Talk:Mueller report/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Publisher versus work or website in citation template

Note this was originally posted at my talk page.

I notice that you are changing some uses of "work=" or "website=" or "newspaper=" to "publisher=" in citation templates in the Mueller Report article. Please note that this is contrary to the guidelines of the {{cite news}} and {{cite web}} templates. When the name of the publisher is essentially the same as the name of the work or website, the guideline says to use work/website/newspaper/magazine and not use "publisher".

The instructions say "Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a website, book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, etc.). ... Not normally used for periodicals. Omit where the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work (for example, The New York Times Co. publishes The New York Times newspaper, so there is no reason to name the publisher)."

—BarrelProof (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi BarrelProof. I think you may be misquoting/misunderstandingmischaracterizing the guidelines there. In cases where I have made those changes, generally it has to do with news/media companies like ABC News, NBC News, Fox News, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, CBS News, etc.. The reason I made these changes is that using "work=" or "website=" to refer to those entities makes them italicized, which is incorrect for those terms. Using "publisher=" removes the italics. I have never (knowingly, who knows where I might have screwed up unintentionally...) done this with any link that is supposed to be italicized like any correct entry using "newspaper=". The way I think about it is that if the term would be italicized when used in normal prose then it should be in the more specific "work=" or "website=" or "newspaper=", but if the term would not be italicized when used in normal prose then it belongs in "publisher=" so that it is not incorrectly italicized in the reference. (Note, I very much could be wrong about this notion, but, if so, it isn't because of the guidelines at the citation templates.)

Citing websites for the companies listed above is a little tricky because it is often seen that the website and the company are pretty much one-in-the-same with regard to their reporting. You don't see "Cbsnews.com stated..." or "according to Cbsnews.com..." in prose, but you will see "CBS News stated..." or "according to CBS News..." (note, no italics). The content that is being referenced can be said to come from either/both of the company doing the reporting or the website hosting the content for the company doing the reporting.

Now, regardless of either of our preferences with regard to this kind of formatting, there needs to be consensus on how to apply these guidelines to this specific article. We disagree on this and reverting each other is not productive. Let's see what others think so we can find a path forward that works here. - Paul^T+/_C 18:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Also note, we seem to have hit on a perennial topic over at Help:Citation Style 1: Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 10#Clarify usage of publisher, Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 21#Questions about descriptions of "publisher" and about "via" parameters, Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 4#Work parameter (Template:Cite news), Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 5#"news=" alias?. Of course, there is still no direct guidance on the topic as it relates to the large news/media companies that I listed above (and other similar companies like BBC/BBC News, PBS, NPR, etc.). I'm going to ping some of the relevant contributors there to see if there have been some more recent discussions that I haven't been able to locate: @Mandruss, Imzadi1979, SMcCandlish, and J. Johnson:. - Paul^T+/_C 19:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Psantora. After having used |work= or one of its pointless aliases (website, newspaper, etc) for all online sources for years, I was convinced by another editor that it makes more sense to use |work= or |publisher= depending on whether the title of our article about the source is italicized (it makes even more sense when you link to that article in the citation, which I always do these days). An italicized title means it's a work, a non-italicized title means it's not a work and |publisher= is about the only other way to denote the source.

Then you have editors who think a domain name is a website, and think it's more useful to provide the domain name (nytimes.com) than the actual name of the entity (The New York Times).

I have argued that the community should take a position on this and clarify the guideline, but of course that failed because (1) there was no consensus on which position to take, largely because there was not enough participation in that discussion, or (2) "this needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis". So here we are, discussing at the level of an individual article something that should be consistent across an enormous number of articles. Do this at a different article with a different mix of participants, and the result will likely be different—at the expense of both readers and editors. Just another example of Wikipedia senselessness. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I believe there was a discussion on this very point several years ago, and specifically of italicization, but off-hand I don't recollect when, or what the resolution might have been.

I concur with not using |publisher= for the name of a work. Those are distinctly different data, and such usage is flat out incorrect, and corrupts the metadata. I suspect there may be a misunderstanding here of the nature of "website" and "publisher", or what constitutes a "work".

I particularly reject misusing a parameter for the purpose of a preferred formatting. Whether a given dataum should be italicized might be looked at. Off-hand I am doubtful that "An italicized title means it is a work", but that would warrant a check with a style guide. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Would a check with our MOS do? MOS:ITALICTITLE. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

In general, yes, but as some of our guidance tends towards wonkiness I like to compare them against the standard guides.

The concretions of text I see further below are more than I have time to analyze, so I am going to bow out here. I wish you all great joy. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of any lack of agreement or understanding of what the template instructions say. To me they say not to use "publisher=" when it is essentially the same information that would be provided by using "work/website/newspaper/magazine=". The exact language is quoted above. I also strongly believe that "website=" does not imply providing a domain name; domain names should be avoided unless they are a natural part of the name of the work/website (and "website" is just an alias for work/newspaper/magazine/etc.). As expressed by Mandruss J. Johnson, I dislike the idea of choosing the parameter based on whether we think italic formatting looks better or not; that is an invitation for inconsistency within and across Wikipedia articles. If there is something wrong with the template instructions, that is probably something that should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources or Help talk:Citation Style 1. I have been assuming that the instructions provided for {{cite news}} / {{cite web}} were well established and should merely be followed rather than discussed. Looking at it now, I also see that the discussion of website names in MOS:ITALICTITLE says that "Website titles [for] news sites with original content should generally be italicized." (italics added here for emphasis), which seems to say the same thing. My interpretation has been that if we are referencing something that is on the CNN website, we should use "website=[[CNN]]" and not use "publisher" (since the publisher name in this case provides no information that is not adequately provided by the website name). The CNN website is a news site with original content. I also personally assume that if the website is the website for Reuters or Associated Press or similar, this information should be provided using "work/website=", and not "agency=", again as a matter of consistency with the instructions for "publisher". —BarrelProof (talk) 00:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

To me they say not to use "publisher=" when it is essentially the same information that would be provided by using "work/website/newspaper/magazine=". I don't think my position is inconsistent with that. ABC News would not (or should not) be provided by "work/website/newspaper/magazine=" because ABC News is not a work. How do we know ABC News is not a work? Not only because it's intuitively not a work, but also because its unitalicized title would violate MOS:ITALICTITLE if it were a work. Calling ABC News a website wouldn't help because |website= is merely an alias of |work= included just to complicate matters for us; i.e. in CS1, a website is a type of work. Just extend the concept to all other sources that have unitalicized titles in their articles. There are cases where a work's article title is not italicized, and the solution there is to italicize it, as I did in October at FiveThirtyEight.

As expressed by Mandruss, I dislike the idea of choosing the parameter based on - did you mean J. Johnson? It's not a matter of whether we think italic formatting looks better or not—this has nothing to do with aesthetics—although my method does produce italics or not in a manner consistent with ITALICTITLE and consistent with the target article titles. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

As I told BarrelProof on my talk page, I have been putting un-italicized titles in publisher and italicized titles in work. Seems to be the same as Mandruss and Psantora. starship.paint ~ KO 01:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I should have referred to J. Johnson, not Mandruss. If a citation to an article on the ABC News / Abcnews.com website should not be using "website=[[ABC News]]", then I think the instructions for {{cite news}} need to be changed (and perhaps the "website=" alias for "work=" should be deprecated as too confusing). —BarrelProof (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

As I suggested, I would support any clarification that gets all editors on the same page. Based on past experience I wouldn't put money on our ability to reach any consensus. Too many cooks in the kitchen, many of whom couldn't boil water. Bring together 20 editors and you'll get about 10 different obvious ways to do this. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

What Mandruss advocates (@ "I agree with Psantora....", above) is contrary to the templates' (and Help:CS1's centralized) documentation, and to MOS:TITLES. If anyone's still unclear (how, after this many years of going over the same things again and again?) on any of this: If you are citing something as a published work, then it gets italics if it's a major/stand-alone publication; this includes websites (being an online publication doesn't make something "magically different"), and the |work= parameter (the same thing as the |website= alias, and |journal=, |newspaper=, |magazine= in the periodical citation tempaltes) does this automatically. It gets quotation marks if it's a minor work or sub-work, such as an article; the |title= parameter in most citation templates does this automatically, too ({{cite book}} is an exception, in which the title and work parameters are aliases, and the param. for a sub-work is |chapter=).

The |publisher= parameter is only for the publishing company/organization, nothing else, always, the end. Misusing it in an attempt to WP:GAME around MOS:TITLES because you don't personally like italicizing names of online publications is WP:POINTy, as it seriously pollutes the citation meta-data with false information, and is basically individual activism (WP:NOT#ADVOCACY) against a guideline you don't like. See WP:POLICY for how to change a guideline via consensus-building processes.

The |via= parameter is for an intermediary content deliverer, such as Google Books or a journals search site; it's not for the original publisher, and not for the publication. (If it's a modern edition of old material, then the publisher of that edition goes in the |publisher= parameter; see WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT). If any publication's name and its publisher's name are the same, or so redundant that including both would be brow-beating, exclude the publisher (e.g. |work=The New York Times, not |work=The New York Times |publisher=The New York Times Company; same with BBC News and BBC).

It's customary to link to publications and publishers if we have articles on them. Some editors want it done in every citation to the same publication/publisher, others think this is over-linking. There's no clear consensus on that matter after years of spotty, non-centralized debate (but I think it leans toward "link it every time", because the citations are not generally read top-to-bottom like normal prose, but usually looked at one at a time, to check a particular cite, then jump back to the regular content via the cite's return link). At bare minimum, link the first occurrence, though this may not remain the first one as the article evolves, so it may need to be updated at WP:GAN review or whatever. But don't red-link these things; if we don't have an article on a publication/publisher by now it probably isn't notable. Same goes for author names.

If an online publication has a proper title other than its domain name, use that (The New York Times, not NYT.com). If writing about an online publisher/publication as a business entity or as a server/service/address, rather than a publication/source, italics would not be used for the corporate or domain name: "She is a senior editor at Salon", but "He worked as Salon.com's systems and network administrator from 1999 to 2004", and "the board of directors of Salon Media Group ...". Things that are services with something of the character of a publisher, generally for self-publishing, are usually not italicized ("Trump's May 1 post on Twitter") but will be italicized in a citation, since it's the |work= and is being cited as a published source, i.e. as a publication for citation purposes.

