipedia allows left leaning sites but disallows right leaning sites, because it means you will never get a full perspective or full information on any story. Most bias in quality news reporting is by omission (this goes for real news sites, not extreme ones like buzzfeed, slate, salon, blaze, or infowars). Censorship and exclusion is not what wikipedia should be about.
As I've said multiple times, and referenced two such scenarios above, I am fully aware that the NYT self-evaluates and tries to adjust. I just don't believe they've been able to adjust back to center since 2017 when they admitted they had internal bias problems again. It's interesting that you agree they self-evaluate to find bias, but you ignore that bias even when their self-reporting finds it.
Posting an op-ed about a Trump voter in a diner is not unbiased news, and if that's your idea of them being center, then we'll never find common ground 75.49.123.61 (talk) 03:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Also, to call Jacobin and Alternet left leaning is ridiculous. Jacobin describes themselves as "leading voice of the American left, offering socialist perspectives on politics, economics, and culture". Alternet is about as extreme. These are very extremist leftist sites. If you think that's "left leaning", then the NYT is far right. 75.49.123.61 (talk) 04:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
That seems to be quibbling about semantics and word choice. You stated that the NYT was, "solidly left now, with some flashes of far left progressivism in their opinions." I'd say that's a better description of Alternet and Jacobin. Anyway, like you said, agree to disagree. Adieu, Texas IP. Andre🚐 04:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I think you've now fully discredited yourself as being objective in the evaluation of news sources. Nobody with any intellectual honesty would consider Jacobin to be anything other than extreme leftist. Their chosen name says more about them than their description of their own site. And you've also fallen out of the top 3 tiers of Graham's hierarchy, as you claim to try and operate within, try to stay in the top tier, and only drop to tier 2 when you have to. Cheers 75.49.123.61 (talk) 04:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I said they leaned left and I didn't say the magnitude of that lean, obviously Jacobin is on the left, but you seem to think that NYT and CNN are as well (they aren't). I think you are the one who hasn't offered evidence during this exchange, you've been around Tier 4 pretty much the whole time, except for some stuff from Bari Weiss, who is deeply discredited, and the NYT's self-studies, which you somehow think are bad. If you come up with any real evidence, feel free to present it, Andre🚐 04:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
"Lean left" implies close to center in my mind. Would you say that Infowars leans right, or would you call them far right? I think saying they "lean right" would be absurd, they are far right. If this is a misunderstanding on terminology, so be it. It's funny that my acknowledgement of the NYT self-evals and my trust in their findings implies I "think they're bad", where as you think performing the self-eval makes them ok, yet you disregard the findings of them. If the NYT says "we identified bias internally in our self-eval", do you think that means they are unbiased, or that they found internal bias? Do you trust the outcome of their self-evals? I think when they identified in 2017 that they were out of touch with Americans, it was good that they identified that, but it highlights that their recent reporting was probably not very good. I have seen no evidence that they've recovered from that. We can disagree on that. But if you put any value in their own self-evals, then you must acknowledge (as I have) the internal bias they identified within themselves in 2017. I acknowledge that news agencies don't write stories, people do, and people will always show their own biases whether willfully or subconsciously. This is why it's critical to read stories from different perspectives to make sure you get the full picture.
As for CNN, they are not center by any stretch of the imagination, they are left. They always have been, it's just gotten more extreme in the past few years, almost to the level of MSNBC. It was sourced above in a chart, and you disagreed with it. So be it. I didn't agree with everything on that chart either, I think CNN should be closer to center than that chart had them. Your statement was that you don't like charts because they are "opaque", yet clearly you didn't read below where it went into great detail about how they come up with their ratings in every way shape and form. So even when the evidence was provided, you dismissed it without even looking at it. It's not worth my time any more. Cheers 75.49.123.61 (talk) 05:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
You're treating this chart as if it's gospel. The assessment of CNN on Wikipedia is that it is generally reliable. Some view it as a biased source, but not in a way that would affect its reliability. Nothing else matters. If you take issue with that assessment, you are free to open an RfC at the RSN. This is not the place for discussing the reliability of CNN, or any other news organization for that matter. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
FWIW, many sources describe MTG as far-right, see Marjorie_Taylor_Greene#cite_note-far-right-bundle-3 Andre🚐 01:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia covers a wide range of topics, to claim that it is inherently left-wing without credible evidence is already presupposing a frame that simply doesn't exist. If you take issue with how content on Wikipedia is written, you're free to edit it, but remember that Wikipedia depends on quality sources. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
The problem is that pretty much everyone who is far-right vehemently denies being so due to the negative connotations the phrase carries. Because of this, there will always be many people who dispute the characterization of "far-right", even if it's accurate in certain instances. It's also ridiculous to claim that the entirety of Wikipedia is biased because there is one mention of "far-right" in this article. X-Editor (talk) 01:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
That's true about any slur. Most pedophiles don't advertise their pedophilia; they vehemently deny it. That's not an argument for throwing the label around; the opposite is true. There ought to be very solid evidence before referring to them that way in a purportedly neutral encyclopedia. Costatitanica (talk) 15:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
There's plenty of evidence in the case we're talking about. It's not a slur. Andre🚐 15:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Could be. My point was general. Costatitanica (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Too many reactions

