Jump to content

Talk:Mueller report/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

"More" redacted version released to the public (vs. "less" redacted version released to some members of congress)

Has the "less" redacted version been provided yet? Everything I have seen so far has stated that is something that will happen "at some point in the future", not that the less redacted version was released ~concurrently with the "more" redacted version released to the public. - PaulT+/C 17:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC) (This is in reference to this edit by SandsteinSoibangla...) - PaulT+/C 17:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

That edit was not by me. Sandstein 17:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Correct. It is this edit by Soibangla. Aviartm (talk) 17:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Ah! My mistake! I meant Soibangla! Edited to show proper attribution. Sorry about that! - PaulT+/C 17:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I have not seen any "less-redacted" report sources. Congress is on a 2 week recess and the report has only been about for about 2 hours so I find it unlikely that the less-redacted report has been sent. Likely that it has but on the reporting side, not yet. Aviartm (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC) Edit: Based on this source by USA Today, it seems that the "less-redacted" report would go to the chairmens of the Judiciary Committees and identical positions. So most likely, that wouldn't be reported but we will have to see. Aviartm (talk) 18:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I've clarified the wording in the article to reflect this. - PaulT+/C 18:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Aviartm: Both https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/18/mueller-report-recounts-10-episodes-involving-trump-and-questions-of-obstruction.html (which was already present) and https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/04/17/mueller-report-congress-get-less-redacted-version-doj-says/3501962002/ (which you mention above and I added as an additional reference) support the point of the chairmen/ranking members getting the "less-redacted" version of the report. - PaulT+/C 19:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, my mistake. The source is not quite so specific. I have changed it to reflect this quote "Nevertheless, in an effort to accommodate congressional requests, we will make available to a bipartisan group of leaders from several Congressional committees a version of the report with all redactions removed except those relating to grand-jury information." from this article. - PaulT+/C 19:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes. I thanked your edit about that. Just can't have any specifics, just broadness. Aviartm (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

President Trump's Game Over Tweet

Since all publications/accounts by a public official to social media is in the public domain, could we add President Trump's "Game Over" tweet or would there be a copyright dilemma? Aviartm (talk) 22:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

That would be POV pushing. 71.33.136.113 (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Aviartm, I don't see the benefit to including that, considering how clear we are that Trump has been repeating that mantra this whole time. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Muboshgu, I don't see any merit to including it. 331dot (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Muboshgu and 331dot – The reason why I inquired is for the Reactions section of the page. President Trump has already reacted to the report and news. This is one of the things we could include. Aviartm (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
We should definitely include Trump's response. I don't think we should include a tweeted image that might violate Game of Thrones copyright. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I added Trump's comments. I'll find something about the tweets of today's events. I just think that since posts by public officials are in the public domain, shouldn't a photo based on a copyrighted media be allowed? Albeit, the post isn't "violating" copyright, but you know, the contents and aesthetics are identical to Game of Thrones. Thank you for the input! :) Aviartm (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Just because a public official posts an image doesn't mean that image is in the public domain. But I do think it might be worthwhile to include a sentence about it, considering the premiere last weekend. - PaulT+/C 23:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
That would make sense. Aviartm (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Google defines "underlying crime" as "inchoate offense"

Interesting search result.https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&ei=kNG4XO3XIIS7tgWdy4vgBQ&q=underlying+crime+definition&oq=und&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.35i39l2j0i67l3j0j0i67l2j0j0i131.319140.319890..321609...0.0..0.128.347.0j3......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71.7cu4WxDiQ-w The definition of underlie which doesn't relate to rock or soil is described as "be the cause or basis of (something)"https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&ei=ytS4XP2fFMXUsAW47YyoDA&q=underlie+definition&oq=underlie+definition&gs_l=psy-ab.3..35i39i70i249j0i7i30l6j0i7i10i30j0i7i30j0.345456.346050..346595...0.0..0.105.189.1j1......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j0i13.Jm68ThxFULA2601:447:4101:5780:42A:ED14:B486:1C9F (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Most importantly, do you have a citation? Aviartm (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
The search result is immaterial without a reference from a reliable source that conflates the terms. In particular, mens rea (conciousness of guilt) would also need to have been established for the term to mean that. - PaulT+/C 20:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Actually... according to inchoate offense "knowing" is enough in a RICO case. Interesting, but still original research without a source, which is not allowed. - PaulT+/C 20:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Exactly. So far, the report has stated that and RS has stated otherwise. "decided not to charge him with obstruction because there was no underlying crime and many of the attempts were carried out in plain view...Mueller's office says it weighed charging Trump with obstruction, but didn't in part because "we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional process for addressing presidential misconduct." Aviartm (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Even the Cambridge Dictionary defines underlie as "to be a cause of or strong influence on something"[1] Even the Wikipedia article for inchoate offense defines it as "a crime of preparing for or seeking to commit another crime."2601:447:4101:5780:5C0F:FFBA:FB6E:3E72 (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Why are you even trying to play semantics? You have yet to bring to us a reliable source in relation to the article's subject. Aviartm (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

The dictionary which described its own definition is not reliable? LMAO.2601:447:4101:5780:C422:EEED:E64:EE54 (talk) 00:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Inchoate has very similar legal definition as well, which goes "anticipating a further criminal act."[2].2601:447:4101:5780:C422:EEED:E64:EE54 (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC) Aviartm, you claim on your userpage that you want to "Make America Smart Again." You aren't helping with that goal at all.2601:447:4101:5780:C422:EEED:E64:EE54 (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Micronor's change to my edit is more than reasonable enough for me. It is more properly worded too.2601:447:4101:5780:C422:EEED:E64:EE54 (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Massive redactions