That's the high points. I've repeatedly been encouraged to consolidate this stuff into a {{Wikipedia how-to}} page (since I keep having to write out the same points again and again, for many years now), so I should probably just do it; the above is already the core of one, though I think I written better before. We clearly do need a "basic citation help" page, since the CS1 documentation is very dense, covering all possible parameters, only a tiny handful of which are used in most citations.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Just read the template doc on |publisher= and tell me with a straight face that it unambiguously says what you're saying here. I stress unambiguously, meaning your explanation not required. No editor can be expected to look elsewhere for information on how to use the templates, or to blindly accept a wordy pronouncement-from-on-high from SMcCandlish lacking any evidence of a clear and unambiguous community consensus. The guidance for usage of these parameters is in the template docs, nowhere else (unless linked from the template docs). If you want to create something without prior community consensus and hope it flies, I wish you luck and I recognize that's often the only way to get anything done around here. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

BTW I added a sentence to MOS:DUPLINK regarding citations in January and there has been no challenge. The few times I've seen it come up in discussion there was wide agreement that citations are used very differently from article prose and are a special case. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

On that last point, I don't disagree; it's in line with what I've been observing about the piecemeal discussion of the question over the last several years (it's been consistently enough in favor of linking in each cite that I've actually changed my own original MOS:OVERLINK-based position in support of that view). As for the rest, I'll address that below after Psantora's post.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think it is plainly clear from this discussion that yes, even after "this many years of going over the same things again and again" there is still ambiguity on this point. If it is as straightforward as you are stating it, SMcCandlish, that would be great and I'd welcome the clarity. My original inclination way back was to always use the |work= parameter (and various aliases), but someone brought up MOS:ITALICTITLE or some other similarly contradictary guideline at some point and convinced me to change based on whether the entity's title ought to be italicized or not. Unfortunately, I don't recall exactly where that discussion happened, but I suppose it doesn't matter.

The point is that both HELP:CS1#Work and publisher and Template:Cite news#Publisher/Template:Cite news#Periodical do not have clear guidance on where entities like ABC/ABC News, CBS/CBS News, NBC/NBC News/CNBC/MSNBC, Fox/Fox News/Fox Business, CNN, BBC/BBC News, PBS, NPR, Reuters, Associated Press/AP News, and/or their respective .com/.org/.co.uk sites belong in the "cite xyz" templates. If they all belong under |work= (or an alias), great! Then lets explicitly state that. It isn't like there is an unreasonably long list of "major" (emphasis on major) news organizations that aren't traditional/non-traditional periodicals (which are unambiguously always italicized and therefore create much less confusion).

I don't think it would be a problem to give some more example references explicitly using say CNN, BBC News, and/or CBS News to drive the point home directly about where these kinds of organizations belong. It doesn't even have to be exhaustive as long as it directly covers the 3/4 most common kinds of references.

As an aside, I want to explicitly thank Mandruss, J. Johnson, and SMcCandlish for chiming in on this discussion. (And I'm sure Imzadi1979 would have - and maybe still will in a few days - if they weren't on vacation...) I very much appreciate the perspective. - Paul^T+/_C 03:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Before I get into this in detail, I'll repeat what I usually say in this cyclical conflict: Confusing something like the blog Engadget with a publisher is the same as confusing The Magical Mystery Tour with Apple Records. It really is that simple.

@Mandruss:: The clear and unambiguous community consensus is obvious: nearly no one does what you want to do, and virtually never, ever does anyone revert when it's fixed to use the parameters properly (and I'm unaware of a single case of such a conflict going unresolved after discussion, in favor of following the CS1 docs). Everyone editing WP longer than about a month is fully aware of the maxim that what we write down in policy and guidelines isn't what consensus is; actual practice is what consensus is, and the P&G pages (and template documentation) are codified summaries of the high points and common questions.

More to the point though, the doc is unambiguous. Let's quote it directly, from WP:CS1 (specifically, Help:Citation Style 1#Work and publisher; emphasis in original):

work: Used by some templates such as {{cite web}} ... where the citation is usually to a specific item [given in |title=] in a larger work, most commonly an article in a website or print periodical.... Do not confuse this with the "publisher" parameter, which is for the publishing company.... If the work is notable and has an article in Wikipedia, it should be wiki-linked at first appearance in citations in the article.... On websites, in most cases "work" is the name of the website ...; otherwise use the site's domain name.
publisher: the name of the organization that actually published the source.... If the publisher is notable and has an article independent of the "work", the "publisher" parameter can include a wiki-link to that article, but should never externally link to the publisher's website. The "publisher" parameter should not be included either for mainstream, widely-known newspapers, or where it would be the same or mostly the same as the work/site/journal/etc....
via (optional): Name of the content deliverer (when they are not the publisher). via is not a replacement for publisher, but provides additional detail. It may be used when the content deliverer presents the source in a format other than the original, or when the URL provided does not make clear the identity of the deliverer, or as suggested in WP:The Wikipedia Library, e.g. WP:Credo accounts/Citations.

It's absolutely, unmistakably clear on this stuff. If one template or another has documentation that conflicts with this, then correct that template's documentation. WP:CS1 has a much higher WP:CONLEVEL than any cite templates' /doc pages, since it's heavily watchlisted and holds discussion of changes to the templates' functionality and documentation in great (sometimes excruciating) detail; and by now most if not all of the cite templates' talk pages already redirect there and their doc pages sectionally transclude the same CS1 documentation anyway! Just because you don't get an answer you like doesn't mean someone is making a "pronouncement-from-on-high". You need to consider that some of us have been deeply steeped in the citation system and its parameters for over a decade, and have been through this exact same discussion dozens of times, with the same conclusion every time. It's overdue to be listed on WP:PERENNIAL.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Psantora: re your long list of TLA news sources: CBS, NBC, Fox, etc. are publishers. CBS News, NBC Nightly News, Fox News, etc. are treated as publications (may be TV shows, or websites, doesn't matter; it's the |work= being cited). Some of these things are ambiguous with distribution methods, e.g. Fox Business Network, which is not a publisher or a publication, and need not be named in any citation, though I think Fox Business redirects there; I don't watch enough Fox to know if there is an actual news show (a publication for cite purposes) literally named Fox Business. Something citing a specific FBN broadcast should use the name of the news program as the |work=. If FBN exercises its own editorial control, I would think it's fine to treat FBN (rather than Fox more broadly), as the publisher. Similarly, a position paper from, say, the Foo Bar Institute at Baz Quux University can use use Foo Bar Institute as the publisher name; being more specific, up to a point, is usually more helpful for finding the source.

Re "someone brought up MOS:ITALICTITLE ... and convinced me to change based on whether the entity's title ought to be italicized or not." The problem with that (which seems to be Mandruss's angle, though I'm not a mind-reader), is that style peccadilloes vary by context. (Well, and there's the falsified template data problem of abusing the publisher parameter.) What the name represents varies by context, too (see my Salon/Salon.com/Salon Media Group example; one could easily find an example where all three are even more redundantly named (e.g. something like "Salon Inc."). Under WP:COMMONNAME we'll use the short version (perhaps with a parenthetical disambiguator), and in most cases all three topics are covered at the same article here, if any of them are notable at all.

Anyway, I think the above wording quoted direct from the docs makes it clear that "there is still ambiguity on this point" is a manufactured situation by people who don't like how it works and want to pretend there's not clear documentation and consensus on how it works; it's a long-term "sow enough FUD and maybe I'll win" tactic by about half a dozen editors. Basically, it sounds like you were "lobbied" by someone who didn't think this through very much, never mind ask about it. If a site is not primarily viewed as a publication but as a service, store, forum, or other non-publication, then italicization in most if not all of the article text would not be used and nor would {{italic title}}. But in a citation, it is and only possibly can be cited as a published work, and the template is going to italicize that, because that's what's done with publications we cite (same as "She is the managing editor of Salon" gets italics – it's a publication not a server or a corporation in that sentence). Citations are their own context. It's strange to me that the anti-italics people are almost always also WT:CITE regulars (though not at all vice versa), since the latter are also the crowd who most strongly argue that citations are their own context (even to the point of suggesting that nothing in MoS should apply to them, a view that has zero traction at all, but which they recycle frequently as if the broken-record tactic is going to change people's minds instead of irritate them and make them point to WP:STICK and WP:TE and WP:FORUMSHOP).
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, we're now into aspersions terrority, which is where I get off. Have fun. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not about you in particular, but a long-term pattern of "wiki-politicking" by a WP:FACTION. That your view of the matter happens to align with that of people who have for years been perpetuating a bogus and one-sided "CITE vs. MoS" feud (and a patently hypocritical one, amounting to "cites are special, but only when it serves my personal preferences") is probably incidental, though unfortunate. Rather than walking away in a huff, as if everything must be about you and as if every criticism is an attack, it would be more productive to actually address anything I've said substantively. Hand-waving is not an argument. I've laid out an overwhelmingly strong case that what I've said is correct, as to template documentation, WP:P&G matters (cf. Wikipedia:Verifiability#What counts as a reliable source and MOS:TITLES, also quite clear about work/author/publisher distinction), general practice, and basic logic; meanwhile, you've presented what amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I only skimmed through a few things early in the discussion when I had a few minutes last night. |publisher= is for the name of a company, or a division of a company, while a |work= is the title of a publication/product they produce. Booth Newspapers publishes The Grand Rapids Press. They also publish MLive (or MLive.com), and both publications, print and digital, should be considered a |work=. Regarding television news, CBS News is the name of the division of CBS that produces their news content, so it would be a publisher and not a work. Their website may lack an independent name, so there wouldn't really be a work; conversely, WLUC-TV publishes online content on a website named Upper Michigan's Source, so there is a separate work and publisher to be listed. I hope this helps. Imzadi 1979 → 21:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, SMcCandlish's interpretation is the same as mine was – that if we cite an article on the website of CNN, BBC, ABC News, NPR, PBS, WGN-TV, Associated Press or Reuters, we would put that name in the "work=" parameter and not use the "publisher=" parameter. I do not see any very similar examples at Help talk:Citation Style 1 or in the {{cite news}} template instructions. The example for The New York Times is a little too obvious, in my opinion. It would be nice if these examples were covered more explicitly in the guidance. I'm sure they are among the most common types of citations. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