Latest comment: 2 years ago46 comments8 people in discussion

I think there are too many reactions in the article. I don't think it's notable or particularly relevant or enlightening that Tulsi Gabbard thought it was an abuse of power. Andre🚐 02:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree with you there. I don't see the relevance of Tulsi Gabbard's remark. Of course, she might be known for independent comments that go against the grain. In any case, perhaps it is best to let work on the article proceed and get rid of the dross later. It is, afterall, a new article. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
All true, point taken. Andre🚐 03:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I think it's relevant to include reactions from democrats who speak out against the raid, and also republicans who speak out in support of it. Tulsi is a prominent democrat and her comments are relevant to the section. It should also refer to her as a former Democratic Presidential candidate, as it does for Andrew Yang in the next sentence 75.49.123.61 (talk) 03:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I have noticed none of the reactions mentioned are in support of the search. Not even on the reaction by Democrats section. I think we should probably have some positive reactions per WP:NPOV. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 04:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, I think there are quite a few people that are happy about this, but you wouldn't know it from the article. Andre🚐 04:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
    Have there been any politicians or prominent people coming out in support of this? I haven't seen any beyond Hillary Clinton's joke with the "But her emails" hat on. Most democrats seem to be trying to distance themselves from this event, but by all means if these can be sourced from prominent people they should be included. Wikipedia is about accurate documentation, not propaganda. 75.49.123.61 (talk) 04:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
    As Steve Quinn points out, the news is quite recent, and a few Democrats gave a ~we won't comment on a developing situation~ type response. There's the Elaine Luria statement which, due to the way the article quotes her, sounds like she is not supportive of the action, but she went on to say, "We have never had a president who sought to overturn an election and summon a mob to DC as Donald Trump did on January 6th" and she was on the Rachel Maddow show, so I think you know how she feels about it. George Conway and Rick Wilson, 2 anti-Trump Republicans, were fairly happy about it and going around earlier today about it. Conway was on CNN earlier. Michael Steele had some comments on it. But please note, I was the one who started a thread advocating that there are too many reactions from pundits and random unaffected individuals. It's typical for the electeds not to gloat too much when something like this happens. Andre🚐 04:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
    Fair enough. Conway's exact words were "They crossed the Rubicon" referring to democrats and the FBI. I wouldn't consider him prominent enough to be worth mentioning. However it does bring up a good point, in that "crossing the Rubicon" was verbiage used far and wide by many public figures and political commentators, both right and left. Perhaps it's worth adding that reference under the General Public reaction section as it was very prominent throughout the day on twitter, the news, and other social media. 75.49.123.61 (talk) 04:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
    Conway wrote, "A belated Happy Mar-a-Lago Search and Seizure Day to all who celebrate!" Again, not saying the article should say it. Nancy Pelosi did an interview with Savannah Guthrie and she stated, "No person is above the law." Not sure if there was more. I expect we'll get more statements and info as the case unfolds and if an indictment or a grand jury convenes or whatever happens, don't want to speculate. In the meantime though, if Tulsi is getting a billing, I'll add something about Pelosi's statement perhaps. scratch that, the article already has it! Andre🚐 05:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
    I think the reaction to the event is incredibly valuable, especially early on before talking points were distributed. The plea from Kamala to use the word "search" instead of "raid". The frequent use of "crossing the Rubicon", the article already mentions #CivilWar trending on twitter. Wikipedia gives us the chance to capture the event as it happened, not as propagandists would like people to remember it. Additionally, DeSantis's statement should be fully quoted in the article. He is the governor of the state where the raid occurred, and is a very prominent figure in US politics. Once the article opens back up on August 12th we can add a lot more depth to to the event to make sure information is lost down the memory hole. 75.49.123.61 (talk) 05:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
    That should read "make sure information is NOT lost down the memory hole" 75.49.123.61 (talk) 05:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
    Unless you have a source for that other than Twitter, the Civil War thing doesn't seem too relevant. Why do you think the DeSantis thing is important? I checked my Twitter and I don't see that, but I have #FoundAtMarALago. The search instead of raid, do you mean this? [8] Seems to be Symone Sanders, who is an MSNBC commentator and former aide/staffer alum of several staffs incl Harris'? Andre🚐 05:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
    DeSantis is the governor of Florida, where the raid occurred. He is a very high profile and prominent politician in the US right now, and is on a short list of people who has a decent chance of winning the nomination of one of the two major parties for the next presidential election. I don't see how his comments could be considered unimportant by anybody. He is mentioned in the current wikipedia article, but his comments should be quoted. They summarize the feeling of half the country, I don't see how they can be left out if the purpose here is to capture the reality of the event. If the goal is propaganda, then ignore him, but if the goal is to document facts, it should be included.
    Here is the archived tweet of his comments: https://web.archive.org/web/20220810051744/https://twitter.com/RonDeSantisFL/status/1556803433939755010
    As for search vs raid, you are correct, it was Harris's staffer that made the plea, not Harris herself, thank you for the correction. Let's keep it accurate
    For the #CivilWar tag, it is already included in the published wikipedia article, that was why I brought it up. 75.49.123.61 (talk) 05:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
    I removed it because it did not appear to be in the sources cited. If you find a source for it, go ahead. Second American Civil War is an absolutely crazy article and an utter mess with a huge 'in popular culture' section, if anyone's looking for something to improve. I'm not sold on the DeSantis comment. I agree he's the challenger and/or heir apparent for the GOP, but his quote is pretty bombastic and I don't know if we should include the phrase "Banana Republic" when the FBI is currently being run by Chris Wray, Trump's hand-picked appointee. It seems like a very right-wing POV and not a lot of grounding in reality, IMHO. Andre🚐 06:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
    I don't think we're really in a position to judge the content of his comment. You can call it bombastic if you like, but that doesn't change the relevance of his comments. Wikipedia is supposed to document, not editorialize, and exclusion of important voices does just that. The fact is DeSantis is extremely relevant to this event, being the governor of the state where this occurred, and his comments should be captured here. The use of the phrase Banana Republic is an extremely relevant way to describe what a lot of people are thinking about this event. Frankly it's concerning that you wouldn't recognize this, regardless of whether or not you agree with it. 75.49.123.61 (talk) 06:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
    I don't see how him being the governor is relevant, since it was a federal action, from an FBI director appointed by Trump, approved by a judge appointed by Trump, etc. Banana Republic is just radical rhetoric, if not a nice place to buy a button-down shirt and some sensible slacks. Andre🚐 17:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
    The section is on reactions from Republicans, DeSantis is one of the most prominent Republicans in the country, and it happened in his home state. Yes, comments from leadership where the event occurred are of interest. The exclusion is outrageous, his comments were quoted all day. Your opinion on the content of his comments is irrelevant, they should be included here.
    Also, the judge who signed the warrant is not a Trump appointee, he is a federal magistrate. Magistrates are selected by district judges, not the president. 75.49.123.61 (talk) 00:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
    I stand corrected on the magistrate issue, he was not a Trump appointee. However he appears to be a well-regarded judge who would have had to approve a warrant, so the Banana Republican thing is unwarranted. Andre🚐 00:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
    So, the real issue is that you dislike what he had to say, got it. 75.49.123.61 (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
    The article already says, "Several other Republican politicians, including Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, Florida Senator Rick Scott and South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, condemned the search." I looked at his quote and I don't see anything that should be added. "The raid of MAL is another escalation in the weaponization of federal agencies against the Regime’s political opponents, while people like Hunter Biden get treated with kid gloves. Now the Regime is getting another 87k IRS agents to wield against its adversaries? Banana Republic." This is pretty much a conspiracy theory, exactly the type of misinformation that shouldn't be amplified. Andre🚐 00:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I thought Yang was no longer a Democrat? Gabbard no longer holds office and even when she did it wasn't a leadership position. I agree there seems to be too many reactions. I get including congressional leadership, DeSantis, and even Mike Pence. Ernst and Cotton aren't in leadership. Monica Crowley was an assistant secretary. 331dot (talk) 10:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I removed Yang. He left the Democratic Party last October and is now one of the leaders of the Forward Party. (If anyone wants to add his reaction under "General public" - a source that is not 100% paywalled would be nice.) Gabbard should also be removed. The source is a primary source, not a reliable secondary one. She made the remark on Fox News "Jesse Waters Primetime", and the source reporting it is Fox News Media; no other media outlet reported it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Agree, remove them all. Andre🚐 15:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Why do we include tweets from Tom Cotton, Joni Ernst, and John Thune? I imagine just about every Republican elected has put out a tweet about this. Why these three? Should we not be relying on secondary sources? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. +1. Please cut them out of the article. Andre🚐 17:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, we should. There are plenty of reliable secondary sources reporting on GOP responses. These are the first few that showed up in one search: NPT, Guardian, VOA, WaPo, BBC. And yes, every elected Republican and many former ones have tweeted about this; the current selection is somewhat toned down compared to others (Vox presents a few). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

What about Andrew McCabe, a former [ Deputy Director of the FBI and acting Director of the FBI ] under Trump who resigned and was tweet-"FIRED" by Trump and is now a CNN contributor? He is currently in the article in the Republican section. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Corrected description of McCabe's former positions above in square brackets. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
His comment seems a little more relevant. Andre🚐 19:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Regardless of relevance, he isn't a figure in the Republican party, and since he was fired and/or resigned on bad terms with Trump, he might not even be welcome in the Party's parties. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
That's a good point. But neither is he a member of the general public. He's a former FBI and a commentator. That doesn't technically make him not a Republican. He's certainly anti-Trump though presumably, so maybe either the organization of the article shouldn't be by party, or you could further subdivide the Republican factions. Andre🚐 19:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I just put him in a separate subsection called "Former FBI official". Does that seem acceptable? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I'd say it looks good, thanks! Andre🚐 20:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. His relevance is really more a matter of his former position rather than his political party. As far as I know, he never held a position in the party or had any endorsement by the party (or any endorsement by Trump), and he only became the acting Director of the FBI under Trump as an automatic consequence of the previous Director being fired. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Yup, I agree, he isn't a party operative, so it's a bit odd to lump him in with the Republicans. His relevance comes from his experience in the FBI. Andre🚐 20:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
How would Andrew McCabe's comments be more relevant that of Ron DeSantis? McCabe is a private citizen who works as a contributor on CNN opinion shows. 75.49.123.61 (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
'Cause he's a former FBI deputy director. He's actually informed on this, unlike DeSantis. Andre🚐 23:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
He's not informed on this at all, he's been a private citizen for several years now. Are you suggesting that his career at the FBI which ended years ago makes him knowledgeable on the specifics on this raid? 75.49.123.61 (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I didn't say he was informed on the specifics of this raid, but he's informed on this topic as a general expert on these matters. He had a long career in the FBI and he is currently a distinguished visiting professor as well as being a media commentator. Expert voices are voices we should look to amplify in articles, versus uninformed bloviating like DeSantis. DeSantis has no relationship to the issues since it's a federal, not a state matter, and pertains to material Trump removed from the White House that was classified information. Andre🚐 00:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Ah, that makes sense. So McCabe's prior job with the FBI, in the DOJ makes his commentary relevant, even though he is speaking as a contributor on an opinion show. But DeSantis's experience as a US Attorney is irrelevant because your opinion of him is that he's "bloviating"? 75.49.123.61 (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
He was in the Navy Reserve as an assistant attorney? What does that have to do with an FBI raid? He's definitely not an expert on these kind of investigations, which is why his opinion is so poorly informed and probably just whatever he wants to say to incite his base. No serious legal scholar would suggest that this investigation is unjustified or politically motivated, if that's what you think. Andre🚐 00:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I made no suggestion that the investigation is unjustified or politically motivated, you are making assumptions. I also find it quite interesting that you feel yourself qualified to speak on behalf of all serious legal scholars. My goal is to ensure that the wikipedia article accurately reflects the events, and part of the event is the reactions from prominent politicians. I find it difficult to believe that anybody who is being intellectually honest can say that Desantis is not a prominent politician in the US.
It seems that your intentions are to remove commentary from democrats who disagreed with the FBI's raid, and to minimize the comments from republicans 75.49.123.61 (talk) 00:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
My suggestions for how to improve the article by removing irrelevant or unnecessary reactions were supported by others on this talk page. If you read DeSantis' statement, he says that the "regime" was "weaponizing" law enforcement. He's the one making the suggestion, I didn't make any assumptions, I'm saying DeSantis' crazy theory shouldn't be included. Andre🚐 00:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Trafalgar Group poll