Article currently does not claim the report is "lightly redacted" but now writes: Barr characterized the report as being "lightly redacted". Topic starter has been blocked for 72 hours and nobody else has argued on the topic starter's case. starship.paint 02:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Entire pages are completely blacked out. How is this “lightly redacted”? Does Wikipedia shrill for Trump now? Why just accurately report the facts? 71.33.136.113 (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

The "lightly redacted" term is a direct quote from sources. If you have sources that state otherwise please provide them so we can add it to the article. - PaulT+/C 19:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Common sense dictates that “lightly redacted” is not only wrong, but an outright lie. Wikipedia is literally proliferating lies when it spreads these blatant lies. Wikipedia is supposed to be based on the facts, not on Pro-trump propaganda. It is an absolute shame that Wikipedia is not taking a more active role in countering fake news. Literal, entire pages are fully blacked out, how is that “lightly redacted”. Either Wikipedia reports the facts, or it doesn’t. 71.33.136.113 (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
If it is as common sense as you state it should be easy to find a source supporting your view on this. We cannot publish anything without a proper source for it. See our reliable sources guideline. - PaulT+/C 19:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
^ Exactly what Psantora say. And in relation to 448 pages, let's say hypothetically that 40-50 pages have some kind of redaction, 30-50 compared to 448 in one of the most anticipated government reports in modern history, is "lightly-redacted." And it is sourced. If you have a source that says otherwise, we will discuss here and reach a consensus on the matter. WP:OR. --Aviartm (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
To the OP, you are free to take to social media and give your views as to how the level of redaction is described. Here, we go by what sources say. 331dot (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

The Harm To Ongoing Matter report

Why is Wikipedia feeding into pro-trump propaganda? It is an absolute shame that Wikipedia is not taking its role seriously and instead treating fringe sources as if they are reliable. 71.33.136.113 (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

You either have a legitimate concern or a troll. Wikipedia is not perfect and only evolves when its user participates. And as previously mentioned, give us a citation so we can reach a consensus. Aviartm (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Usually the complaint is that Wikipedia is biased against Trump, not for him. 331dot (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I was honestly thinking about saying that but didn't; very true. Aviartm (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia should NOT be presenting the phrase “lightly redacted” as fact. 71.33.136.113 (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia must change its policies so it doesn’t feed the pro-trump propaganda

It is an absolute shame that common sense isn’t prevailing here. There is one objective, empirical reality and this article would rather parrot pro-trump propaganda, then actually reflect reality. I refuse to be on the wrong side of history. 71.33.136.113 (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not saying that you are wrong... but we cannot add information to the article without a source to support the statement. If it is "objective, empiracle reality" as you say then it should be easy to find a source supporting your view about the amount of redaction. In fact, I'm sure one will be written fairly soon if it hasn't already. Also, please stop making new sections about the same topic. This is disruptive behavior. I'm going to move this up so that all your related comments are in the same place. - PaulT+/C 20:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
The basic human mandate to counter all the forms of fascism everywhere supersedes Wikipedia rules. Either Wikipedia is going to actively counter fascism or it’s going to continue to allow the proliferation of it. A choice must be made. 71.33.136.113 (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
”Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.” -Proverbs 31:8-9 71.33.136.113 (talk) 20:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
This is not the place to argue whether Wikipedia "fights fascism" or is "complicit with fascism". And your WP:IDONTLIKEIT opinion in regards to super-minor details in the article is not fascism. Wikpedia has WP:RULES. If you have an issue, go to the WP:Teahouse. Aviartm (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, not a blog. We only deal with verifiable information from respectable sources. Activist editors are frowned upon and are antithetical to Wikipedia's guidelines on edit etiquette, to put it lightly. If you have gripes with current events, take to social media or your nearest YouTube comments section to complain. Literally go do anything else besides continue your disruptive, renegade editing.Thelovelyconch (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Shouldn’t common sense prevail here, why is necessary to have to prove that fascism is wrong and that Wikipedia shouldn’t be promoting it? When did it become taboo to be against fascism? This article as it is written is blindly accepting Barr’s account as holy scripture instead of using common sense. 71.33.136.113 (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
You're coming across the same way as the right-wingers who came from r/The_Donald to push that "Spygate" actually happened. Think about that. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
That’s a false equivalence if I’ve ever seen one. I am not and being against fascism shouldn’t be considered trolling, it should be a given of basic human dignity. Wikipedia shouldn’t be promoting false equivalencies. Facebook can ban white nationalism, then Wikipedia can ban fascism. 71.33.136.113 (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
They think they're fighting fascism too. It's all in your point of view. I'm saying that your behavior is similar. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Except that common sense literally shows that they’re not. Fascism has a definition, it’s not subjective. You are promoting a false equivalence. One side is promoting fascism and one side isn’t. What happened to critical thinking? 71.33.136.113 (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
You argue that fascism "has a definition, it's not subjective" yet you are picking straws at the meaning of "underlying crime" That is a Double standard. And it is common sense to use reliable sources to contest/change something if you wish to use Wikipedia. You have since yet to provided, for the 3rd-4th time. Aviartm (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Give a reliable source that shows that the report is “lightly redacted”. 71.33.136.113 (talk) 22:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Been done already.[3] – Muboshgu (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
It literally hasn’t though, especially when reality contradicts these sources. 71.33.136.113 (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
The right-wingers on the Spygate article tried to discredit the reliable sources the same way as you just did. We have a page for that: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Maybe it's your perception of reality that isn't matching up? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
That’s a false equivalence and you know it. My perception is irrelevant. Things are the way they are regardless of my perception. 71.33.136.113 (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

The phrase “lightly redacted”, NPOV policy and common sense

Why are editors trying to make the phrase “lightly redacted” appear as if it’s a fact? 71.33.136.113 (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