As I noted above, some of these names coincide/are ambiguous. FOO News may be a division of FOO Media Evil Empire Corp., in one context, but if the website is named FOO News, then it is definitely the work title when we are citing that website. If their main news program is also simply titled FOO News, then it is also the title of the TV show when we use a TV citation template. That is, 'you will see "CBS News stated..." or "according to CBS News..." (note, no italics)' is actually an error in many if most cases. Anyway, both the CS1 docs and MoS are clear to not repeat this name again in |publisher= if it's the same as the work title, or so close to the same that we'd be treating our readers like they had brain damage. And it's not the other way around; there is no "gotcha!" WP:GAMING loophole for excluding |work= and using |publisher=, just to get an "I hate italics" result; MoS even says to not include the publisher for news sources, websites, and major journals at all unless doing so is helpful in a particular case. The work title is core citation information, but the publisher is optional.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC); rev'd 21:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Based on what I've read about the cite templates, it's been my understanding that the names of websites are italicized in citations. I've understood that that is different from how the MoS says to refer to websites in text. I figured that was one of the quirks of Wikipedia. I have no strong feelings, but I've probably made tens of thousands of edits based on that understanding. Where I've seen website names in |publisher=, I've changed them to |website=. Nobody's ever argued with me, but I mostly stay in lightly traveled areas.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  03:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

There's a thread open now at WT:CS1 about coming up with a "roadmap" for improving the documentation. As for the MOS:TITLES problem, I've attempted to resolve that already with a clarification, and a footnote citing all the major policy points on what we cite (publications, not other things). So, hopefully (after years!) some of the confusion and the cyclical, repetitive argument about this stuff will recede.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I did not find the current section headings at WT:CS1 to be sufficiently clear about wanting to clarify the template guidance about "work" versus "publisher" for the examples we have discussed, so I started a new section at WT:CS1#Examples of how to use the templates. The first response I have received there was roughly of the variety of "pick the parameter name based on whether italics should be applied to it or not". I suggest that the discussion should continue there rather than here, since it is not specific to this article. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Are Barr's actions Background or Aftermath?

Aviartm and I differ on putting content about Barr's letter and press conference in either the Background section [1] or the Aftermath section [2]. So let's discuss here. I feel that it should be in an Aftermath section, because these are official actions Barr took after seeing the report. You could also include impeachment proceedings if they ever occur to an Aftermath section. Barr can't declare Trump innocent on obstruction before seeing the report, as one would think happened if you were to put it in the Bcakground. Barr's actions (such as arguing the President was angry) were clearly a reaction to what the report said. To put Barr's in the Background, and before the findings are even described, seems to be putting the cart before the horse. starship.paint ~ KO 06:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint When I made the edit to put Barr's remarks back into Background, I too wasn't so sure about it. It is a kind grey area for the article. Conclusion wise, it would be aftermath (if we are to include such a section, we should look for a better word because "aftermath" conveys bad conclusions/consequences.); but chronologically, it is Background. The conclusions also came first, which would be Background as it was prior to the public release. In this regard, conclusions came first and contents came afterward. I think Barr's remarks/activities should be in Background to adhere to chronological happenings. Aviartm (talk) 07:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Aviartm: - I've been influenced too much by wrestling articles (Wrestle Kingdom 9) and other articles here (Christchurch shooting). The idea below has some merit. starship.paint ~ KO 11:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

"Background" is tricky – I'd lean towards a stricter chronological structure with totally different headers, and avoid words like "background" and "aftermath" altogether, pushing the development, coverage, and release into a section separate from the report's contents. Here's one idea:

• A small "impetus for report" section (with a couple articles linked in a "further information:" section hatnote),
• A section about "interim post-completion, pre-release publicity by Barr DOJ" (with a much better name) that covers Barr's memo and reaction (the 4 weeks), segueing into (and possibly combined with)
• Barr's press conference,
• The "wide release" coverage of the "big" April 18 release,
• Then maybe a "further, less-redacted release to congress" whenever congress gets a less-redacted version, and
• Lastly a "subsequent subpoenas and resulting testimony" for McGahn.

Dividing the actions up into stricter chronological slots saves us from having to make editorial judgment about what is "background" and "aftermath".-Ich (talk) 08:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ich: = thank you for the great idea. This makes sense. If only we could figure out how to name the various sections.... starship.paint ~ KO 11:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I made these changes, all free to weigh in and help: [3] here starship.paint ~ KO 11:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

This is a much better structure. Thanks for making the changes! One suggestion I have is to include a sub-section on the legal framework of the report. (Maybe in the "impetus for report" section?) The report's framework is very clearly laid out. It was a one-way street by design and the only possible conclusion (regarding President Trump) that Mueller allowed for was "not guilty". They could not make that determiniation and so they "concluded" NOT "not guilty"... It would be helpful to explicitly state this in an early section fully fleshed out since that framework was the frame for the entire report (as well as Barr's letter and press conference as it is explicitly stated there - the framework should be defined before those sections). - Paul^T+/_C 12:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC) See #Legal Framework below for an expansion of this point. Sorry, didn't mean to hijack this discussion. - Paul^T+/_C 13:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the good work - it looks really nice and you picked some good section names. It only now occurs to me that we jump from the impetus (May 2017) to the completion of the report. I'll play with some wording to see about copying a one-to-two paragraph summary of the investigation from Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019) to bridge the narrative gap from Comey's firing/Mueller's appointment all the way to Mueller's complete report.-Ich (talk) 13:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ich: - some issues here with the first two sections. When I wrote the first section (impetus), I nabbed stuff from Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019)#Origin and powers, that's what the section is on, not Dismissal of James Comey. This brings a problem when you name the second section "Special Counsel investigation"... like, due to the overlap. starship.paint ~ KO 14:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

That makes sense. How do you feel about this diff?-Ich (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Went with that and improved upon. [4] Aviartm - I already did this earlier but didn't type a reply in this thread. Sorry about the confusion. starship.paint ~ KO 05:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint Alrighty. And what was the thing that you did already earlier? Aviartm (talk) 05:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Aviartm - that diff was the thing I did earlier. starship.paint ~ KO 10:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paintYes, but I still do not know what that would be. Aviartm (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Aviartm - this situation is a comedy of errors. I did one thing:[5]. I did this very thing "earlier". I did nothing later. starship.paint ~ KO 00:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint Ah, I see. Aviartm (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Aviartm - the more I read this thread, the funnier it gets. Hahaha! A lesson in communication for me. starship.paint ~ KO 08:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment – I agree with Ich's proposal. I think we should follow a chronological order of things. I haven't seen the page yet but clicked on the comparison of edits link that Ich posted and noticed some changes already happened. Let's go with that and see what we can do. Aviartm (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Starship.paint Agree with the concern and titles. As to chronological presentation, I’m looking for a clarification on is that content too or just for section layout? — Is the view/intent that content within sections be from the period also, or is it to be about only that period but later clarification allowed in, or is it instead to be involving the section topic regardless of the chronology, or what ? The sections currently have retrospectives or spoilers of future in them, and those would be shifted if it is to be consistently chronology. For example, the end of the Barr letter section has a line “After release of the redacted report, Barr’s initial letter was criticized...” and at the end of the release section Analysis begins with a line about “Prior to the public release of the Mueller report,” and I’m thinking those two might be swapped. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Markbassett: - I made the following change, because this info should be in Analysis, since there is an Analysis section comparing the Letter + Report. [6] Are you satisfied with the section now? starship.paint ~ KO 01:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Starship.paint I will take that to mean the answer is (or favours) “content too”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 09:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ich: - what do you think of Mueller Report#Events before public release now? Private stuff like the Mueller letter of March 27 and the Mueller-Barr call of March 28 was only reported on April 30. I think it's appropriate for this section, would you agree? If no, where would it go? Now there is even more testimony from Barr (May 1) about the past events (before the public release). A whole lot of controversy and this is all getting confusing. If only Barr had released the executive summaries, then this wouldn't have been an issue. starship.paint ~ KO 01:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Aviartm and Psantora: - what would you think on this matter as I posted above? starship.paint ~ KO 03:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the events should be presented chronologically as they happened, regardless of when it became public or was reported on. I think it looks good. :) - Paul^T+/_C 03:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint Chrono. Aviartm (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Aviartm: - sorry, need you to clarify. Do you prefer presenting content according to Option A: actual date of occurrence or Option B: date of public knowledge? starship.paint ~ KO 03:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint That's fine. Chronological. Should be in that order, so Option A if at all possible. However, like the Mueller Letter to Barr on March 27, we should note when it was reported and when the event took place, which we do. Aviartm (talk) 04:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Aviartm: - technically both are chronological, since Option B is chronological according to public knowledge. However, I understand you are for Option A, and we should note when it was reported. starship.paint ~ KO 04:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint Yup! :) Aviartm (talk) 04:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Agreed – "Chronologically based on date of public knowledge" also makes less and less sense the further back the events are; the timeline gets muddied with constant jumps forward and backward. I just found this sentence on WP:10YT that I think applies here: "Will someone ten years from now be confused about how this article is written?" For example: if I were to write a narrative about the Watergate scandal, I'd start with the White House Plumbers and Ellsberg etc. before the Watergate burglary, or (for a more extreme example): 'Woodward and Bernstein published leaks from Mark Felt under the name Deep Throat, although his identity remained secret until 2005' instead of having the final chapter mention Deep Throat's identity for the first time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ich (talk • contribs)

User:Starship.paint Content chronologically too (or at least favoring that) seemed your response when I asked above, which I think means when it becomes known (which is also when reactions appear and what reactions are) and I think that is consistent and OK. I think as we are writing daily and lack the full 10 year later narrative, it’s somewhat inevitable. And I doubt that releasing the executive summaries would have meant there were no complaints or issues in writing this article. Barr was after all releasing the redacted report, folks just needed to mind the gap. I wouldn’t weigh the rumours re summaries too much in the 10YT sense — it is what Mueller testifies about it that will count, just be patient — the filler articles or speculation and what ifs that will be happening in the meanwhile simply do not matter. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Markbassett: - sorry, need you to clarify. I favour presenting content according to Option A: actual date of occurrence - which is the 10 year later narrative in my view. The other choice is Option B: date of public knowledge - which in my view, is the daily writing. Which do you support - Option A or B? starship.paint ~ KO 03:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

(arrgh edit conflict) User:Starship.paint ...