Latest comment: 2 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

The article discusses a poll by the Trafalgar Group, conducted for the Convention of States, which is a conservative-oriented group. I notice that the response rate for this poll looks pretty low (1.46%), although I'm not a polling expert. I also notice that the Trafalgar Group has been criticized for a lack of transparency about its polling methodology – The New York Times said "the methods page on Trafalgar's website contains what reads like a vague advertisement of its services and explains that its polls actively confront social desirability bias, without giving specifics as to how." The only other source cited about this poll is an article in The Washington Times, which is a conservative-leaning publication that Wikipedia has concluded is partisan and only marginally reliable and "should generally not be used for contentious claims". The phrasing of some of the poll questions seems conservative-leaning as well, asking questions such as "Who do you believe is behind the FBI raid on President Trump's private home?", which I perceive as a potentially problematic phrasing in several ways. So I suspect it is somewhat of a "push poll". Does this polling report seem sufficiently reliable to include in the Wikipedia article? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Shoddy methodology, and I'm not seeing it being touted by any legitimate publications. The FBI is rightly not telling us anything because they're too busy conducting a criminal investigation to engage in PR. I don't see a point to conducting or including public opinion polls about MAGA getting stirred up by the FBI search.. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Generally agree with all of this, and have removed the text. Individual polls are often not great either; polling aggregators, generating a single number based on an average of multiple polls, may be somewhat more reliable. Neutralitytalk 15:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
The PDF is a primary source, the Washington Times is not a reliable source, and no other outlets appear to have reported on this. 538 gave the Trafalgar Group an A- rating on election polling in March 2021, "based on the historical accuracy and methodology of each polling organization’s polls". But a question like Who do you believe is behind the FBI raid on President Trump's private home? comes close to being the poster child for leading questions: he's president; it was a raid, i.e., a violent invasion of his home; and someone, i.e., other than law enforcement, is behind it.
  1. Intentionally framed to cultivate bias in respondents so that the answers are according to the survey creators plan.
  2. They have an element of conjecture and assumption.
  3. Asking to understand the consequences of a situation.
  4. Forceful in terms of obtaining feedback.
It needed to be removed. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Concur, bad push poll, and unreliable sources besides. Andre🚐 16:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Better poll, by Morning Consult for Politico.[9] Just about half of registered voters approve of the FBI search of Trump’s Florida compound. Predictably, those numbers diverge a bit when broken down by party affiliation — with an overwhelming majority of Democrats approving, and a strong contingent of Republicans disapproving. ... Would you consider the FBI’s decision to conduct a search warrant on former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida to be: An abuse of power that should be investigated: 41%, An abuse of power, but it should not be investigated: 6%, Not an abuse of power: 40%, Don’t know/No opinion: 13% – Muboshgu (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

That one seems legit to me. Morning Consult and Politico are reliable enough as pollsters go. We still shouldn't focus too much on one specific poll though. Andre🚐 20:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Would this poll make sense to be included? It shows the general feeling of the populace on the FBI's raid, and puts to rest the idea that only extremists think this was an abuse of power. Considering that 41% of independents and 30% of democrats believe it was an abuse of power (page 44 of the full poll results: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000182-8dc3-da2c-afe2-fde34fbb0000) 75.49.123.61 (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Calls for Trump to release the search warrant

Latest comment: 2 years ago24 comments7 people in discussion

Would it be desirable to include this?: Benen, Steve (August 9, 2022). "After Mar-a-Lago search, Trump challenged to 'release the warrant'". MSNBC. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

IMO, no. At this point it appears to be "a call" rather than "calls". The source describes one person, the former acting solicitor general in the Obama administration, saying this. It would have to be more widespread. -- Pemilligan (talk) 23:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Also "Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell, a member of the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees". That's two. And "some Republicans pushing the FBI and the Justice Department to also release the warrant". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Not that one. However, Judicial Watch filed a motion with the court to unseal it (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22130271-judicial-watch-motion-in-re-trump-search-warrant?responsive=1&title=1). The magistrate who signed the warrant initially has now ordered the DOJ to respond by Monday, August 15h (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/doj-ordered-respond-requests-unseal-fbi-trump-raid-warrant). 75.49.123.61 (talk) 00:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Joe Scarborough, the co-anchor (or co-host) of "Morning Joe," for several minutes also challenged Trump to release the warrant on his show. It was today. It is on YouTube. For anyone interested see 7:27 (minutes and seconds) on this video [10]---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Joe is just a commentator on a leftist opinion show, his opinions have no relevance to something like this. 75.49.123.61 (talk) 01:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I do agree we probably can skip Joe. (who was a Republican until 2017 FYI) Andre🚐 01:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
You may be right about the Judge ordering DOJ to unseal it, redacted or not, but I question the Washington Examiner as being good source for this information.---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree, Washington Examiner isn't reliable for this. Andre🚐 01:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
So the magistrate is not ordering that documents be unsealed. He is simply ordering that DOJ respond to this request, if I understand this correctly. It does not compel the DOJ to release the warrant (or other documents) for public consumption.---Steve Quinn (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Correct, the magistrate order the DOJ to respond to the request to unseal 75.49.123.61 (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, this is a wait and see. Everything else I can find is in reference to this article, need at least two or the case files themselves to trust it. The case filing, however, can be included.
As for Trump's team releasing the warrant, they are under the same rules and cannot release it unless the judge unseals it. 75.49.123.61 (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Is there any source that says Trump is not allowed to release the warrant? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Not that I've seen. All I've seen (or heard) are sources saying that Trump can show the warrant to anyone any time he wants. I suspect that it isn't in his interest to do so, if doing so would weaken the narrative he's pushing. On the other hand, this suggests that the public availability of a search warrant isn't a settled legal question. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Good point, I don't see anything saying one way or another. I'm under the impression that judges seal warrants, and that is binding to all parties, but I can't provide evidence of that. The fact that I see many articles talking about whether or not Trump will release it tells me I'm likely mistaken. I do see that Trump's team said they won't release the warrant, but it was a tweet referenced by an unreliable source, written by a hyper-partisan commentator, so it is not trustworthy: https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/team-trump-says-ll-keep-mar-lago-search-warrant-wraps-rcna42418 75.49.123.61 (talk) 07:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I haven't seen anyone suggest Trump legally could not release the search warrant in all the sources talking about this possibility e.g. [11] [12] [13] (yeah I know NY Post isn't an RS, but I included it as a Trump friendly media outlet) Nil Einne (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Actually I did find [14] which says that Trump's team reviewed the warrant but did not receive a copy, but this seems to contradict a number of other sources so I'm not sure about that. In any case that sources as with I think some of the earlier ones and others mention that Trumps team has talked about what was in the search warrant which is odd if they are required to keep it under seal. Nil Einne (talk) 13:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Whoops I wasn't able to see all The Independent article before it hid itself, now that I have I see it also mentions the claim a copy of the search warrant was not provided. But most of the article seems to assume it was, as is the USA Today and other sources I've seen. It's possible that a copy of the search warrant really wasn't provided although that isn't a legal barrier. Alternatively perhaps a copy wasn't provided at the beginning but this was provided after the search, maybe the FBI was worried the scene wasn't secure and didn't want it floating around before the search had been completed. The finally possibility we shouldn't discuss for BLP reasons. Nil Einne (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
This wouldn't be relevant, it's an opinion piece from Maddow, a leftist news commentator, no relevance. 75.49.123.61 (talk) 01:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Also Neal Katyal, former acting U.S. Solicitor General, and Eric Swalwell, a U.S. Representative and member of the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, and some Republicans requesting release of it by the FBI. As for relevance, it's clearly relevant. It might be arguably undue, but it's relevant. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:59, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't mean the calls to release it are irrelevant. I mean Rachel Maddow's opinion on the matter is irrelevant, she's just a hyper-partisan commentator, and the comment referred to an opinion piece she wrote.
There are enough people calling for its release, and I already referred to a court filing requesting it be unsealed. The copinion hyper-partisan news commentators is irrelevant. 75.49.123.61 (talk) 02:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
The article cited at the top of this section is not written by Maddow. She's just in a video that appears at the top of the article. Maddow's video is not necessary, but the written article is decent. However, I agree it's unnecessar to include. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
AG Garland has now stated that he personally signed off on the FBI's actions, and that the DOJ will file a motion to unseal the warrant (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doj-asks-court-unseal-mar-a-lago-raid-warrant-ag-merrick-garland-personally-signed-off-trump-search) 75.49.123.61 (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