We can quote him as saying it's "lightly redacted", as long as we don't say it in Wiki voice. We don't know what was redacted. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
It's called a "quote". It's not the editor's job to decide what's wrong and right. Anymore WP:WEASEL attempts you're hoping to make?Thelovelyconch (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Virtually every media source has released the redacted report. Literally seven whole pages are redacted. The phrase “lightly redacted” is not only partisan misinformation, but it’s a literal lie. Wikipedia should not be spreading lies. 71.33.136.113 (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
"Seven whole pages" out of over 400? That's lighter than I expected from Barr. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Making over 1000 redactions is objectively not “lightly redacted”. What you did and did not expect is absolutely irrelevant. 71.33.136.113 (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
And your opinion that "over 1000 redactions" is not "lightly redacted" (where you get the objective thresholds on that, I cannot guess) is also irrelevant. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Again, you have yet to bring up a reliable source arguing otherwise. Meanwhile, here are these websites that say "lightly redacted": 1, 2, 3, among others. Aviartm (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
You’d think that common sense would dicatate that 1000 was a large number, but I guess not. Apparently, wikipedia’s job is to now prentend like Trump, Barr and all their supporters are impartial. Those sources aren’t saying that it’s “lightly redacted”, they’re pointing out that it’s not. 71.33.136.113 (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
What "one would think" is irrelevant. Bring us reliable sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
If that’s true, then why are we going off of your expectations? There’s only one objective reality. 71.33.136.113 (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
The only objective reality here is that Wikipedia adheres to WP:RS which the article currently does. You still have yet brought us a citation that contests what we have cited already. And the citations I brought say is "lightly-redacted". Aviartm (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
My spidey senses say that any source presenting “lightly redacted” as a fact isn’t a reliable one. 71.33.136.113 (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Don't care. Give us citations or stop being disruptive. Aviartm (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
So you are the arbiter of what is and isn’t reliable? How’d you get that job? 71.33.136.113 (talk) 22:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
If you have sources to contribute as requested, I suggest you do so. Otherwise, I would suggest that you move on to another subject or even another article. Consider this a formal warning. 331dot (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I don’t know, sounds like a threat to me. Tow the line or get banned. I’m here to improve the article, not to arbitrarily push pro-trump propaganda. Wikipedia is becoming as toxic as 4chan and Twitter. 71.33.136.113 (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I have now blocked this IP address for disruptive editing following their most recent vandalism of the page. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! :) Aviartm (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why was the page applied with Pending Changes status?

How did this come about? Was there even a consensus on this? Vandalism/disruptive editing as been fairly minimal in comparison to how far the page has gotten so far. And the page is not even a day old. I find the Pending Changes status to be excessive and counter-productive to editing. Aviartm (talk) 01:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

It was done in this edit. No idea on the process though. It seems like it is pretty common for highly-visible articles. - PaulT+/C 01:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I think it’s a reasonable preemptive action in anticipation of the page’s discovery by meatpuppets. soibangla (talk) 01:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
As mentioned on my talk page, it was applied in response to this RFPP — that said, if there are further objections, I am more than willing to reconsider. El_C 01:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I think it will best to change the page protection to WP:SEMI. And as I talked with El_C on his talk page, the request was due to IP Users being disruptive. However, WP:SEMI would allow registered users to make edits at will without having to wait for the edit to be confirmed all the while blocking IP Users from making edits. Anyone else agree? Aviartm (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I noticed that the page's Pending Changes status changed to to Auto-confirmed, Confirmed. I assume El_C made the changes and I want to thank you for doing so. That too works well. And to comment on your response on your talk page, that would make sense too. Allow unregistered users make edits but not automatically confirm them. :) Aviartm (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
No everything's the same, there has been no adjustments made to the pending changes protection, that I can see. But again, to be clear, if editors are finding pending changes to be slowing them down too much and are not proportional to the level of disruption, let me know and I'll remove it. El_C 02:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
That's odd. Thought the level of PC did change. Anyway, we will keep that in mind. Thank you again! Aviartm (talk) 03:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Title

Shouldn't this be titled "Mueller Report" if that is the common name? 331dot (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd support a move to that title, but I think we should wait a day or so until things slow down a bit to make sure we have consensus. The page was just recently moved to this title. - PaulT+/C 18:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I would say no 331dot, reason being, for example, the Warren Commission, start with the formal title of the corresponding report. We already mention the informal name in the lead. Also, when you type "mueller report" in the wikipedia search, it redirects to this page. So since a very common term already directs to the page, I don't see a need to rename the whole page. That is why we have redirects. Aviartm (talk) 18:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
You may want to read up on some of the guidelines at WP:COMMONNAME. Regardless, it will not be possible to make this move without technical assistance because Mueller Report has more than one entry in its edit history. - PaulT+/C 18:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
The Warren Commission is a perfect example actually. The official report name is The President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy, but the name of the article is Warren Commission, the "common name". - PaulT+/C 18:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
True. However, since we might have a few more redirects to the page in sarch, I think it's not very necessary to rename the whole page. When people will search "mueller report" or something identical, they will see in the lead the formal and informal name. Aviartm (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
All I know is that almost no one outside the US Department of Justice is calling this the "Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election". 331dot (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)To be clear, I don't think the actual text of the lead should change because of this, just that the actual content of the page should be located at Mueller Report and have Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election redirect there (the reverse of the way it currently is). If done correctly after gaining conensus and going through WP:RM, the entire edit history of the two pages will be swapped and it will be as if all the previous edits were directly done to Mueller Report instead of Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election. Again, see WP:COMMONNAME for more information about why this change is helpful and preferred/encouraged/(required?). - PaulT+/C 19:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I think it will be best to have redirects in the search to come here as has already been done a few times. The informal name is already in the name. I am really apathetic on this but since we already have a foundation of sorts for search, I find it counterproductive to 180 everything. Aviartm (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
From WP:CRITERIA:

A good Wikipedia article title has the five following characteristics:

  • Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
  • Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.
  • Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects.
  • Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
  • Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above.
The current title is lacking in recognizability, naturalness, and conciseness at least and maybe even consistency (I haven't looked extensively beyond the Warren Commission example, but I'm sure there are other similar examples). The "common name" of Mueller Report would reduce all of those deficiencies without any reduction in precision. The more I'm looking into these guidelines the more I think it makes sense to make this move. - PaulT+/C 19:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I have no issue. The redirects are already in place for the most part so changing the title won't be disastrous I believe. Aviartm (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
(FYI, if you are concerned about having to change links elsewhere to point to the "new" name, you don't have to worry about that. See WP:NOTBROKEN.)
I believe that establishes consensus. Who wants to make the request at WP:RM? It probably can go in the uncontroversial technical moves section with a link here to show the discussion. - PaulT+/C 20:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
From my understanding, I thought all you needed was consensus on the article's talk page to rename the page... Aviartm (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I just checked Wikipedia:Requested_moves requirements and it says: "Any autoconfirmed user can use the Move function to perform most moves (see Help:How to move a page). If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page." So we agree, I will move the page and be bold.
Unfortunately, not in this case. See what I wrote earlier about this: it will not be possible to make this move without technical assistance because Mueller Report has more than one entry in its edit history. It will need admin assistance. - PaulT+/C 20:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Psantora Yeah, I noticed that when I tried, lol. I also forgot about what you mentioned earlier prior to you saying it again. Aviartm (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 18 April 2019

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

The result of the move request was: Snow moved per commoname. El_C 07:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election → Mueller Report – WP:COMMONNAME, much like the Starr Report – Muboshgu (talk) 20:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Other comparable examples: 9/11 Commission, Cox Report, Eberstadt Report, Meese Report, Hurt Report, Ride Report, Morgenthau Report, Rogers Commission Report, Kersten Committee, Warren Commission, and Church Committee. And there are more. — the Man in Question (in question) 06:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
LaserLegs I agree. The page is already set up. However, if you check the 5 characteristics above for WP:COMMONNAME above, kinda hard to argue against it. I would prefer for the name not to be changed but I'm apathetic really but prefer the current title. Aviartm (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
That is true and there is a chance that this might land on the WP:ITN section of Wikipedia. Aviartm (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
(A) Looking at the usernames in this section, I think we're all familiar with policy. (B) I'm an admin; if the page gets posted to ITN and is moved, I can edit the template to bypass the redirect. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
That is true. Thank you Muboshgu. Aviartm (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Muboshgu: It seems like the editors contributing here are familiar with policy; therefore the concern about WP:NOTHERE, while worth considering, appears to be unwarranted. (The same cannot be said for all threads on this talk page.) — the Man in Question (in question) 05:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't say needless but needs to be in accordance of WP:COMMONNAME of course. Aviartm (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
And WP:CONCISE. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Potentially useful NYT quote - Mueller's reasons for not charging Trump with obstruction

Reading this [4] New York Times piece, I came across a quote I found interesting and potentially important, but I could not understand what it is referring to. Here it is for your analysis: Mr. Barr left out of his letter that Mr. Mueller had decided it was inappropriate for prosecutors to decide whether the evidence met the standard for charging Mr. Trump because the president could receive no trial for now. starship.paint ~ KO 11:37, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Mueller believes that Trump cannot receive a trial while being President. So if charged, the allegations would just sit there without Trump having a chance to respond. So Mueller decided not to charge at this point, leaving open the option of having Trump charged after he leaves office. Also, Muelle made clear that Trump could be impeached by Congress - no objections raised to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micronor (talk • contribs) 12:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Reliability of report

I've started a discussion at WP:RSN about the the reliability of the Mueller Report as a secondary source for its investigative findings. R2 (bleep) 18:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

"Russia, if you're listening" - Trump's press conference before the election explicitly asking for Russia's assistance

Has there been anything found in the report and/or the reporting about the report that gets into detail around what happened at the pre-election press conference where DJT specifically asked Russia ("Russia, if you're listening") for help with "finding" the 30,000 "lost emails"?[1] This seem very unusual at the time and given that Mueller couldn't find willfull cooperation one would think that this speech was included in the investigation. If so, given its significance I think it warrants a mention in the conspiracy section. Does anyone else agree and/or have sources to back this up? - PaulT+/C 16:36, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I remember reading it early on in Vol 1 of the report. The report notes that Russian Military Intelligence agency GRU did the first attack on Clinton's office 5h after Trump made the public statement asking for help. Micronor (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Here we go, found it again.

On July 27 2016, Unit 26165 targeted email accounts connected to candidate Clinton's personal office . Earlier that day, candidate Trump made public statements that included the following: "Russia , if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press." 183 The "30,000 emails" were apparently a reference to emails described in media accounts as having been stored on a personal server that candidate Clinton had used while serving as Secretary of State. Within approximately five hours of Trump's statement, GRU officers targeted for the first time Clinton's personal office. After candidate Trump's remarks, Unit 26165 created and sent malicious links targeting 15 email accounts at the domain including an email account belonging to Clinton aide The investigation did not find evidence of earlier GRU attempts to compromise accounts hosted on this domain. It is unclear how the GRU was able to identify these email accounts, which were not public.