• I was speaking here not about a/b but to my earlier question, 'is chronology just for section division or is it for content also' and stating my interpretation of your edit instead of a response to mean at least favoring chronological content too.
• As to the a/b question, I'm not sure there is a difference, as I side-remarked above B seems inevitable -- as the date of knowledge is part and parcel of the item and the context for it. In the few muddled cases it seems problematic when they get put in earlier, the jumping back & forth in time or the presaging seem to play hob with their context and narrative.
• For another example - at the end of 'Before public release', the press conference part ends with a para "Following the Barr press conference, The New York Times"... giving a false impression of NYT response to that conference and before the release -- but the item is actually about reports 30 April, the week after release and done as part of and in the context of the Analysis period. (Are we now in a 'hearings' or 'aftermath' section ?) That the NYT piece was citing a January story about a 2018 period doesn't seem like making the jumbling much worse, mostly I think the context and narrative got muddled that it is not at the point it occurred in, so the causing situation and it's meaning are obscured.
• I'll suggest we're at a soft 'mostly' chronological, with a few a/b situations 'no consensus' we can address ad hoc if anyone cares about it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Markbassett: - beep beep. See my question above. By now everyone who weighed in here has chosen Option A - actual date of occurrence. Do you agree? starship.paint ~ KO 23:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Starship.paint No, and actually I'm not sure it is a resolvable or urgent dilemma. I don't think that categorically one can say which of insertions out of time vs out of topic are better, or even that its severable, but then I'm also thinking it's just a few bits of no great portion or importance to the article ot to events so having it ad hoc seems not an issue that needs work. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Events arranged by actual date

@Markbassett, Ich, Aviartm, and Psantora: - I've mostly arranged the article according to events by actual date of happening. There is a problem though - the Reactions section has content from March 25, April 11, May 1 etc. We need to figure out how to handle that, and please comment on the rest if it [7] is better or worse than before. [8] starship.paint (edits | talk) 02:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: As I am busy off-wiki, and for the time being, I do not intend to respond on-wiki unless someone pings me or alerts me via my talk page. starship.paint (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment – In regards to Reactions, let it be chronological only within the section. So if President Trump has said something on April 18, April 23, and May 1, for example, all of those should be in chronological order but the whole Reactions section should not be arranged where the first prominent person that had made a response on the Mueller Report is first. Aviartm (talk) 12:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

"Mueller complained that Barr’s letter did not capture ‘context’ of Trump probe"

Mueller complained that Barr’s letter did not capture ‘context’ of Trump probe, The Washington Post

BullRangifer (talk) 00:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

You're a little late. Two of us have already (independently) put that news item into the article. That part of it needs some further work though. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Should we swap edits, so your longer one goes in the body while my shorter one goes in the lede? soibangla (talk) 01:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Good going! We knew this must come at some time. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@BarrelProof: - please add to the body before adding to the lede. Soibangla - I'm looking at how to swap stuff around starship.paint ~ KO 02:05, 1 May 2019 (UTC) Comment– Expounded on that entirely in the article. Just add it in the lead. Aviartm (talk) 02:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Aviartm - oh no. It was already there before you added it. It's back in the lede now too. Where should this go now? Mueller Report#Reactions to the Barr letter or in the Reactions to the report? To me it shouldn't be reactions to the report, as it wasn't a reaction to the report. starship.paint ~ KO 02:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint Yeah.... I noticed that right after send my comment here for the first time... I think my new addition should be there because with Mueller testifying soon to the HJC, it will come in handy but we should tailor it to some degree. Aviartm (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to touch your addition... others can weigh in and do it. starship.paint ~ KO 02:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint Alright. I'll tailor it as well. Aviartm (talk) 02:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

It's important to connect this with this previous NYTimes story:

• Some on Mueller’s Team Say Report Was More Damaging Than Barr Revealed

It was treated as a leak, and is now proven to be true by the WaPo report. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be synth? PackMecEng (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

That would indeed be SYNTH, and really just too much a rush to post — the prior rumor really wasn’t needed or DUE, and the same-day posting of today’s rumor isn’t a necessary deadline. There should be a 48 hour waiting period... and a better filter. If one just waits, one perhaps gets actual testimony and not the stampede of rumors. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

It's further important to include the additional context of the WaPo report and under oath testimony from AG that Mueller said that Barr's summary memo was accurate. Otherwise, this page gives the impression that the Barr Summary memo was inaccurate b/c it was not in context.--PatentlyObtuse (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@PatentlyObtuse: - I have added the quote of the spokeswoman to the body. However, I don't believe it belongs to the lede, it certainly seems to contradict the March 27 Mueller letter. Additionally, are we to believe the anti-Trump mainstream media would be inclined to misreport Barr's "accurate" letter in a way that flatters Trump? Perhaps they were mislead after all. Lastly, please provide a link to under oath testimony from AG, thanks. starship.paint ~ KO 01:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint:Source for testimony at: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/the-department-of-justices-investigation-of-russian-interference-with-the-2016-presidential-election at about 00:55:00. As to what goes into the lede, nothing should go in the lede if you don't put in the full context. Further, the lede states a causal effect 'resulting in' between Mueller's critique of the summary letter and public confusion that cannot be supported by the plain text of the letter. For convenience, the letter states: The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation." Thus, the lede inserts an opinion not supported by the plain text of the March 27 letter and should have context provided by Barr's reporting of the telephone call, namely, nothing was inaccurate and that the press. Quote from Barr: "I called Bob, and said, 'What's the issue here?' And I asked him if he was suggesting the March 24th letter was inaccurate, and he said, 'No", but that the press reporting had been inaccurate. And that the press was reading too much into it. And I asked him specifically what his concerns was, and he said that his concern focused on his explanation of why he did not reach a conclusion on obstruction, and he wanted more put out on that issue. He wanted, he argued for putting out summaries of each Volume, the executive summaries that had been written by his office, and if not that, other material that focused on issue of why he didn't reach the obstruction question. But it was very clear with me that he was not suggesting that we had misrepresented his report."— Preceding unsigned comment added by PatentlyObtuse (talk • contribs)

@PatentlyObtuse: - your ping didn't work because you didn't add a signature ~~~~ to your post, add it at the end. I have made this change (removing the causal effect) according to your edit [9]. If Mueller later testifies what he thinks about the letter, then that might be lede-worthy. Barr definitely has a conflict of interest in portraying his own letter as accurate. starship.paint ~ KO 10:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about the Ping. yet people keep editing back in the causal effect. While you may speculate what conflict of interests Barr has, there are no facts in the cited evidence that Mueller found the Summary report inaccurate, and continuing to add in the causal effect is reckless and inaccurate.--PatentlyObtuse (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Questions

In Volume I, in reference to the large number of Trump staffers which have participated in spreading the hacked info, is there any combinatorial math which is telling? About the dates, for example, and whether some had early or advanced knowledge of the hacks?

In Volume II, does Mueller say anything about his deliberation process in accepting the OLC decision, or is this part given only shallow treatment? Is there a telling message in this? Was he forced is one question. Another is, was he also forced into saying that it was his own decision?

Why no mention of Cambridge Analytica scandal in the report, when it was reported in the context of the early part of the Mueller probe? Its omission should seem extremely strange. Was Mueller ordered to omit it? -ApexUnderground (talk) 09:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@ApexUnderground: - I'll just tell you that if Mueller was forced to do anything, we won't know unless he testifies. The man just doesn't leak. As for the rest of the questions, read the report and find out yourself, or search it. There are searchable versions listed at Mueller Report#External links starship.paint (talk) 11:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Are there non-searchable versions out there? The only one that I know of was the original PDF from Justice.gov, but that has since been replaced with a searchable version. - Paul^T+/_C 13:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

More questions. Clinton is a former Secretary of State who is out of government while campaigning, but as a candidate could also be back in government again. She has a security clearance level which officially might affect how the hacks are ranked in terms of severity. Podesta also has an active or inactive clearance level, being a former White House Chief of Staff, and he also could be back in government if Clinton is elected. Is there a severity metric for data hacks which correlates to their security clearance? The meaning of the hacked info, as shared with Trump campaign staffers, is transformed by the security clearance level of the hacked candidate and staff, and whether Trump staff knew about the hacks before public dumping. -ApexUnderground (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

A view from the UK

Craig Murray Blog - The Real Muellergate Scandal, 09 May 2019.     ←   ZScarpia   12:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Is there another authorisation ?

The article has the original investigation mandate letter ... is there a revised one or new letter for when he took on the Obstruction bit ? (Seems like expansion and almost half the final report should have something granting that authority and task, it wouldn’t seem likely Mueller just redefined his own mission or could just scoop up ongoing investigations at will.). Anyone know where such is or if things were done verbally there ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

He may have gotten verbal authorization from Rosenstein. But he didn't really need it. The appointment letter clearly gave him a very broad mandate to look into things "arising" from his investigation and "any other matters". Since he was appointed as a direct result of Comey's firing - an action which many people regarded as obstruction of justice - I suspect that was part of his investigation from the get-go. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

"Statement by Former Federal Prosecutors" Who organized this? Where is the authorized list of signators?

It took some hunting, but I found this:

https://airtable.com/shrZ3dJWgziXNqScg/tblOfGdhUbL5p1uGu?blocks=hide

It seems to list the names, DOJ title, years served, and administrations served,
of (as of May 15) 915 "Former Federal Prosecutors".

I think this would be valuable information to add to this page.
BUT I am concerned about reliability and attribution.

Does anyone know, have a link to, who actually organized this?
Who wrote the Medium statement? And, do they authorize this listing?