See below section regarding Garland's request for release Garland requests warrant release — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Quinn (talk • contribs) 22:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Subpoena

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Here's more reporting from NYT and WSJ on the subpoena that preceded the FBI action: [15] [16] Andre🚐 17:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

More from WaPo[17] Andre🚐 00:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Elaborate on how Washington Post reported on FBI searching for nuclear files?

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Washington Post just reported on the FBI searching for nuclear files. Since this has been only be reported by WaPo, should we wait while other media orgs confirm this as well? Phillip Samuel (talk) 01:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

"people familiar with the investigation told The Washington Post." picked up by CNN[18] Doesn't say they explicitly confirmed the story but given it's the Washington Post, that's why Reuters and CNN are running the story as well. People familiar with the investigation probably means it's a direct knowledge source speaking on background, so I'd be inclined to trust it, and that's likely why the other outlets are picking it up. Andre🚐 02:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Garland requests warrant release

Latest comment: 2 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

Attorney General Merrick Garland asks court to release Trump search warrant - The Wall Street Journal [19] ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

"Attorney General Merrick B. Garland said he had personally approved the decision to seek the warrant and was asking to unseal it because of 'substantial public interest.' " - New York Times [20] ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

That is already described in the Aftermath section. Cullen328 (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
OK thanks. I left a link there for this section. I am thinking a section focusing on discussion of this matter would work really well. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to improve this article. Is the Talk Page the correct place? I think we should discuss how: No one cares about the search warrant. We care about the affidavit. Our highly-esteemed AG Merrick Garland should be releasing that -- the affidavit. No? Will my suggestion improve the article? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Garland can not release the affidavit, it's under seal. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Also, your "suggestion" does not improve the article. You have not proposed any improvement, you have not cited any source. Maybe the affidavit will get unsealed too, but we're just speculating, and that has no place in the article. So it's up to the judge to unseal it. Garland requested that the warrant and the list of things taken to be made public. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Garland is calling Trump's bluff Andrew Weissmann, former FBI general counsel, says. "Now the ball is in [Trump's] court to say, 'oh wait, I want to hide this from the American public.'" --91.54.16.153 (talk) 09:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
The question now is whether Trump will oppose unsealing the warrant, after Republicans screamed for days that the people need to see it.

Minor party politicians

Latest comment: 2 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

DarkSide830, seriously? A former candidate who got 0.45% of the vote in the Democratic primary? "'Mishandling documents doesn’t seem like raid material,' Yang tweeted." He's never held any public office, he's not a legal expert, and, like the rest of us, he doesn't know squat about the investigation or the material mentioned in the search warrant. What makes his uninformed opinion important enough to be included in an encyclopedia? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Could you not make some, if not all, of the same arguments, in regards to some of the other individuals mentioned already in the article? For example, Oz is listed under Republicans in spite of having held exactly as many elected positions as Yang, and while the former is an active candidate, Yang is still active in the political world and, as stated, is the co-chair of a party. If you figure he's better included as a general public reaction, fine, but the idea that his comments are worth completely discarding seems silly to me. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I could, one individual voicing outrage at a time without knowing squat about the investigation etc (see above). It's election season. They're going to milk this for all it's worth or not worth, and media outlets have articles to fill with content in slow news season. See also the last few comments in Too many reactions, above. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the idea that he is "co-chair of a party", please note that currently, Forward is a PAC, not a party. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't see why Oz's or Yang's opinions are relevant. They're not elected. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I just removed Yang. Oz has been elected by the Republican party as its nominee for the 2022 U.S. Senate election in Pennsylvania, so he has party endorsement and is not just a member of the public. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Agree with removing Yang. Neutral on Oz. Andre🚐 19:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
No complaints from me if the general consensus is against these inclusions. I still have some personal reservations about drawing a dividing line between those who are elected and not though. Yang for example has a fairly solid personal following and I'd imagine his opinions can influence a good few people because of this. I think this sort of effect is worth considering as far as reactions sections are composed going forward. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Yang is a fringe candidate. He's an also-ran 3rd party political candidate who ran for mayor and president, and got nowhere. He seems to be good at promoting himself but that doesn't mean his opinion is relevant here. He's a self-promoter of the type we shouldn't be giving credence on the article. Andre🚐 23:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Agree about Yang because his electoral success hasn't exactly been on the rise, lately. Oz's just seems to be a slight non-statement, but I think his position as the Republican nominee in an important swing state, with less than 3 months left, gives him some notability. -- Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 00:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Andrew Yang's tweet where he says It seems like this was authorized by a local judge and a particular FBI office without buy-in or notification of higher levels of government is still up, even nearly 24 hours after Merrick Garland says that he personally signed off on the warrant. This is why we shouldn't automatically just listen to any opinion of a famous person. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Agree. Especially not a fringe crank self-promoter like Yang. Andre🚐 15:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Unclear sentence

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

"Trump was separately served in spring 2022 with a grand jury subpoena for documents and surveillance video at Mar-a-Lago's storage facilities."

Is the subpoena in this instance from a different investigation or different grand jury or neither? As it reads now, it seems that there's a seperate investigation that led to this subpoena. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

That sentence seems to be phrased incorrectly. It is under the same DOJ-NARA investigation but with a different subpoena. I've rephrased the sentence. Phillip Samuel (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
@Phillip Samuel Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Seems relevant to have an external links section to all related court filings. But I don't know if they're freely available. Costatitanica (talk) 13:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

They aren't, not yet at least. DOJ filed to unseal them pending Trump not objecting to the court. Trump could also release his copy at any time(but hasn't). 331dot (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
I was referring to the motion to unseal and anything else on the docket. I tried via the court website, but seems you need a Pacer account. Costatitanica (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Four court motions are already linked as cited sources in the References section. Just search for the word "motion". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

"Start date and age"

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Do we really need a "days since"/"___ days ago" counter for this? I understand if it's say, an on-going conflict or whatever, but I just don't know if people who log onto the internet in 2025 to look at this and say "oh wow, this was 1096 days ago!" Just a thought/suggestion to change. conman33 (. . .talk) 03:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that. Maybe it got removed. It's appropriate for an unfolding event, but after a week or so, I agree it has no value. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
I see it. It's in the infobox, currently saying "August 8, 2022; 4 days ago". I agree that it should be removed eventually (if not sooner). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! Just my little contribution, ha! conman33 (. . .talk) 19:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Adding dates to the "events" subheaders

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Would greatly clarify the article if anyone wants to spend the time to do this. (I'm too lazy.) Popcornfud (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Trump allies and supporters