— Mueller Report, Vol 1, p.49
Micronor (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Given the below section on WP:RSN I think it would be better to also find some reporting to bolster this point. I was more thinking that there might be some kind of conclusion about what the request from Trump (and the subsequent hacking) might mean in terms of jeopardy for the president. But it sounds like that point wasn't specifically raised. The passage above is more of a recounting of what happened in 2016 (acting more like a secondary source) rather than what it means for Trump with regard to conspiracy/mens rea (which would be more like a primary source). - PaulT+/C 00:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Diaz, Alex (July 27, 2017). "Trump's 'Russia, if you're listening' remark one year ago today still dogging him". Fox News Network.

New York Times: How Barr’s Excerpts Compare to the Mueller Report’s Findings

[7] Have a go at this if you want. I'm done with this article for now. I'm also posting this at William Barr and Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019) so CTRL-F "How Barr’s Excerpts" over there before you start so you see if someone's already done some work. Or see Talk 1 and Talk 2. starship.paint ~ KO 08:46, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

This is worthy of discussion here but I don't think much could be discussed about this in regards to the article page here. We could have a section of the article compare Barr's four-page letter to the final report but I have never seen anything like that done on Wikipedia before, so I am not sure. And if we were to, we would need more than just The NYT's take on it. (I am for sure that other publications, such as The WSJ, The WP, etc. has a comparison as well.) Lastly, I will just like to say Thank YOU Starship.paint for your 161 edits (and counting) to the page so far in "streamlining", wording, quote, shifting, merge, add[ing] ref[erences], etc. Tremendous help! :) Aviartm (talk) 09:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Starship.paint for the compliment! Keep up the great and hard work! :) Aviartm (talk) 10:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

First sentence

The first line should read as follows: The Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election, commonly known as the Mueller Report, is the official report documenting the findings and conclusions of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 United States presidential election, allegations of coordination, collusion, or conspiracybetween Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the Russian government, and allegations of obstruction of justice by Trump,[1] as well as "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation."

The bolded bit is necessary—this report represents Mueller's findings and conclusions, and that should not be glossed over. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Obviously, but that's an irrelevant distinction. Mueller was the special counsel, he directed the investigation, and the report is in his name. This is an accurate description of what the report is. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
The Starr Report does not mention who conducted the investigation in the first several words. It is mentioned at the end. Albeit, the entire lead of the article is one sentence but it mentions who did the investigation torwards the end. The same should be done here. The contents should come first as we already know who did the investigating. Aviartm (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
This is a nonsensical argument. WP:OSE. There is no question that it's necessary to identify the author of the report and what it is a report of. Don't alter the text again. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
"arguing in favor of consistency among Wikipedia articles is not inherently wrong–it is to be preferred." - WP:SSEFAR. Not nonsensical. There have bene more edits towards "arguing in favor of consistency among Wikipedia articles is not inherently wrong–it is to be preferred." To be in consistency, the lead should be formatted like the Starr Report; the party who did the investigations is mentioned at the end lead. In this case, the end of the first lead paragraph. Aviartm (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Inappropriate leadoff? The tasking was “links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump”. Not “collusion” (The Democrat label), not “allegations” (The Steele report). Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Lead length

Wikieditor19920 - you added the tag that This article's lead section may be too long for the length of the article. I would ask that you wait a week or even two for this article to sort itself out before adding the tag, because this article has really just been born. It's easier to identify the most important stuff for the lead, than to write and flesh out the entire body of the article based on a 400+ page report. A little patience, please. starship.paint ~ KO 14:57, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