Thanks to everyone working on this!
The rule of law, and all that!
BCWikiP (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this deserves mention in the article. It really is no concern of ours who arranged it. It's documented in RS, and it is already mentioned in the article right here: Mueller Report#Former federal prosecutors. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

User:BullRangifer that seems not citeable — an anonymous hosting service, not a RS. Feel free to use the info as something to search for somewhere else it appears. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

It is only because it is referred to in RS that we include it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems OK for RS words to be used, in due weight. Words of airtable.com are not includable, unless the RS reiterate them.... just mentioning airtable does not give it RS status. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I didn't bring airtable to this table. . I have added a few other RS to the section. I also found out which organization stood behind the effort. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• User:BCWikiP - who organized it is mentioned in articles as protect democracy.org - basically an anti-Trump litigation group. (Their website is a bit conflicting on this — it says nonpartisan, but then the content is entirely anti-Trump, and Staff lists past items like Hillary for America, Sen. Whitehouse (D-RI), Women&Gender part of UNClimate, Rep Schiff (D-CA), SoCal ACLU, Resistance Manual, etcetera.). Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• User:BCWikiP - I can clarify further; this appears to be the airtable list linked to at the Medium article. It seems fairly presentable but not entirely of “Former Federal Prosecutors”, including ordinary titles like “Supervisor” or “Intelligence analyst” or “Cybersecurity policy” or “Special Assistant”, and oddly Denise O’Donnell? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

"investigate the investigators"

Why does searching WP on "investigate the investigators" redirect to this article? Should it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Investigate_the_investigators&redirect=no

soibangla (talk) 22:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Order of sections

Aviartm - I just noticed you rearranged the sections [10] a while ago. However we had a talk page discussion about Talk:Mueller Report/Archive 3#Events arranged by actual date, where you agreed on "Option A: actual date of occurrence". In that case, the Mueller Report was completed before the Barr Letter was written, thus the findings should be before the Barr Letter. starship.paint (talk) 01:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Aviartm - I noticed you haven't logged in for a while, so I'm going ahead to revert first. starship.paint (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello Starship.paint. Took a little break. I do think the whole of Section 3 of the article should come first before Findings and the other topics. It would make sense for Background, Events before public release, etc. than have Background, Findings, Events before public release etc. Aviartm (talk) 03:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Aviartm - my rationale is that Barr's findings have coloured the report. Plenty of sources have documented his misleading presentation. The real report's findings are more important. Let's not mislead readers by giving them Barr's take first. Mueller's take is the crucial one. starship.paint (talk) 06:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint Meant to respond to you sooner but got caught up in other things. I do agree that Mueller's findings should precede over Barr's four-page letter. We could have everything from the 'Events before public release' section before except Barr's letter. Aviartm (talk) 07:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Aviartm - We could have everything from the 'Events before public release' section before except Barr's letter. - I foresee that as problematic. Without the Barr letter of March 24, the following would not make sense.

• Mueller's letter of March 25 protesting against the Barr letter
• Mueller's letter of March 27 protesting against the Barr letter
• Barr-Mueller call of March 28 discussing the Barr letter
• Barr second letter of March 29 elaborating on the Barr letter
• Barr testimony of April 9 regarding the Barr letter
• Barr testimony of April 10 regarding if Mueller agreed with the Barr letter
• Barr press conference before the report's release explaining his decision to clear Trump in the Barr letter

Pretty much everything, you see. I will be away for maybe 16 hours so I cannot reply fast. starship.paint (talk) 07:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with putting the "findings" before the Barr letter and all the other subsequent actions. The findings should come after the public release of the report. Otherwise all the activity and commentary from the intervening period, when all we had was the Barr letter and no one but Barr and Mueller himself knew what was in the actual report, makes no sense. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The subject of this article is the report and its findings. The activity and commentary from the "intervening period", while important, is secondary. If there is confusion then the language should be changed, but those parts should not be more prominent than the findings of the report itself. Furthermore, it is important to understand the findings (as Barr and Mueller did) to fully understand the context of their actions during that time. - Paul^T+/_C 19:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

100% endorse Psantora's views. Don't use the letter (and other stuff) to understand the report. Use the report to understand the letter (and other stuff). starship.paint (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Collusion delusion listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Collusion delusion. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. wumbolo ^^^ 13:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

To be clear: collusion delusion currently directs to this article: Mueller Report. starship.paint (talk) 07:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Mueller July 24 Testimony

@Starship.paint: Mueller has now clarified that his earlier statement was in error. Quote: I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu who said, and I quote, ‘you didn’t charge the president because of the OLC opinion.’ That is not the correct way to say it ... As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime. I think you may be moving a little fast, and that we should perhaps wait at least until tomorrow to update the article. I didn't revert, preferring instead to check with you here about what you think should be done. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I hoping to find some better sources regarding the confusion related to this exchange. Vox has published an article on this point. [11] - Scarpy (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I’m aware of this (before I just logged in but after my initial edit). I have removed that from the lede and noted he corrected that statement in the body. starship.paint (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Unexplained

In July 2019, Mueller testified to Congress that a president could be charged with obstruction of justice (or other crimes) after they left office.[62]

--Geoffrey Hirsch (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Rick Gates, then Deputy Campaign Chairman, recalled that Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Jared Kusnher, Ivanka Trump, Paul Manafort, and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, were meeting.[178]

Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort met with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya,translator Anatoli Samochornov, Irakli Kaveladze, Rinat Akhmetshin, and Robert Goldstone.[178]

Geoffrey Hirsch (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

178 ^ a b Mueller Report vol.I, p.115. (etc.) 178 ^ a b Mueller Report vol.I, p.117. (nothing else)

--Geoffrey Hirsch (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Lead too long

The current intro contains six paragraphs and everything beyond the second 'graph should have be broken down to additional paragraphs. Volume I is particularly bad. I would say that the lead amounts to about 10 standard paragraphs.

In general, the lead should occupy no more than a screenful of text; at most four paragraphs -- except for rare circumstances (see MOS:LEADLENGTH). I know that it is difficult to trim down the lead of a popular subject; so many editors want to get their ideas in and the lead seems to them to be a perfect place. The best way I found is to BE BOLD and to slash the unneeded text from the lead ruthlessly and then let the other editors replace the content as they see fit. We'll probably have to do the slashing several times over the next few months.

I'm going to put up a {{Lead too long}} template at the beginning of the article. If no one responds by reducing the verbiage in a few days, I will trim down the lead and we'll see what happens. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. It is too long and could do with some trimming. Galestar (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Galestar and RoyGoldsmith: - I have trimmed the lede to 59% of its previous length, from 966 to 575 words, from 6 to 4 paragraphs, and now every paragraph is under 150 words. starship.paint (talk) 03:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Hopefully this entire page will be reduced - it is far larger than many other similar scandals or report pages and has not amounted to anything like others have, such as impeachment or resignation. In fact, just 4 days after the Mueller testimony, the "spy chief" has suddenly announced he is leaving and Trump has nominated a replacement. Sounds like things are moving on. So maybe this page should start to decrease in size, rather than continuing to balloon. GreenIn2010 (talk)

We can simply have WP:SPINOFF of things like Reactions. starship.paint (talk) 06:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Russian Interference Origins Investigation

Much has been made about the "STEELE DOSSIER" YET SOMEHOW, THE MULLER INVESTIGATORS failed TO DISCOVER THE origins OF THE dossier, THE STATE DEPT. CONNECTIONS AND THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT'S RESIISTANCE TO SUBPEONAS AND DISCOVERY ON THE FISA ISSUES. THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN FUNDING THE DOSSIER, THE DNC'S INVOLVEMENT NOR THEIR OBSTRUCTION. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.59.174.3 (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Please don't shout. 331dot (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

(1) The dossier was not the impetus of the investigation. (2) Even if the dossier was fraudulent, it was just one piece of the puzzle, it does not render this investigation invalid, since there were plenty of other evidence. starship.paint (talk) 04:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The dossier was fraudulent and Mueller isn't answering any questions - game over. I guess the 'investigation' needs another decade and more millions to finally shed some light on anything. Meanwhile, the role of the fraudulent document will now be investigated, among other areas. GreenIn2010 (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The dossier hasn’t been proven to be fraudulent yet. That’s why there’s another investigation. Plus this investigation turned up stuff about social media accounts and possible obstruction, all of which have nothing to do with the dossier. starship.paint (talk) 06:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

GreenIn2010, The dossier has not been publicly proven fraudulent, reliable sources say parts have been confirmed, and Operation Crossfire Hurricane was opened July 31 but they received the dossier on September 19. Even the Nunes memo conceded the dossier did not initiate the investigation, but despite many months of insisting it did, to no avail, certain individuals like Jim Jordan and Devin Nunes have now pivoted to a new theory that Mifsud was a Western agent who entrapped Papadopolous to justify opening the investigation. Given the extensive history of such individuals to traffic in fringe theories, there is not good reason to believe their latest dog will hunt, either. soibangla (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

This is current event

It should say so. It happed this year and aint settled. Russian Trolls is politics not substance. Yoandri Dominguez Garcia 23:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoandri Dominguez Garcia (talk • contribs)

No information about controversy

This page is notably barren of any mention of controversy surrounding the formation of the Mueller Report in regards to possibly intentional misinformation, partisan leadership, and witch-hunting. Is there some rule against adding a section on this or is Wikipedia truly just overwhelming liberal? If the latter is true and not the former, I'll be making a section soon, but I'll stick it here first so it can be properly berated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moshimaster18 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Looking forward to seeing your contributions with reliable sources.soibangla (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

add America Reads The Mueller Report as appears useful to the wp:Reader

• America Reads The Mueller Report website
• America Reads The Mueller Report on YouTube

was rv here. X1\ (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

We generally do not put youtube videos in the external links section. PackMecEng (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

"hatchet-man" Roger Stone, remove?

In February 2020, President Trump sent a tweet suggesting former Trump hatchet-man and dirty-trickster Roger Stone's suggested sentence for lying under oath to Congress and witness tampering was overly harsh. Attorney General William Barr ordered a review of the case. Stone's attorney's demanded a new trial. Barr also hires an outside attorney to review the case against former security advisor Michael Flynn. The lawyer for Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks claims that former Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) offered Assange a pardon in 2017 in exchange for denying Russian involvement in the DNC leak. Rohrabacher denies the allegation.

The Washington Examiner, for example, calls Stone a "hatchet-man". and Stone has widely been called a "dirty-trickster".