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This section needs significant trimming. We don’t need a batshiat crazy, spittle-inflected, foaming at the mouth, JBS-style quote about retaining precious bodily fluids from the NY Republicans (or at least that’s how it reads to my Kubrickian mindset). Seriously though, a lot of this is lunatic fringe-level insanity and can either be paraphrased or chopped out. Viriditas (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Can you identify anything specific? Or just be WP:BOLD and remove any fringe statement that's being given undue weight. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, but considering this page is one of the most high profile pages in the world at the moment, it’s probably best for me to ask first. I was referring directly to this:
The New York Young Republican Club released a statement saying that "[i]nternationalist forces and their allies intent on undermining the foundation of our Republic have crossed the Rubicon ... nothing less than the future of the Union is on the line"..
The language of "internationalist forces and their allies" is straight out of fringe literature from JBS. Alex Jones and his fellow travelers use the term "globalists" instead, but it’s the SSDD. It has no place here. Viriditas (talk) 07:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Hoax

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

The Very Bad Media It's a Hoax![21] ... just kidding, but yeah, our former guy has weighed in on his view, writing "Nuclear weapons issue is a Hoax, just like Russia, Russia, Russia was a Hoax, two Impeachments were a Hoax, the Mueller investigation was a Hoax, and much more. Same sleazy people involved," on Truth Social. Personally, I don't really see the need to quote him verbatim Andre🚐 19:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Zero benefit from directly quoting him. Secondary sources can convey the general sentiment. Important to add to the article that he's under investigation for violating the Espionage Act of 1917.[22] – Muboshgu (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Absolutely, that should be added. Andre🚐 19:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Done Phillip Samuel (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Nice, thanks! Andre🚐 16:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Did y'all find 'nuclear' in the affidavit? -Topcat777

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I couldn't figure out where coverage of this was, I finally found it. Is it not true that this is somehow should be briefly mentioned in Legal affairs of Donald Trump?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:37, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree, it should be Andre🚐 19:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure how. This isn't about anything in any existing sections unless one changes the title of one of those sections.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
A new section and a link have been added from there to here. -- Beland (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
I wasn't sure I did it right, but the only change made in the text was the word "raid" in the heading. I knew that would get changed but wasn't sure what to call it. Someone else changed the reference formatting.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:44, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Accuracy of Andrew Cuomo's comments

Latest comment: 2 years ago22 comments8 people in discussion

The wording of Andrew Cuomo's reaction is inaccurate. "as they otherwise risk undermining the legitimacy of the Department of Justice's investigations" Cuomo referred to the "January 6 investigations", he did not specify if he meant the DOJ or the House committee. The article referenced for this quote is inaccurate as well, but this should be updated to reflect reality. Perhaps link the source directly, rather than an article reporting on it inaccurately.

Exact text of his tweet (https://twitter.com/andrewcuomo/status/1556990308424028163):

"DOJ must immediately explain the reason for its raid & it must be more than a search for inconsequential archives or it will be viewed as a political tactic and undermine any future credible investigation & legitimacy of January 6 investigations."

Archive of this tweet: https://web.archive.org/web/20220810032620/https://twitter.com/andrewcuomo/status/1556990308424028163 75.49.123.61 (talk) 03:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I think he might be referring to the investigation by the DOJ. The House, as you know, is conducting their own investigation, and also referring people for criminal prosecution and other things outside their authority that the DOJ can take care of. Unknown0124 (talk) 16:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Regardless, Cuomo is a private citizen with no inside information or expertise on law enforcement. There's no reason to include his opinion. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Agreed Andre🚐 19:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
When you say no expertise on law enforcement, are you referring to the investigation in question or in general? Cause Cuomo does have a law degree and decades of work in government, so I think he has some authority to speak on the matter. With that said I also understand give his current legal issues and being out of office for over a year why he is not included. 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Andrevan you removed my inclusion of Cuomo's exact quote under the Democrats section. I respectfully think this quote is both relevant and appropriate, and therefore should be included. It is a verbatim quote of his tweet, he is a prominent former Democratic official and lawyer. Please elaborate on why you think this should not be included. In the meantime, I will be reverting my edit. I will link directly to the source. Thank you.Loltardo (talk) 04:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Wasn’t he speaking as a paid news commentator? Do we really need to include the opinions of people not in office right now who are not seen as major figures in their parties? Thriley (talk) 04:59, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Thriley why include a quote by Dr. Oz then? Including the Cuomo quote is only fair. I think you all just don't like what he said and want to avoid showcasing it.Loltardo (talk) 05:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the whole section is bloated and must be trimmed down. Thriley (talk) 05:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Thriley ? The Democrats section is one of the shortest sections. I'm readding the Cuomo quote.Loltardo (talk) 05:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

BarrelProofI have been participating in the Talk discussions. Please immediately revert my edits in accordance with Wikipedia standards. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary#Revert_wars_are_considered_harmful_(the_three-revert_rule). Please let me know if you have any questions about this. Thank you.Loltardo (talk) 05:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you think I have broken the three-revert rule about the Cuomo quote? I don't think I have. Cuomo is a private citizen who holds no leadership position in any political party and has no obvious relationship to the searching of the Mar-a-Lago estate. I see no reason for Wikipedia to report on what he things about this topic. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

BarrelProof Yes I do. Your bias should be toward keeping the entire edit. It is usually preferable to make an edit that retains at least some elements of a prior edit than to revert the prior edit. Wikipedia has a bias toward change, as a means of maximizing quality by maximizing participation.

"Even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, in an area where opinions could differ, you should not revert that edit, especially if you are the author of the prior text. The reason for this is that authors and others with past involvement in an article have a natural prejudice in favor of the status quo, so your finding that the article was better before might just be a result of that. Also, Wikipedia likes to encourage editing... find even a bit of the edit that is not objectionable and undo the rest."

"When you find you disagree with an edit, try to find a third version of the text that incorporates at least some of the elements of the prior text and the current text. Sometimes that's as easy as making the article state that there is controversy about something."

That being said, please revert your edits, or I will. Loltardo (talk) 05:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

There's a clear consensus here that this should not be added. Please stop. Andre🚐 05:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Andre Stop claiming there is a consensus. At least two editors disagree with the removal of the Cuomo quote and the issue remains unresolved. "Consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change." Please study basic Wikipedia rules before trying to close open discussions. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_can_change — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loltardo (talk • contribs) 05:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I vote to add Cuomo's comments to the Former government officials section. Please provide feedback.Loltardo (talk) 06:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Cuomo's former official position has no obvious relevance to this FBI search, as far as I can tell. Does he have any particular expertise on presidential record-keeping, classified document handling, or FBI investigations? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 07:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. Cuomo is still a prominent politician, who was running for office until a couple months ago. The comments of such a high profile democrat seem relevant to this article, given that this is a section specifically regarding reactions from democrats, and it is decidedly slim. Especially given how prominent Cuomo was put up in opposition to Trump in the past 2 years. His comments seem relevant. 75.49.123.61 (talk) 07:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
No, I don't agree they are relevant. Cuomo resigned under pressure of a scandal, and currently serves no office. He's a disgraced former pol. He shouldn't be used to represent any views in this article as it has no relation to him at all. Andre🚐 12:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
At the time I wrote there was a consensus, 4 other editors were objecting to the inclusion of Cuomo's content, and you were reverting it counter to that. The discussion hasn't been closed. Andre🚐 23:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Cuomo was just put back in (by an account that has had no edit history for more than 12 years). I suggest that should be reverted. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:44, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Have done. Andre🚐 22:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

"angry by the search"

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This phrase is ungrammatical. I suggest "angered by the search" or "angry about the search". 24.212.191.236 (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  Fixed I swapped "angry" to "angered", as that made more sense given the original context. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

FBI Cincinnati

Latest comment: 2 years ago17 comments8 people in discussion

An armed man went to the FBI office in Cincinnati, threatened agents, got into a shootout with them, and fled.[23] The media has already made the connection to the Mar-a-Lago search. The episode came a day after the FBI director warned against threats circulating online against agents and the Justice Department in the wake of the agency’s search of former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home. I believe we should wait to confirm the cause and add it as a reaction if it's confirmed to be linked. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree, this seems relevant if it is confirmed. Andre🚐 16:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I also agree. And can I say wow! and OMG! ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Yup. The story was confirmed by Reuters[24] about 10min ago Andre🚐 16:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
The Tribune is paywalled. The Reuters article doesn't say there's any clear connection with the search. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
AP links them: The confrontation at the FBI’s Cincinnati field office comes as officials warn of an increase in threats against federal agents in the days following a search of former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. And they haven't caught the perp yet. Chris Wray has linked violent threats against the FBI more generally to the Mar-a-Lago search. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