The lead is seven disjointed paragraphs. MOS:LEAD recommends four. It's an immediately obvious issue, and the point of a tag is to help these problems sort themselves out by bringing it to editors' attention. Perhaps this will prompt the next editor to consider making what's already on the page more concise instead of adding yet another paragraph? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand why a single paragraph isn't sufficient to summarize the conclusions. This looks to me like editor's jousting over which parts of the reports to emphasize based on subjective reasoning. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
What we should do is mention the conclusions as it is already public but make sure you are adding enough contexts as to why the conclusions were reached that way. Aviartm (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Not if it exceeds the recommended length for a lead. The body is a perfectly appropriate place for that kind of content—not the lead. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • It's absolutely essential context to establish that the Mueller report did not conclude that Trump committed a crime because their entire approach was that they were never going to conclude that Trump committed a crime, much less charge him with a crime. I would think that for many people, when thinking "no conclusion that a crime was committed", the natural reaction would be "oh not enough evidence", and definitely not "investigators were never going to conclude that a crime was committed". starship.paint ~ KO 01:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
What you have done with the lead is absolutely absurd. You believe it's essential based on your own reading but other editors may disagree - what you don't do is create a bloated, 15-20 line paragraph in the middle of the lead because you personally think certain details are necessary. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Wikieditor19920, adding the "lead too long" tag has been disputed and should not be added back until consensus for it's inclusion has been established here. - PaulT+/C 03:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Any editor can add a tag, and as long as it's facially appropriate, it is not to be removed immediately because you "dispute it." You've provided no logical or policy basis for disputing it or to justify a lead that far exceeds what is recommended under the MOS:LEAD guidelines (or by common sense standards) other than your steadfast belief that an additional paragraph of explanation "must be included." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Any editor can remove a tag as well, and that is how an edit war starts. The addition is disputed and should not be re-added until there is consensus for its inclusion, just like any other piece of content in an article. There is active discussion about the lead and there are multiple editors working on it. The tag does nothing but distract the average reader of the page. - PaulT+/C 04:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC) If you requre me to cite some guideline for not re-adding the tag, WP:BRD should suffice - we are at the "Discussion" portion of that cycle. - PaulT+/C 04:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Wikieditor19920 - your irresponsible editors edit summary is not appreciated via WP:NPA. You cite guidelines but WP:LEAD requires we write the most important points of the article. The article is the Mueller Report, we are definitely allowed to write on the findings of the report, we’re not going to limit the stuff to one sentence “no conclude crime, no exonerate”. The counsel would not accuse Trump of a crime, would not charge, and had no confidence he was clearly innocent. Key findings, most important, deserve mention per WP:LEAD, not to mention focused upon by WP:RS as cited. starship.paint ~ KO 04:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
    "Would not", or "could not"? From above, you wrote they were never going to conclude that Trump committed a crime, much less charge him with a crime It seems by design (and OLC policy) Mueller couldn't have charged the president even if he "shot someone on 5th avenue"...(as Trump "joked" during the campaign). I'm not sure which one is better or if there is another way to state it altogether, but the clearer it is that it wasn't possible for Mueller to "charge" the better. - PaulT+/C 05:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
    • @Psantora: - would investigators have written this if they could not charge Trump? apart from OLC's constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct If they couldn’t, that’s the end of the argument. No more reasons needed. Hence I conclude “would” starship.paint ~ KO 05:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
      I don't think you can deducte that no more reasons would be needed. Mueller was nothing if not thorough, if only to cover possible hypotheticals. He left a very clear roadmap for congress to impeach and left open the possibility of charging Trump after he leaves office (assuming the statute of limitations doesn't run out - 5 years IIRC), but based on what I have read (and what you wrote above in what I quoted) Mueller never had any intention or even considered himself to have the power to charge a sitting president. Regardless, we need a source separate from the actual report to corroborate any statement like this. Otherwise it is original research. - PaulT+/C 05:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Furthermore the special counsel could have filed sealed charges. But he didn’t. That’s a choice. starship.paint ~ KO 05:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
      I thought Mueller stated sealed charges would be too dangerous/problematic in case there were any leaks.(Actually, do we even/can we even know for a fact that there aren't sealed charges?) - PaulT+/C 05:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
      • You are right, Mueller quotes OLC that sealed charges may be leaked. But this is part of his entire case on why he is not charging, and not accusing Trump of a crime. He's explaining his decision. starship.paint ~ KO 06:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
        1. Investigators determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment ... neither initiate nor decline a prosecution of Trump. determined indicates a choice, no?
        2. Investigators this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. ... accepted indicates a choice.
        3. Investigators determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes ... again, determined indicates a choice.
        4. the possibility of the report’s public disclosure and the absence of a neutral adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining that the person’s conduct constitutes a federal offense - counseled them to make a choice. @Psantora: - ping starship.paint ~ KO 06:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
          (edit conflict)That third point shows the ambiguity I'm trying to illustrate. I agree that there was a choice to go this way, but they determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. They decided by design to not even allow the possibility of judgement against the president (for the reasons stated). And again per WP:OR, we need secondary sources that show this for it to be in the article.See comments below on the sources. - PaulT+/C 06:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
          • They decided by design to not even allow the possibility of judgement against the president (for the reasons stated). - yes, I agree, and this is so significant in my view that it should absolutely be in the lede. starship.paint ~ KO 07:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
      • I'm going to leave the sources on the table. @Psantora:. starship.paint ~ KO 06:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
        1. WaPo [8] They seemed to shy from producing even an internal document that alleged the president had done something wrong — deciding, essentially, that they wouldn’t decide.