So I restored Michael E Nolan's contribution. X1\ (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

X1\ (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Please read WP:RSP's extry for the Washington Examiner There is no consensus on the reliability of the Washington Examiner, but there is consensus that it should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims. Almost all editors consider the Washington Examiner a partisan source and believe that statements from this publication should be attributed. Therefore it is not a RS for calling a BLP a hatchet-man also none of the sources say dirty-trickster. Removing until consensus is reached. Also the main point of my undue earlier was it was not explained how this edit is related to the Mueller report overall. PackMecEng (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:RSP's extry for the Washington Examiner There is no consensus on the reliability of the Washington Examiner, but there is consensus that it should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims. Almost all editors consider the Washington Examiner a partisan source and believe that statements from this publication should be attributed. Therefore it is not a RS for calling a BLP a hatchet-man also none of the sources say dirty-trickster. Removing until consensus is reached. PackMecEng (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I used W.E. since it is partisan conservative.

More: politico.com (see q:Roger Stone), WaPo, MoJo, NY Daily News, CNN , etc...

X1\ (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

From our Roger Stone article;

Stone has been variously described as a "self-proclaimed dirty trickster", ...

X1\ (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

References

(edit conflict)Politico is quoting Cruz, not themselves saying it and no mention of dirty-trickster. Ignoring Wikiquote as not a reliable source. Washington Post prefaces it with saying seen by his enemies so no go and no mention of dirty trickster, though does say political trickster. Mother Jones is another that would need to be attributed per RSP, also only mentions it in the headline so no good there either and no trickster. Per RSP again NY Daily News is a tabloid and not good for such statements and no trickster. Finally CNN is a transcript of their commentary show The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer and again no trickster. So none of those are usable for how they are used here and it does not answer my original question of how is it related to the Mueller report. PackMecEng (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

And our own article self-proclaimed ...? X1\ (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The times article might work but at this point the question would be why? Undue starts to become an issue as it does not seem to add anything in this situation except to color his actions. The big and main question still persists, what does it have to do with this article? PackMecEng (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Updating

In Section #7 Possible future releases "is expected to be available two weeks after the initial public release" and "Thus, for the time being, the House will not receive the unredacted Mueller Report and its underlying material, pending Trump's decision" need editing to indicate what happened/didn't happen. The section title may also need editing. Mcljlm (talk) 03:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Problem with "Impetus for investigation" section

This sentence—-"This investigation began in July 2016 due to the unwitting revelation by foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos that the Trump campaign knew, before anyone else, that the Russians possessed emails stolen from Hillary Clinton"—would appear to be untrue (and is not found in any of the cited sources). First of all, "before anyone else" makes no sense, since no one has alleged that the Trump campaign stole the emails. Second, the Mueller Report specifically stated, with "information" being Misfud's alleged statement that Russia had "dirt" on the Clinton campaign in the form of emails: "No documentary evidence, and nothing in the email accounts or other communications facilities reviewed by the Office, shows that Papadopoulos shared this information with the Campaign." So unless there is any objection, this sentence needs to be removed or modified. Thanks! Tambourine60 (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

"Before anyone else" means the media, DNC, or literally "anyone else". They had the info privately before it became public. The sentence you are objecting to has three citations that directly support the info. We could also add this NYT piece that covers Papadopoulos spilling the beans while drunk with the Australian. So, no, there doesn't seem to me to be any problem with that sentence. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this. But I don't see anything in any of the articles including NYT) that says the "Trump campaign" was first to know. Isn't it clear that Misfud told Papadopoulos this information—meaning Misfud (who is not "Russian") had to have known first? Also, does "the Trump campaign knew" mean just Papadopoulos himself knew? Because I'm not aware of any evidence anyone ELSE at the campaign knew prior to the media, the DNC, etc.—and per Mueller there's no evidence Papadopoulos ever shared the information with "the Campaign". The cited articles distinguish between Papadopoulos and the Trump campaign. So if "the Trump campaign" means "George Papadopoulos, an adviser to the campaign" in an article about the Mueller Report (which clearly does not conflate the two), then it would behoove us to clarify that, no? Thanks! Tambourine60 (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

"Isn't it clear...." No. Nothing is "clear" unless it's from a reliable source. We don't make our own inferences. I believe what is meant by "before anyone else" is in line with reporting like this, about how the Trump campaign tried to coordinate with Wikileaks on the release of Hillary emails. Did Misfud tell Papadopoulous about it? I don't think that's clear. Maybe someone else knows if that has been clarified. And I agree that that text needs to be clarified. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Tambourine60. The claim the Trump campaign knew, before anyone else, that the Russians possessed emails stolen from Hillary Clinton is not in any sources as far as I can tell. Muboshgu, can you please provide the quote from any source that you think supports this? Here are the only relevant quotes I see in the current sources, but they clearly do not support the claim in our article, and in fact the WaPo seems to contradict it by saying that Pap received the info from a professor (who we know wasn't part of the Trump campaign):

WaPo - Trump held a news conference in which he asked Russia to release emails it may have stolen from Hillary Clinton’s private email server, Australian authorities contacted the FBI. A Trump campaign adviser named George Papadopoulos had informed one of their diplomats over drinks in May that Russia had emails incriminating Clinton — information that Papadopoulos learned from a professor linked to Russia.

AP - There were also plenty of people around Trump receptive to Russia’s help.

As for The Intercept piece, it doesn't even say anything about emails at all. So it's not clear why it is a source here.

If you're proposing to add a source, what source, and what's the supporting quote? Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

"According to direct testimony and dozens of email and text messages introduced over the last week, the Trump campaign got its first heads up about Julian Assange’s ability to upend U.S. politics as far back as April 2016. The timing is months earlier than any Trump aide has previously described, and months before WikiLeaks published its first cache of damaging materials that would go on to cripple Hillary Clinton’s White House bid." [12] – Muboshgu (talk) 23:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

This Politico quote does not support our text. It says nothing about emails, it does not say the Trump campaign "knew" anything, and so obviously it does not say that they knew anything about emails before anyone else. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

You can read the entire article, ya know. "Julian Assange’s ability to upend U.S. politics" equals the WIkileaks dump of emails. Nobody can deny that with a straight face. I was not going to quote an entire Politico article on a talk page. And yes, the quote literally says the Trump campaign got its first heads up about Hillary's emails in April 2016. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Am I misreading the Politico piece? It seems to suggest that Roger Stone (who as far as I know was not part of the Trump campaign), was the first to tell Trump about the Wikileaks—suggesting that he knew about it "first"—not to mention, Wikileaks! Correct me if I'm wrong—thanks! Tambourine60 (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that piece gets into the origins. Out article on Crossfire Hurricane, the FBI investigation, lays it out with sources. It was Misfud telling Papadopoulos, who told the Trump campaign. So, the "before anybody knew" should be clarified based on that. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, "Papadopoulos, who told the Trump campaign" is totally unsourced—the Mueller report literally states: "No documentary evidence, and nothing in the email accounts or other communications facilities reviewed by the Office, shows that Papadopoulos shared this information with the Campaign." The Mueller report concluded that the impetus of the FBI investigation was the report of an Australian diplomat that Papadopoulos had told him he had received information about Russian "dirt" on HRC from Misfud. The WaPo article explains that. Nowhere does Mueller (or any source you've cited) claim anyone, let alone the Trump campaign, was the "first to know" about any of this. I agree that the Wikipedia Crossfire Hurricane article accurately depicts the conclusion of the Mueller report—my guess is that it will have to be substantially revised in the future. It's possible the info in your Politico article will be part of that revision, but it certainly doesn't suggest the Trump campaign was the "first to know" about alleged Russian hacking. Unless you want to, I am happy to correct it.Tambourine60 (talk) 02:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I wasn't missing anything in the broader Politico article. To repeat, the current text of our article says the Trump campaign knew, before anyone else, that the Russians possessed emails stolen from Hillary Clinton. This is manifestly not supported either by the sources in the text now or by this very poorly written Politico source, which says nothing about the Trump campaign's knowledge of Russian possession of stolen emails. I'm making a bold edit in the article to reflect superior sourcing that I have also included. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The most important thing is to get the narrative right, and we do that by using all available RS. Here is why the Trump campaign knew LONG before anyone else:

Following the July 22 publication of a large number of emails by WikiLeaks, the FBI announced that it would investigate the theft of DNC emails.

An earlier event investigated by the FBI was a May 2016 meeting between the Donald Trump campaign foreign policy advisor, George Papadopoulos, and Alexander Downer in a London wine bar, where Papadopoulos disclosed his inside knowledge of a large trove of Hillary Clinton emails that could potentially damage her campaign.

Papadopoulos had gained this knowledge on April 26, 2016, when he held a meeting with Joseph Mifsud, who told Papadopoulos the Russians had "dirt" on Clinton in the form of thousands of stolen emails. This occurred before the hacking of the DNC computers had been discovered by the DNC or had become public knowledge, and Papadopoulos later bragged "that the Trump campaign was aware the Russian government had dirt on Hillary Clinton". In February 2019, Michael Cohen implicated Trump before the U.S. Congress, writing that Trump had knowledge that Roger Stone was communicating with WikiLeaks about releasing emails stolen from the DNC in 2016.

John Podesta later testified before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence that in April 2016, the DNC did not know their computers had been hacked, leading Adam Schiff to state: "So if the campaign wasn't aware in April that the hacking had even occurred, the first campaign to be notified the Russians were in possession of stolen emails would have been the Trump campaign through Mr. Papadopoulos."