On foot, with an AR-15, on Interstate 71? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Not on foot. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
There is nothing that I am aware of in reliable sources that says that the Cincinnati gunman was motivated by the Mar-a-Lago search. Unless that emerges, I oppose mentioning it in this article. Cullen328 (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Now that we know the gunman's name, we know that he was part of January 6 and that, after this search, he threatened to "Kill the FBI on sight". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I think that this is now worthy of inclusion. Cullen328 (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Agreed Andre🚐 23:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I added a short paragraph to "Reactions", which anyone is welcome to wordsmith. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Well done, Muboshgu. Cullen328 (talk) 03:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes nice job. Thanks. Andre🚐 03:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
  • If there's not RS directly linking the Mar-a-Lago search to this man's motive, I don't think it needs to be mentioned. Involvement in January 6 and being threatening to the FBI, is not enough to mentioned in this article imo. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 05:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
    Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk : There is: On Tuesday, a Truth Social account in the name of @rickywshifferjr posted a message encouraging people to go to Florida, where, as he wrote, “Mar A Lago is."..."I recommend going, and being Florida, I think the feds won’t break it up,” the message read. “IF they do, kill them.” Kire1975 (talk) 05:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Request for "current" template

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I would argue that this article covers a current event, as it covers a high-profile breaking news event that's received hundreds of edits within the past few days. It seems that if the tag is added, it gets removed with the justification that this article isn't seeing hundreds of editors each day, a requirement that is only found in the Simple English Wikipedia page for the 'current' template. InvisibleUp (talk) 00:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I've occasionally wondered why editors who add tags like "current" don't try to fix the perceived problems on the page by, e.g., adding current and reliable sources. The editors who actually do that are aware of the problem and don't need a tag to point it out. How does a tag attract editors who might otherwise not be inclined to edit? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Page move

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

I'd undo this if I knew how. We don't know that this is an investigation of Donald Trump and classified materials. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I have asked about the move but have not received a response from User:Saintstephen000. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
I have moved the name of the page back to the previous title. If User:Saintstephen000 wants to make a move, he can request it here. Phillip Samuel (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
good morning kids! didn't seem controversial, so i moved it. i watched the article and the current event grow from a marginally cited paragraph into what it is being described as in this heading. it's arguable perhaps to some. Saintstephen000 (talk)
I think you should not be allowed to move pages. There must always be a very solid consensus. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
looks like it was moved back to what appears to be a poorly categorized title, (note:the title i actually originally created) which is fine and not contested by me. have a great day and happy editing! Saintstephen000 (talk)
Is the previous requested move closed already? Someone else closed it prematurely while it was still in discussion. The discussion banner is not in the article, so I wonder if it's appropriate to request another one now. Phillip Samuel (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
The banner was removed by this edit, but the discussion doesn't look closed to me. I reverted the removal. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
The word "search" is incomplete. If the title omits "raid", then it should say "search and seizure". It was not just a search, and the seizure is just as important as the search. Roger (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit history

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It seems the edit history of the talk page has been truncated. I am guessing this is due to multiple page moves and not being careful to ensure the move was done correctly, or something like that. The only page moves I could find in this talk page edit history were executed by Saintstephen000 [25], and Phillip Samuel [26] who moved it back to this page name.

It seems those moves were done correctly - I'm not seeing cut and paste jobs. Anyway, there have more page moves than this, which is what alerted me to what seems like some sort of error. Can someone else take a look and see if I am correct. I could be wrong. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn Yes, you're correct. Saintstephen boldly moved the page to his proposed title, but other users found that contentious in the Talk:FBI search of Mar-a-Lago#Page move discussion. I thus reverted it back to the original name. If anyone wants to move the page name to a new title, they can post a move request here. Phillip Samuel (talk) 01:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Documents were seized

Latest comment: 2 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion

The cited source says that the documents were "seized" 4 times. It does not use the word "recovered". I changed the opening paragraph, but someone reverted it. Why? Also, it is not known that the documents are classified. The cited source says that Trump declassified them. We can only say that they were previously classified. Roger (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Trumps opinion in this matter is not a reliable source. We need reliable sources that say the documents are not classified, even though there were documents marked Top Secret, Top Secret compartmentalized, Secret, and Confidential that were appropriated by the FBI with a legal search warrant in hand.
The editor who changed the word from "seized" to "recovered" might the person to best explain the change. I'm guessing "seized" has negative and dramatic connotations and Wikipedia strives for neutral wording. That is also why this page title was moved from "raid" to "search" per consensus. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Many articles use "seized", many use "recovered". I've seen lots that use both. Sources are not the way to decide "recovered" vs. "seized". To me, "recovered" is more accurate and neutral, as these are US government documents that he took, and the government is "recovering". – Muboshgu (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Sources are not the way to decide "recovered" vs. "seized". To me... That's bias. Kire1975 (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
My "bias" to NPOV, perhaps. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree that sources are not the way to decide "recovered" or "seized" now that this has been brought up. I am going by neutral wording which seems to be "recovered." The word "seized" is a weasel word, imho, which carries a lot of baggage. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Search and seizure is a weasel word? Please elaborate. Kire1975 (talk) 22:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
See also WP:PEACOCK and WP:LABEL. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
And? Kire1975 (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
I added the last two links just for informational purposes. In any case, we were discussing "seized" not "search and seizure." As I said above the lists on that single page are not exhaustive. And my opinion is just a valid as yours and we disagree. The purpose of these discussions is to garner consensus one way or the other. Editors in good standing carry equal weight. And trying to argue "recovered" or "seizure" as the best or correct, is like trying to argue the color blue is better than green which is better than red and so on. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
RE: And my opinion is just a valid as yours and we disagree.
Per WP:VALID: Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance. Kire1975 (talk) 23:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
OK. I think I see what you're getting at. But I will have to mull this over. Editors have to provide a rationale for their ivote or opinion, which is what I meant by equal weight. Otherwise the ivote or opinion doesn't count. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Editors have to provide a rationale for their ivote or opinion, which is what I meant by equal weight. Otherwise the ivote or opinion doesn't count. If that were true, User:Barkeep49 wouldn't have determined that consensus had been found in this move. Kire1975 (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
I have no desire to figure out exactly what this conversation is, so I will just say that I found a consensus at that moment in time and explicitly noted that it needed to be re-evaluated. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
As pointed out above, Search and seizure is the neutral term for what happened. That should be in the title. Yes, we only have Trump's word that the documents were declassified. But he should be given as much credit as a criminal suspect who proclaims his innocence. We do not take police and prosecutor allegations as true until proved in court. Roger (talk) 02:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Aftermath section

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

There is now coverage in the first paragraph of this article that Trump is claiming boxes of material were covered under attorney-client privilege and executive privilege. It appears this originated from Trump himself on his social media platform. Right leaning media is of course covering this and that is what is being used to source this paragraph. It even says Trump himself notified his lawyers. Right now this is all Trump's POV. I don't think this should be in this article right now, and not considered "aftermath" because the source is Trump himself. To me it looks like another PR stunt and nothing more. We need sources that are not jumping on the band wagon and which verify these claims are accurate. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, the renamed section had its content and sourcing replaced. Phillip Samuel (talk) 01:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
I originally removed the statements attributed to Fox News as well as the sources that merely parroted what Fox News reported, leaving in only that Trump requested return of material that contained privileged information, but then Phillip Samuel reorganized it all and improved it. I added a few timeline headings to clarify the span of time involved. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

"Lock her up"?