        2. AP [9] He couldn’t indict Trump. He also felt he couldn’t recommend criminal charges even in a secret Justice Department memo or in a charging document filed under seal until after Trump left office. Mueller’s team worried such moves could leak, leaving Trump in the position of having a prosecutor say he committed a crime without the ability to defend himself at a public trial.
        3. Bloomberg [10] Having decided he couldn’t charge Trump with a crime, Mueller opted not to say that Trump obstructed justice because the president would have no way to defend himself.
        4. TIME [11] Special Counsel Robert Mueller found significant evidence that Donald Trump may have obstructed justice, but he declined to charge him based on his view of how the law should work. In a 400-page report sent to Congress Thursday, the former FBI director spelled out a view of the constitutional limitations placed on prosecutors which guided his decision-making in not charging Trump. Here’s a look at the legal reasoning behind Mueller’s decision. Because Mueller’s team can’t indict Trump, it also can’t give him the opportunity for a speedy trial to clear his name, Mueller reasoned. He decided that his team would therefore not make an announcement that Trump had committed a crime — such as obstructing justice — despite the facts it uncover. Mueller also ruled out another option, which would be to obtain a sealed indictment against presidents that would not become public until after they leave office would not work because they could be leaked.
          Those sources show the ambiguity pretty starkly: deciding...they wouldn't decide, couldn't indict...couldn't recommend, couldn't charge Trump, and can't indict Trump. It isn't 100% clear one way or the other. - PaulT+/C 06:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
          • Then what are we to do? Write "could or would"? Or how about did? The investigation took an approach that would not result in a judgment that President Trump committed a crime, and did not charge Trump with a crime for the following reasons. starship.paint ~ KO 07:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
            I think what you wrote with two minor changes: The investigation took an approach that could not result in a judgment that President Trump committed a crime, and thus did not charge Trump with a crime for the following reasons. is the most accurate and can be supported by the sources you listed above, but it would be great if someone else chimed in on this to give an outside view. - PaulT+/C 07:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
            • @Psantora: - my issue is with "thus", which I see as therefore. Could you replace "thus" with "also"? starship.paint ~ KO 07:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
              Does one not follow from the other? The investigation intentionally took an approach that could not result in a judgment that President Trump committed a crime, and did not charge Trump with a crime for the following reasons. How is that for a revision? I removed the thus altogether. I'm not thrilled about the two "that"s in the first part, but I can live with it. This still seems like it is supported by the above sources, but again it would be great if others could comment on this point. - PaulT+/C 08:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
              • @Psantora: - yes, one does follow from the other, but they had their reasons to not accuse, and they had their reasons to not charge, and they did not say they would not charge because they would not accuse. They first decided not to charge (it's written that way), then decided not to accuse. I'm going to include the change text. We'll see who weighs in. starship.paint ~ KO 08:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
@Psantora: - having thought about it a bit, maybe the order is wrong. Per my above comment: Investigators first did not charge Trump with a crime, to abide by an Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion that a sitting president cannot stand trial, and to avoid charges affecting Trump's governing or charges possibly preempting impeachment. Citing fairness concerns for accusing Trump of a crime with no charge and no trial, investigators thus intentionally took an approach that could not result in a judgment that President Trump committed a crime. starship.paint ~ KO 13:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm fine with the order you propose above. I agree it is clearer to present it in the same way as the document itself. - PaulT+/C 14:55, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • User:Wikieditor19920. yes it’s over long. Yes, editors jostle for inserts of parts to emphasize over their subjective reasoning. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
    The discussion should be how to boil this down to the key points, not "how much of the report can we jam into the lead.'" There are a few basic conclusions:
    a) The report confirmed Russian interference in the 2016 election.
    b) The report didn't establish collusion or a basis for criminal charges.
    c) The report didn't recommend charges for obstruction of justice but famously "did not exonerate him."
    d) The report determined that it was Congress's responsibility to determine whether impeachment or further investigations were necessary.
    Starship.paint there is no need for us to expand beyond these central points in the lead. Everything that you're emphasizing can and should be elaborated on in the body, not the lead. I don't see your steadfast desire to provide "context" regarding the non-recommendation of charges to be so crucial that we violate basic tenets of how to write leads, like going beyond four paragraphs and writing paragraphs that are 7-10 sentences long. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
    Wikieditor19920 You are correct that everything in the lead needs to be expounded upon in the body. Regarding "basic tenets of how to write leads"... There is a guideline on this that you have cited, but I wanted to emphasise that this is a guideline. I'm not 100% sold on the expanded lead just yet, but WP:IAR is in there for a reason and that is why having this discussion here (and not warring on adding a cleanup template to the article) is important.
    From the guideline: As a general guideline—but not absolute rule—the lead should usually be no longer than four paragraphs. The length of the lead should conform to readers' expectations of a short, but useful and complete, summary of the topic. A lead that is too short leaves the reader unsatisfied; a lead that is too long is intimidating, difficult to read, and may cause the reader to lose interest halfway.. We are certainly closer to the last clause than we probably should be, but I don't agree that it is because we have 4 big paragraphs or more than 4 paragraphs at all.
    I think it would be helpful to have a discussion that is grounded as much as possible in the guidelines at MOS:LEAD, starting with the MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH and specifically MOS:LEADSENTENCE, but the size of the lead is not and should not be the primary concern, at least for now while everyone is still digesting the incredibly dense source material. - PaulT+/C 14:55, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree, but a discussion about MOS:LEAD ultimately becomes about content. Also, to clarify about the tag: there was actually no edit warring over it, because I was the one who applied/removed it twice. Why? I felt that the lead had been improved upon following my excising some of the more minute details, but ultimately they were reinserted. I may well apply the tag again if the lead keeps growing, and I'd probably leave it there until we met consensus on the talk page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment – I find it trivial that we are discussing lead length. It is just one paragraph more of information and it's not an ardent rule that must be followed. It's more of a guideline if possibly met. Having read the lead over the history of the page and today, it beautifully covers all important aspects of the final report and conclusions. 1 paragraph is not rule-breaking. Aviartm (talk) 23:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