Valjean (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

"before anyone else" can be changed to "before the media, public, or DNC" knew. The Russians and Mifsud knew, and Mifsud told Papadopoulos, who told the Trump campaign, and this was already in March 2016. -- Valjean (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources

I agree, and think that making that change can resolve this. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the concern is about "narrative" here. My concern is to accurately summarize our best and most reliable sources. That's what I tried to do in my recent edit, which seems to me superior to this much longer proposal both in terms of getting to the point about the origins of the investigation, and also in that it is more accurate concerning what we know about what Papadopoulos said to Downer: he "suggested the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion from Russia" about releasing material damaging to Hillary Clinton. Thats the predication for the Crossfire Hurricane investigation as far as we know, and that's the point we should be making here, as it is made in many RS that summarize the origins of the investigation. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Narratives are what we get when we read all the sources, that's all, and what's above is much better coverage of the subject. @Shinealittlelight:, since you have made an edit to this content, would you mind improving it with the content in the blockquote and the slight change mentioned immediately above? Thanks. -- Valjean (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

As I say, I prefer the current version, and I would see this proposal as giving undue attention to the details of what happened long before the Mueller Report (our topic in this article) was ever thought of. People coming to this article want to hear about the Mueller Report, not every single documentable detail that occurred before the Mueller Report was even conceived. The other reason I prefer the current version is that I think that the proposed block quote above contains some overstatement about what we know concerning what Pap said to Downer, and the current version gives the best information we have on that. Finally, I still don't know what the source is for "before the media, public, or DNC knew". I'd agree to include that if it can be sourced. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

No, sorry, the current change is not superior. The original before the change reflected the sources much better. However, the above, composed by Valjean gives sufficient detail backed up by sources, which are in-line. It is hardly undue to give details of the factors that led up to the Mueller report. It is part of the narrative so the readers understand. This is for our readership not us. Also, what is meant by superior? I don't think "superior" is in the guidelines or policies. Also, I don't think an editor can speak for "the people" not wanting to see or wanting to see every documentation detail. And it's not every documentation detail. I think that is an over-generalization. Which part of the block quote do you feel is an overstatement? Please quote the text to which you are referring? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Shinealittlelight, the Mueller report can only touch on subjects from "what happened long before the Mueller Report." That's the nature of the beast.

You may or may not have noticed that I did not include the FBI in that list of those who did not know (there is no evidence that anyone other than the Russians and Mifsud knew). RS say the media, DNC, and the public learned about this later (the dates tell us that). The reason I didn't include the FBI is that it would require too much complicated detail, as the FBI did know, already in 2015, that the DNC had been breached, but they may not have known about the theft of the emails. They tried to warn the DNC in 2015, but without success, which explains why the later breaches/hacks came as a surprise for many in the DNC leadership. There is also the detail of who was hacked: DNC, Podesta, etc. and when? There may also have been multiple breaches by different agencies, such as the Internet Research Agency and the GRU (Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear). I don't remember the details right now. So it's too complicated for more than short mention here. The important details are what you question in this previous comment: "The claim the Trump campaign knew, before anyone else, that the Russians possessed emails stolen from Hillary Clinton is not in any sources as far as I can tell." I have provided the sources which provide that information...and more. That's why the fuller narrative is important. -- Valjean (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: No, the original did not reflect the sources, as explained above. Certainly some change was needed. As for overstatement, I'm referring to the part about Pap and Downer. The best sources we have--e.g. the IG report, which quotes the relevant internal FBI documentation--is reflected in the current version and sourced to FactCheck.org. It's our position as editors to decide by consensus how much detail to give at the outeset of the article on background. I've stated my view on that, you obviously don't have to agree. I think we should start the story where most RS start the story: briefly explain that the origin was with the Pap-Downer interaction. It does not enhance understanding of the Mueller Report (our topic here) to know that Downer and Pap met in a wine bar, for example. Too much of the above proposal is like that: extraneous detail that isn't to the point.

@Valjean: I'm still not clear on the sourcing. When did the media learn of it? When did the DNC learn of it? When did the public learn? Not clear to me based on sources you've offered. Not trying to be difficult here; just trying to make sure we back up what we write with sources. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I think the change should be reverted until consensus is reached on a better version. What's there right now seems really vague. And picking nits to keep it is not the way to go. I think some sort of consensus should have been reached before the change. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree and have reverted. We should continue to discuss and develop a consensus version before making bold edits. -- Valjean (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

In the interest of making at least one partial improvement, can we change "the Trump campaign knew, before anyone else" to "...before the media, public, or DNC"? -- Valjean (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I think Shinealittlelight's version was an improvement and should be reinstated. PackMecEng (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree! The current version misrepresents the soruces provided. The proposed change to the current version (to change it to "...before teh media, public, or DNC") is potentially an improvement, but remains unsourced despite my requests for sources. The version I proposed, on the other hand, was sourced to a NYT report and a Factcheck.org summary of material from the IG report. I don't understand the revert. This is clearly a step backwards. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Then help improve the content right here. Your bold edit (even though we weren't finished discussion, so it was on shaky ground anyway) was too controversial and did not find approval here, so, in the interests of collaborative editing and avoiding edit warring, we're discussing and trying to develop an improved version. That's what this talk page is for. When we have a consensus version, we'll install it.

BTW, for the DNC: "By May, the Democratic groups realized they had been hacked." So we have Papadopoulos learning on April 26, 2016, (source above) about the Russian's possession of hacked emails. We don't know if he informed the Trump campaign on the same day or not, but they no doubt learned it quickly, as he was constantly reporting back to them. The exact date is not important. We have RS which say the campaign learned it from Papadopoulos, and that's good enough. The media (and then the public) learned things later, likely shortly after the DNC. -- Valjean (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

From what I can tell you have no identified any specific problems with the edit. What would you change and improve specifically? PackMecEng (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Yep, the alleged problem with the reverted edit has not been explained. The AP source Valjean just provided supports the claim that the DNC knew "by May" that they had been hacked. But "by May" is not specific, and just means May or before. And knowing they've been hacked is not the same as knowing they have been hacked by Russia, and it is also not the same as knowing that Russia has stolen emails from Clinton. Furthermore, no source has been offered for the similar claim about the media or the public. So yeah, I'm open to potentially adding this, but we still need sources. I for one have no idea exactly when the DNC or the media first believed that Russia had stolen emails from Clinton. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

We have an article which provides the desired information: Democratic National Committee cyber attacks. -- Valjean (talk) 23:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see where that article says that the Trump campaign knew that the Russians had stolen emails from Clinton before the public, the media, and the DNC knew that. Maybe you can just give us a source for that claim (and not just for some different claim)? Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

This seems a little ridiculous. It's already been established that the Trump campaign was informed about stolen emails from Roger Stone before it became public. When Trump included in his speech, essentially saying, "Russia if you have the 30,000 emails, please release them!" (more or less) he already knew the situation. He knew he was on solid ground and only had to encourage Russia to release them. This seems to be a well known timeline already. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't be hard to point to a source that says as much, then. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

We have provided them, but you won't accept them, so we can't help you anymore. -- Valjean (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

(ec) There are several sources, and above I included a good statement that hits several points: "So if the campaign wasn't aware in April that the hacking had even occurred, the first campaign to be notified the Russians were in possession of stolen emails would have been the Trump campaign through Mr. Papadopoulos." It tells you that the Trump campaign knew before the DNC, and that they learned it from Papadopoulos. If you refuse to accept that, then we can't help you. -- Valjean (talk) 03:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I personally am having a hard time finding it in the discussion about. Could you please point me to it? PackMecEng (talk) 03:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Valjean, are you seriously suggesting that Schiff's statement should be the source for us to say, in Wikipedia's voice, that the Trump campaign knew before the DNC? I am speechless. Shinealittlelight (talk) 04:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

You're claim seems to be a misreading. Valjean is referring to this: Papadopoulos later bragged [to Alexander Downer] "that the Trump campaign was aware the Russian government had dirt on Hillary Clinton" quoted from this Newsweek source, which refers to the NYTimes article - [13]. The above text and sources offered by Valjean covers all the bases. I don't think there is any more need to discuss this. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Continuous fault finding and nit picking is counterproductive. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

No comment on the content, but Shinealittlelight, I think you definitely misread that. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 07:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I did not misread it. Valjean: I included a good statement that hits several points: "So if the campaign wasn't aware in April that the hacking had even occurred, the first campaign to be notified the Russians were in possession of stolen emails would have been the Trump campaign through Mr. Papadopoulos." It tells you that the Trump campaign knew before the DNC The quote he offers here is from Schiff's mouth, and he says it is his source for the claim that the Trump campaign knew before the DNC. The source you mention, Steve Quinn, does not say that the Trump campaign knew before the DNC, but just that Pap bragged to Downer. That quote says nothing about when the DNC knew. Where did I find fault? My focus is on content and sourcing throughout. No source has been provided for the proposed content, and the current text is unsourced. Please let's focus on content. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Schiff's statement is one source on the subject, and it specifically nails down that the Trump campaign knew before the DNC about the hack and stolen emails, and that they got that information from Papadopoulos. We also know from numerous RS that Papadopoulos got that information from Mifsud, who is suspected of being a Russian asset (his actions with the fake "Putin's niece" thing are very suspicious).

Not only does Schiff have top security clearance, his statement is based on common knowledge available in the press. He just summarizes it, and his statement is a RS for those facts. The situation here is pretty simple. Press reports established a number of facts related to this general subject (let's call this 5th grade math facts), and later developments added more detail (high school algebra, which requireds mastery of 5th grade math). To understand the latter, one must have been paying attention in 5th grade (IOW reading and believing the RS at the time). If one did not do that, one will not know about basic common math knowledge everyone else gained in 5th grade, and one will not understand what is said in the high school algebra class. We are not going to hold a 5th grade math class here. -- Valjean (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Schiff is not a RS for info on his opposition. Next we will use Nancy Pelosi as a source for Trump's weight. PackMecEng (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that I didn't misread you. Needless to say, Schiff is not RS for statements about this topic. So you're back to personal attacks I see; please remove those immediately. The proposed content is not sourced, and does not even follow by synthesis--trivial or otherwise--from the provided sources. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't make everything political. Sometimes facts are facts, even when they are summarized by someone [generic] you don't like. The Trump campaign did know about the hacks and stolen emails before the DNC, media, or public knew about it, thanks to Papadopoulos, and they acted on that knowledge for months, working with WikiLeaks about the release of those emails. Like it or not, that's what happened. -- Valjean (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I have asked for source and you at this point cannot or will not provide them. Schiff is not a RS on his own, get some secondary sources that are using his political talking points as facts and you might have something. It's kind of like saying Trump is a RS, sometimes he is even right but we would never use just his words. Otherwise I have to agree with Shinealittlelight that what you are purposing is unsourced original research. PackMecEng (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources on Wikileaks --> Misfud --> Papadopoulos --> Trump campaign? They're all over. It's in the Mueller Report.[14] – Muboshgu (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The documents reveal that during a meeting in April 2016, the professor had told Papadopoulos that the Russians had “dirt” on Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails.” That was well before the hacking and theft of Clinton-related emails was publicly known.[15] It's probably best for us to stick with the Trump campaign knew before the public knew, because that's the easiest way to sure we're in line with WP:V. The comms between Roger Stone and Guccifer 2.0 are a big part of that, but that wasn't the "impetus" for the investigation; it was learned about during the investigation. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