Latest comment: 2 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion

I remember when Trump's followers chanted lock her up at rallies in response to Hillary Clinton's alleged mishandling of classified emails, there was coverage about that, especially on television. Maybe I'm missing it, but I am not seeing sources make that connection with the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago. Even though this security violation is probably more serious than Clinton's, Trump's supporters are certainly not chanting "lock him up" now, although I'm sure his detractors are (although nobody has covered it). I find the silence on that point interesting. Perhaps some sources will eventually make the connection. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I have read several articles which made that point that Trump had heavily criticized Clinton for her misuse of classified documents, which was a significant part of his support in being elected. They did not specifically mention "Lock her up", but the irony was palpable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
There ia s redirection for Lock her up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election#Notable_expressions,_phrases,_and_statements --91.54.16.153 (talk) 08:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
The Guardian mentions "lock her up". So did Politico's Playbook this morning. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
My original point was that nobody seemed to be covering anyone calling to "lock him up".
However, I did find some coverage just now: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/convict-trump-air-banner-mar-a-lago_n_60273e32c5b680717ee7d7a1
Not really something usable at the moment, but I am wondering if a similar "lock him up" movement is going to start. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
I doubt it. Part of the whole problem traditional Washington types have with Trump is his tendency to start crowd chants. You might see it in print here and there, or spoken in a sentence, but anything resembling a "movement" on these three syllables seems too "offbrand" to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
[27], letter to the editor, [28] from Salon which cites [29]. nothing worth including in the article. [30] references 1 person only. So far, not much yet, but it wouldn't surprise me at all. Andre🚐 03:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Would it surprise you to learn the guy from the tweet once tried to get another user locked up for physically assaulting him through Twitter? Wouldn't you know it stemmed from Trump bashing? Perhaps most shocking, The Winchester Star is the Pittsburgh Pirates' loosely classified sister! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
More pertinently, though, here he is almost saying the same thing in Obama's day. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Wow. That piece makes him look like the leader of an organized crime ring. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:31, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
I think that's the goal. Technically, though, it's civil law chicanery. If any real crime is even vaguely alleged, it's just obstruction of justice. For someone without diplomatic immunity, that would still be seriously illegal. But next to drug trafficking, murder and/or tax evasion, not exactly problematic. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
[31] Andre🚐 20:37, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
I meant the only crime vaguely alleged in the 2016 Halloween piece. Today, sure, whispers of espionage. And he's also still formally wanted in Iran and Iraq for six 2020 murders. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

90 day policy

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

[32] This seems mentioning in the article. It sheds some light on the search timing. 67.164.114.199 (talk) 18:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

It comes across as pure speculation by a single source. I don't see a place for it in this article. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, no place here unless more sources cover this as a thing. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Template

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Someone added a Donald Trump series template to this article. I'm not sure this article is part of that series. The main topic is the search of Mar-a-lago by the FBI. Obviously Donald Trump is involved but does that mean this article is part of that series - at this time? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Picture

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Someone added a picture of Donald Trump signing a random piece of legislation in the first section of this article. I removed it because it is irrelevant to this article. And we are not a PR firm for Trump or anyone else. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Speculation by Michael Cohen and Mary L. Trump

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

I suggest we remove the speculation by Michael Cohen and Mary L. Trump about who might be the informant. They don't seem like great authorities on the case, and speculation generally does not seem like something we should include. (I'm assuming the word "speculation" is accurate here, since that's what the Wikipedia article is saying.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree. We should not include speculation in this article.---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Second. Neither of them are particularly credible, and adding speculation on the informat is unnecessary. If informants are identified, then that is another story. Phillip Samuel (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
  Removed They are both outside of the Circle of Trust. There's no indication that was any more informed than my guess of who may be an informant. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Concur with all of the above Andre🚐 01:19, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Alleged destruction of presidential records

Latest comment: 2 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion

Per WP:ALLEGED, "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial." Since DJT has not yet been charged, much less indicted, violations of the Presidential Records Act are only alleged at this point. Dhaluza (talk) 00:56, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

The key phrase there is when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined. This is "determined" according to the sources, none of which call it "alleged". The Politico article titled "Meet the guys who tape Trump's papers back together" says that those White House employees taped them back together to try to ensure compliance with the PRA. Washington Post is similarly declarative: President Donald Trump tore up briefings and schedules, articles and letters, memos both sensitive and mundane. He ripped paper into quarters with two big, clean strokes — or occasionally more vigorously, into smaller scraps. He left the detritus on his desk in the Oval Office, in the trash can of his private West Wing study and on the floor aboard Air Force One, among many other places. And he did it all in violation of the Presidential Records Act, despite being urged by at least two chiefs of staff and the White House counsel to follow the law on preserving documents. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, but while we should generally avoid saying that his actions were a violation of applicable law, we do not need to be quite so cautious about describing what his actions were. If the non-fringe sources say he factually did particular things, we should not shy away from saying he did those things. Whether those things were illegal or not may involve questions of executive privilege, separation of powers, interpretation of law, and interpretation of the constitution. It may be worth keeping in mind that classified information in the United States is an almost exclusively under the purview of the executive branch. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
I concur with Muboshgu and BarrelProof Andre🚐 01:19, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, but is there any hard evidence of destruction of documents (other than the toilet photos, which are questionable)? It is only accusations from people in proximity. Those are allegations or accusations, not determined by a competent finder of fact after looking at all evidence. Dhaluza (talk) 01:35, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Dhaluza, those reports/allegations are from witnesses, his own people who surround him every single day. There is no reason to doubt what they say or the pictures they took. Trump has a long history of doing this all throughout his business career, whether it was papers or computers. If he was being sued and the police had told him to preserve all documents, suddenly all documents disappeared and computers were wiped. Destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice are his modus operandi. This is par for the course with him. He throws papers in the trash (a crime for a president), burns them, tears them in pieces, flushes them, and even eats them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
I must agree. If RS describe his activities that is sufficient. A court of law doesn't need to convict him as long as we don't claim he is guilty of the crime. We can still describe his actions as described by RS. Guilt of a crime can be very technical and involved, especially in situations like this. Andre🚐 03:34, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Where does a RS say Trump ate documents? Mr Ernie (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Omarosa said in her book that Trump "appeared to be chewing and swallowing" a piece of paper. Maybe he mistook it for a declassified candy bar? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
LMAO! Maybe a declassified Big Mac wrapper or one from See’s Candies? He is able to read that few words. Thanks for finding that source. The people around him have witnessed lots of bizarre behavior over the years. Trump’s bizarre post-election behavior isn’t a tantrum or a coup. It’s fan service. 50 Moments That Define an Improbable Presidency A Medical Theory for Donald Trump’s Bizarre Behavior President Trump's 13 Weirdest Habits Haberman book: Flushed papers found clogging Trump WH toilet -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

F.B.I. Interviewed Top White House Lawyers

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

According to a new NYT article, before the subpoena was issued, NARA requested that Deputy White House Counsel Patrick F. Philbin help with retrieving documents from Mar-a-Lago. The article says he did try, and encountered resistance and was rebuffed. Trump said through his advisers that “It’s not theirs, it’s mine.” Also, apparently, Philbin was interviewed in the spring and it's unclear when Pat Cipollone was interviewed. Some of what is in this NYT piece might be worth adding to this article [33].---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Here is CNN coverage [34] and USA Today [35]. (add signature) ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I see that this is already in the article. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Empty Safe?

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Did the FBI take personal pictures, (a) napkin(s), did they open and read a letter from Obama to Trump, did they search the closet of Trump's wife? All this mentioned either in Alan Dershow's or in Newt Gingrich's podcast. And was the safe empty? Also please listen to the Dershow.--Ralfdetlef (talk) 06:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources discussing this? I'm pretty sure the podcasts of two right-wing commentators don't meet the criteria for WP:RS--2600:6C51:447F:D8D9:95A0:CBF:B7E0:DF99 (talk) 09:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Neither Dershowitz nor Gingrich is a reliable source – Muboshgu (talk) 15:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Trimming Trump reaction section

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The five subsection headings, several of them for one-sentence subsections, for claims made by Trump/family/lawyers dominated the TOC, as if that was the most important part of the events. I condensed the section, removed excessive quotes, etc. There will be more outrageous statements by the usual publicity seekers, and they'll probably get mentioned in RS in passing, but should we mention every Twitter and Trooth utterance? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:36, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Generally I prefer to avoid platforming obvious nonsense as if it's a valid "other side of the story."
In this situation, if some of Trump's claims are contradictory, that might be worth pointing out somehow, especially since he's going to have to defend his contradictory claims in court.
Examples: The claim that all documents were magically declassified the moment he removed them from the WH (per a "standing order" that everyone in his administration says didn't exist and couldn't have existed) may contradict the claim that the FBI planted the documents in the basement, and both of those statements conflict with his lawyer's statement on TV that the basement had some kind of security and only certain staff were allowed down there. If the documents were declassified and also nonexistent, it doesn't matter if he locked his basement, right?
Maybe it makes sense to have less of these "reactions" now and write about them later if he's indicted, at which point he'll have to have a formal defense. If he's not indicted, ultimately his nonsense reactions are N/A. Tuckerlieberman (talk) 13:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
I condensed the other sections but didn't touch the declassification section. That claim seems to be of a different caliber than the other denials and falsehoods. Let's wait and see whether his lawyers follow through with a motion calling for the appointment of a "special master". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Trump’s claims

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

-On August 11, Trump “baselessly” claimed that the FBI might have doctored evidence to support its search warrant….. -Trump “baselessly” alleged that it was politically motivated….