It's probably best for us to stick with the Trump campaign knew before the public knew I agree that this is what the Intercept source says, and I'm not opposed to including it with this as its source. We still do not have a source for the claim about the DNC or the media (nor do these claims follow by synthesis or trivial math from the other sources). Until a source is provided for those claims, I oppose including them. I would propose that we reinstate the edit I made before, but add the claim (sourced to the Intercept) that the Trump campaign knew about the Russians holding damaging info about Clinton well before the public knew about it. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The issue is our article says This investigation began in July 2016 due to the unwitting revelation by foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos that the Trump campaign knew, before anyone else, that the Russians possessed emails stolen from Hillary Clinton. which gives all kind of wrong impressions. PackMecEng (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Here's my proposal:

This investigation, code named Crossfire Hurricane, began in July 2016 after the Australian government advised US authorities that George Papadopolous, a foreign policy advisor in the Trump campaign, had met with one of their diplomats and "suggested the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion from Russia" that Russia could release information that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton. The Trump Campaign had received this suggestion well before it was publicly reported that Russia had damaging information about Clinton.[16]

Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

You should also include that the dirt was stolen emails: Australian FFG officials Alexander Downer and Erika Thompson had met Papadopoulos at a London bar, where Papadopoulos told them that the Russians were in possession of hacked Democratic Party emails containing derogatory information about Hillary Clinton. Two months later, Australian reports to the FBI about this meeting triggered the opening of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

• Clarification. It is actually not correct that no one other than the Russians, Mifsud, Papadopoulos, the Trump campaign, and the Australian FFG knew. There is one more person: "Papadopoulos admitted telling at least one individual outside of the Campaign specifically, the then-Greek foreign minister-about Russia's obtaining Clinton-related emails." Mueller Report, p. 93. Then, according to the Mueller Report, Papadopoulos and other campaign members miraculously lost their memories and couldn't remember whether he told the campaign, which does make the campaign's subsequent actions, acting as if they did know, even weirder.

"In addition [to the above], a different foreign government informed the FBI that, 10 days after meeting with Mifsud in late April 2016, Papadopoulos suggested that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton." p. 93. So Papadopoulos did tell the FFG that the campaign knew.

The Mueller investigation was not able to turn up any documentary evidence that Papadopoulos told the campaign, but Papadopoulos did tell others the campaign knew, so that's good enough. Keep in mind that "lack of evidence is not evidence of lack." Also, the campaign did act on that knowledge, so they must have known.

Papadopoulos's own denials, and constantly changing stores, that he had heard anything from Mifsud, or told anyone about such things from Mifsud, ring pretty hollow when he admits telling the Greek about it, that he told the FFG about it, and we know that George was in constant communication with the campaign. He would not leave out such important information in those reports to the campaign. That would defy all logic. Needless to say, none of this is important to those who deny the Russians hacked and stole the emails. Some people still believe that Seth Rich did it and that it was all an inside job, contrary to all the evidence to the contrary. -- Valjean (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Do we know when the DNC or Hillary campaign found out about the hack? My understanding is they learned about it when Assange went public about it.[17][18] – Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, I'm not sure, but they did have Hillary's emails already in March. (Your first link won't work for me.) The Russians had already breached Democratic servers in 2015 (the FBI tried to warn them, without success), but there were at least two different agencies attacking them, the Internet Research Agency and the GRU, and they seem to have worked independently of each other. They targeted Hillary, DNC staff, and Podesta, and stole data and files. They also hacked the RNC, but chose not release that information, for obvious reasons.) For all we know, they could have had Hillary's emails already in 2015. -- Valjean (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Valjean, I fixed it. There was a stray character in the url. It's a timeline that includes 2015. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, that's good. From that CNN link, it looks like Assange's June 12, 2016, announcement should have alerted the DNC campaign, and the June 14, 2016, WaPo report confirmed that "hackers working for the Russian government accessed the DNC's computer system, stealing oppositional research on Trump and viewing staffers' emails and chat exchanges." That may be the first media attention, and thus public knowledge, and I include the DNC in the "public" there, unless there is some other RS which says they knew earlier that they had been hacked. -- Valjean (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Valjean, I agree that the "information damaging to candidate Clinton" referred to in FBI documents that are discussed in both the Horowitz and Mueller reports is said by various sources, including the SMH, to be in the form of stolen emails. If you want to depend on those sources and include that information, I can understand that position, and I'll go along with it. However, I want to note one thing. Neither Horowitz nor Mueller say that this is the case. Both come close to implying it, or present information that may have led outlets like SMH to report what they did. Specifically, both point out that the FFG (which we know is Australia) who informed the US authorities about the issue were doing so in response to the wikileak publication of stolen emails. (So obviously there was at least a worry by Australia that this was the stolen material reference by Pap, but of course a worry isn't necessarily knowledge.) Second, both reports say that Pap said that Mifsud had said the information was stolen emails, and that Mifsud denied having said this. This again implies that Pap at least thought (or said he thought!) the "dirt" was stolen emails. But neither report just comes out and says that the Russian "dirt" was stolen emails. I am of the view that we should stay with the charaterization I've offered. But, as I say, if you want to trust the SMH and other such sources, I can go with that. But I want to emphasize that it remains somewhat unclear where the media is supposed to have gotten that info, and the question remains: why isn't it in either report? One thought here is that it may actually remain unknown exactly what that "dirt" was, and it may have included both emails and other information as well. We really don't know, do we? But as I say, I'll agree to go along with your judgment on this particular issue. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like the emails mentioned. I do agree with you that the "dirt" could also include other information. Why steal only emails? Right? So far, no real personal dirt has ever been released, only minor embarrassing details about the DNC and how they treated Bernie. The Steele Dossier mentions the dossier on Hillary held by the Kremlin, and that it doesn't include anything really incriminating, unlike the one on Trump. -- Valjean (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I went to write this up and now I'm having second thoughts. The SMH source actually only says that Papadopoulos said that it was in the form of hacked emails. It doesn't actually report that it was hacked emails. Sorry, all this is very complex and hard to get right, and I may not be looking at the right source. But I'm not sure that any source clearly says that it was emails, rather than just that this is what Papadopoulos said to Downer, or what Mifsud denies saying, or what Mifsud said to Pap. As you've pointed out before, I think, Papadopoulos and Mifsud aren't really reliable sources. The Intercept says that Mifsud said it, but again, this is not to say that what Mifsud said was true. Isn't there a source that just flat says it was emails? Which source is that? Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

We can of course use attribution to address your concerns. Personally, I generally prefer attribution except when something is incontrovertible, or common knowledge. Good to see that progress is being made here. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be fine with attribution to Papadopoulos and Mifsud. Valjean, what do you say? Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

"Papadopoulos and Mifsud aren't really reliable sources" when they are lying, and that's when they are denying what they originally said, or suddenly "can't remember" what they originally said they had said. That's why the FBI suddenly got suspicious when Papadopoulos started changing his story after news reports appeared about his original statements. He ended up convicted of lying about his truthful statements. When someone shifts into CYA mode, they're lying for some reason.

If Papadopoulos said he said something, then just say that Papadopoulos said something. The attribution is right there. Just keep it simple. -- Valjean (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Break

OK, here's my revised proposal then:

This investigation, code named Crossfire Hurricane, began in July 2016 after the Australian government advised US authorities that George Papadopolous, a foreign policy advisor in the Trump campaign, had met with one of their diplomats and "suggested the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion from Russia" that Russia could release information that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton. The Trump Campaign had received this suggestion well before it was publicly reported that Russia had damaging information about Clinton. Papadopoulos later testified that this "damaging information" was in the form of hacked emails that were stolen from the Democratic Party.

Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah, I like this one and the previous one was good also. But this one is good. Thanks. ----Steve Quinn (talk)

I'm just looking at the word "suggestion" in there. For a minute. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'm surprised this came together so well in such a short time. Good job everyone (not including myself. I wasn't here that much). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I think this most current version is acceptable - if it is decided to go with this. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

That word 'suggestion' comes from the IG report and the Mueller report, which in turn got it from the relevant FBI documentation on the communication from Australia (which they call an FFG without specification). See for example the IG report executive summary p. ii, which says As we describe in Chapter Three, the FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane on July 31, 2016, just days after its receipt of information from a Friendly Foreign Government (FFG) reporting that, in May 2016, during a meeting with the FFG, then Trump campaign foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos "suggested the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion from Russia that it could assist this process with the anonymous release of information during the campaign that would be damaging to Mrs. Clinton (and President Obama)." Hope that helps. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is very helpful. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to barge in on this discussion. Could we get more dates into the proposed text? See below. starship.paint (talk) 05:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

This investigation, code named Crossfire Hurricane, began in July 2016 after the Australian government advised US authorities that George Papadopolous, a foreign policy advisor in the Trump campaign, had met with one of their diplomats in May 2016 and "suggested the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion from Russia" that Russia could release information that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton. Papadopolous had received this suggestion in April 2016, well before it was publicly reported that Russia had damaging information about Clinton (the Democratic National Committee had in June 2016 announced that a Russian hack occurred). Papadopoulos later testified that this "damaging information" was in the form of hacked emails that were stolen from the Democratic Party.

starship.paint (talk) 05:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Starship.paint: I don't have a problem with adding dates as shown above. In fact, this does help put the timeline in perspective. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I realize this may be a bit off-topic to the above discussion, but is there any indication where Misfud got the information he passed to Papadopolous? How did he know the Russians had accessed the information? Mr Ernie (talk) 08:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: From what I recall, he had a direct connection to the Russians. I'll to look it up in the sources, to see exactly what that connection was. --Steve Quinn (talk) 08:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

He has been described as a Russian agent and Mifsud himself claimed he had connections to Russian officials. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin Explains The 'Tragedy' Of The Mueller Investigation

I listened to Fresh Air today, and here's the transcript:

• Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin Explains The 'Tragedy' Of The Mueller Investigation

It was a very interesting interview, and I suspect there is some useful content here. -- Valjean (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)