We haven’t read the affidavit to know what evidence was used to support the warrant. Furthermore, Trump has reason to be suspicious of the FBI after the agency used the doctored and false Steele Dossier to obtain warrants against him in the past. Since the Steele Dossier was funded by Democrats (Trump’s political opponents) I think it’s pretty safe to say that incident was politically motivated.

I would argue that Trump‘s claims are unverifiable at worst, but they are definitely not baseless given the history.

Later on the article quotes John Bolton saying Trump’s claim to having a standing order to declassify all documents is “almost certainly a lie”. There are witnesses that have verified Trump had the standing order. John Bolton baselessly made an allegation and continued to be quoted. WhowinsIwins (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

We follow the sources, and they say "baselessly" and "There is no evidence". As for Bolton and people like Patel contradicting each other—meh. The question is whether such a declassification is legally possible. Trump and allies say it is, other officials and former officials say it is not, and WP does not take sides. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Bolton worked in the Trump administration for nearly a year and a half. His comments are not "baseless", they are based on his experience as NSA. That Bolton would deny the claim of "declassification" while a loyalist like Patel would assert it is not surprising. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Concur with SpaceTime and Muboshgu Andre🚐 17:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Years' imprisonment

Latest comment: 2 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Does the phrase "ten years' imprisonment" make grammatical sense to other people? I changed it to "ten years of imprisonment", but someone changed it back. Can someone explain what the apostrophe is doing in there? To me, the apostrophe seems to indicate that the imprisonment belongs to the years. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

"10 years in prison" is better. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Best we make it "ten". InedibleHulk (talk) 22:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

The apostrophe is correct: https://archives.cjr.org/language_corner/apostrophe_catastrophes.php: “One more little apostrophic quirk: Because the possessive apostrophe effectively replaces ‘of,’ you need one in such phrases as ‘I could use two weeks’ rest’ (two weeks of rest) or ‘he was sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment’ (twenty years of imprisonment).“ Neutralitytalk 14:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

OK; correct then, but I still think it is best avoided. The description seems to say it is a form of contraction (rather than a possessive), indicating the elision of "of" – although seemingly rare enough that it is not included in the table at Contraction (grammar)#English. Contractions are usually best avoided on Wikipedia as not being appropriate in formal writing, even when they are the less quirky ones. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't think this is very quirky; it's a longstanding usage. The Guardian uses it in their style guide: "Use apostrophes in phrases such as two days' time, 12 years' imprisonment and six weeks' holiday, where the time period (two days) modifies a noun (time)." And I don't think it's a contraction. Fowler's describes the usage as a "possessive apostrophe"; Sir Ernest Gowers and Rebecca Gowers, in their Plain Words, suggests that it's not a contraction, but rather is "a descriptive genitive or a 'possessive.'" But it is, in any case, not a very important point. Neutralitytalk 14:49, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
OK, but the source you originally cited explicitly uses the word quirk to describe it, so I felt able to use that word myself. (And it certainly seems like a quirk to me, since I didn't understand it.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
"It's" and "they're" are contractions, "ten years' imprisonment" is a fixed expression with time using the possessive form. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
The source cited by Neutrality says the apostrophe indicates a replacement for the word "of" in this case, which seems like it can be a little different from a possessive. In "ten years' imprisonment", the imprisonment is not possessed by the ten years. In the source that you cited, at least most of the examples seem more amenable to interpretation as a possessive, and it does not specifically use the imprisonment example. Neutrality's source discusses "twenty years' imprisonment" explicitly, as "twenty years of imprisonment". (The source you cited is also targeted to people who want to learn secondary languages rather than comprehensive guidance on the details within English, which seems less authoritative about English grammatical details than Neutrality's.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
A long discussion about one little apostrophe (and I still prefer the simple "20 years in prison" :) "Two days of time", "six weeks of holiday" — doesn't really work there. Apostrophes in temporal expressions, inanimate possessives - this seems to have been discussed extensively. "However, in reference to time and measurement ... possessive form has become accepted usage." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Would a timeline of Trump statements be a good idea?

Latest comment: 2 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

Over the past week I've heard varying statements from Trump, in this order (paraphrasing):

  1. We already turned over all the documents. (before the raid)
  2. The FBI raided my home but won't find anything.
  3. All they had to do is ask and we would have handed them over. (contradicting #1)
  4. I already declassified them.
  5. Obama also kept lots of classified documents.

Those are the statements I can recall. As this week progressed, I was struck by how each new statement seemed to be in response to events that invalidated the previous statement. They are more or less already in the article, but perhaps a timeline of events that include quotations would be illustrative. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

@Anachronist: - sources for the first two? starship.paint (exalt) 09:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
@Starship.paint: It's hard to find now that the news is flooded with every recent development, but the first quotation is actually by Trump's lawyers and cited in the article.[36] I do remember that Trump said something equivalent to the second statement above but I cannot find it. I should have kept logs of quotations as this unfolded. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:14, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
@Anachronist: - frankly I think we should separate Trump’s responses from his lawyers. If his lawyer committed a crime, that’s not on Trump, and vice versa. Also [37] starship.paint (exalt) 15:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
How would you do that? Just the one source you cite uses "the ever-shifting explanations that former President Donald J. Trump and his aides have given", "Trump and his allies", "Trump and his team", "Trump still had additional material at Mar-a-Lago that some of his advisers urged him to hand over", "statement from the former president’s office". He delegated the boxing of the material at the WH to aides. He delegated the discussions with the FBI to his lawyers. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
I guess just have a subsection for Trump alone. He generates enough material by himself. starship.paint (exalt) 14:47, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Hello, great idea! This source might be helpful.
A Timeline of Trump’s False and Misleading Statements on the Mar-a-Lago Search − by Stuart A. Thompson, The New York Times
Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 08:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Here you go, for starters:

Trump has published many false, misleading, and sometimes contradictory, claims about the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago. Among his many statements, Trump suggested, without evidence, that: president Biden played a role in the search; the FBI planted evidence; the search was unnecessary; and that the documents were already declassified. He also made false claims about former president Obama.[1]

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Thompson, Stuart A (August 16, 2022). "A Timeline of Trump's False and Misleading Statements on the Mar-a-Lago Search. The former president has pushed frenetic and sometimes contradictory claims about the F.B.I.'s search of his Florida home". The New York Times. Retrieved August 19, 2022. [His] statements reflect the strategy Mr. Trump has long used to address controversy, by turns denying any wrongdoing while directing attention elsewhere. Some of the messages also reflect his penchant for false and misleading claims.
Thanks Valjean, added this to third paragraph of the lede! Well nevermind, it has been reverted. Apparently the lede is not the right place for this. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't belong in the lead. The purpose of the lead is to provide an overview of the body text. It isn't for inserting new information that isn't covered in the body text. That said, I do think that this deserves inclusion in the body text. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Well, I think it is covered in the body of the text, just not so succinctly. My original addition of that paragraph included a wikilink to this section of the article, which I think covers most of it. Objections from other editors about having this in the lede were related to "because of course Trump will say nonsensical things" and therefore "why make this repeated and predictable behavior so prominent in the article" etc. (I am paraphrasing here, not directly quoting the two editors who opposed it.)
I don't really care one way or another, but I do think it's important to make it clear that Trump has tried to defend himself with false claims that have shifted over time, etc. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 21:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:FBI_search_of_Mar-a-Lago/Archive_1&oldid=1108784120"