The typical length of a paragraph as no more than 4-5 lines or 200 words is more a basic rule of good writing than a specific WP guideline. The core issue is that the lead, as it currently is, conveys information that is not addressed in the body. There is certainly a lot of "meat" to cover in the report, and that's what the body should serve for. The lead should never introduce a wealth of information that is not mentioned anywhere else; the lead is intended to summarize the body contents, not the other way around. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Wikieditor19920: - I'll have to see a source for your basic rule of good writing. On your other point, I have taken efforts to ensure that the information on the paragraph of obstruction of justice is not only in the body, but more expanded in the body than the lede. I think everything in that paragraph is covered, even the secondary sources are consistent. The obstruction of justice paragraph is also five lines and 184 words. Are you referring to the paragraph on conspiracy as the problem for wealth of information that is not mentioned anywhere else? starship.paint ~ KO 01:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Aviartm: - it has to be the interference/conspiracy stuff, especially the part on Manafort and Gates. I already pinged @EllenCT: to add it to the body since I think she added it to the lede, this is to alert her of this discussion. Also the Russian interference stuff might be slightly more detailed in the lede than the body. starship.paint ~ KO 01:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Punctuation of quotations and formatting of dates (was Americans are the primary readers of this article)

@Starship.paint: Please use American style punctuation by placing periods and commas within closing parentheses. Thank you. soibangla (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Soibangla: Just FYI, we always use Wikipedia:Logical quotation on Wikipedia. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
In my travels on WP, periods/commas outside parens are the exceptions rather than the rule, by a wide margin, even on articles that are not America-centric.. This is a particularly America-centric article. Please use American style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soibangla (talk • contribs) 18:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
The whole world is watching this. In particular Russia. Not very America-centric. Also, if there's a policy, one better stick to it. You can raise your objections on the appropriate style talk, maybe more constructive. Micronor (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia's Manual of Style is very clear about this: "On the English Wikipedia, use the "logical quotation" style in all articles, regardless of the variety of English in which they are written. Include terminal punctuation within the quotation marks only if it was present in the original material, and otherwise place it after the closing quotation mark. For the most part, this means treating periods and commas in the same way as question marks: keep them inside the quotation marks if they apply only to the quoted material and outside if they apply to the whole sentence." Please follow the Manual of Style. Thank you. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
For what it is worth, I also prefer that the punctuation marks stay outside the quotation unless they are explicitly part of the passage being quoted. - PaulT+/C 03:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@Soibangla: - I'm sorry, when I click access date in the references it automatically puts it date before month. Do you know any way I can change this? starship.paint ~ KO 23:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, the date formatting isn't that big of a deal. The best thing to do would be to include the date formatting parameter "|df= mdy-all" in any citation templates you create. This way regardless of the way the date is typed in the template it will display in the preferred way. - PaulT+/C 03:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Psantora: - is there an automatic way to do this... using the cite web/cite news editor thing? starship.paint ~ KO 06:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, I don't know. Where is this "editor thing" of which you speak? (I usually manually create citation templates...) - PaulT+/C 06:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
    • @Psantora: - sorry about the many pings. When I click edit and look at the top of the text editing thing. Beside Bold icon and Italics icon, there is Advanced Special characters Help Cite. Click Cite, Click templates, click Cite web or Cite News... starship.paint ~ KO 06:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
      No big deal on the pings. That is fascinating! I'll be sure to make use of this tool in the future! Unfortunately it doesn't look like the "df" (date formatting) field is supported in that form by default. However, you can manually type "|df=mdy-all" into any field listed there and it will populate correctly when adding the template - even if the field already has an entry (as long as the "|df=mdy-all" comes in afterwards). - PaulT+/C 06:55, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Punctuation of quotations

A comment previously made as a new section of the Talk page before noticing that this section was already devoted to that topic: An editor seems to want this article to use a punctuation style that is contrary to Wikipedia's MOS:LQ guidance with regard to the punctuation of quotes. My view is that Wikipedia has a WP:Manual of Style in order to try to achieve some degree of professionalism and consistency, and that this is a worthy goal, so I think the article should be edited in accordance with that style guide. The other editor seems to think that articles about American topics should use a different style, but the MoS explicitly says "On the English Wikipedia, use the 'logical quotation' style in all articles, regardless of the variety of English in which they are written." (emphasis added) If someone has a serious disagreement with what the MoS says, I think they should go discuss it at WT:Manual of Style and seek a consensus to change what it says, not simply insist on defying its guidance when editing various individual articles. Is there some reason that this article is special and should not follow the MoS? —BarrelProof (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

  • There is another section above about this very issue. I can think of no good reason why this article should not follow the Manual of Style with regard to logical quotation. The MoS is very clear that the logical quotation style should be used in all Wikipedia articles regardless of what style of English is used in an article. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Sorry for not noticing that there was already a section discussing this. Probably I missed it because the heading of that section did not make it clear what it was discussing. I have merged the sections and modified the heading accordingly. It appears that at this point there have been four people advocating to apply the MoS style, and only one opposed to it. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
    I agree. MOS:LQ make sense for this article and have nothing to do with Amercian/British conventions. - PaulT+/C 23:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused. The original poster referred to parentheses, while all of the responses have been about quotation marks. Does anybody have a clue what this discussion is actually about? --Khajidha (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

That is a good point about parenthesis vs quotation marks. The page referred to by soibangla in their first comment is American style punctuation, which does not have any mentions of parenthesis after quickly looking. I think it is safe to assume that soibangla meant quotes instead. Perhaps it is a language issue? (Or maybe I'm missing something altogether?) - PaulT+/C 00:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I too totally missed the point about punctuation until now. Frankly, even though I had encountered the other form of punctuation many times, I never knew that it was American style. Thank you for raising WP:LQ, Rreagan007. I was also unaware of this policy. starship.paint ~ KO 00:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

It's probably more common in American English to always put commas and periods inside of the quotation marks, but as Wikipedia:Logical_quotation_on_Wikipedia points out, neither style is exclusively American or British. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Selective omission

Currently, the intro says that the investigation "found evidence of multiple links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign, but did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia." The citation given is to this sentence on p. 173:

Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities. [emphasis added]

I hope it is clear why this kind of selective omission is particularly onerous. The previous 18 pages of the report are all about several instances of coordination which leave the question of criminal conspiracy open. I am removing the second clause of the sentence. EllenCT (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

  • @EllenCT: - if you are concerned about selective omission, why don't you just add the part that you view selectively omitted, especially since it's four or five words, instead of removing an entire sentence fragment that is absolutely, critically, essential? the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities. Please insert this - and since you're not here at the moment, hopefully someone comes around, reads this and puts it back. I might say, if I were a Trump supporter, I would find this omission ridiculously biased. starship.paint ~ KO 01:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
@Starship.paint: Section IV of volume I, pp. 66-168, are entirely about describing contacts and negotiations between Trump campaign officials and Russia. The decision is summarized on p. 180:
the Office's investigation uncovered evidence of numerous links (i.e., contacts) between Trump Campaign officials and individuals having or claiming to have ties to the Russian government. The Office evaluated the contacts under several sets of federal laws, including conspiracy laws and statutes governing foreign agents who operate in the United States. After considering the available evidence, the Office did not pursue charges under these statutes against any of the individuals discussed in Section IV above — with the exception of FARA charges against Paul Manafort and Richard Gates based on their activities on behalf of Ukraine.... several U.S. persons connected to the Campaign made false statements about those contacts and took other steps to obstruct the Office's investigation and those of Congress. This Office has therefore charged some of those individuals with making false statements and obstructing justice. [emphasis added]
Given that Manafort was Chair of the Trump campaign, I think it is deceptive to make blanket statements which ignore the charges already brought upon which conviction and sentencing has already occurred. EllenCT (talk) 01:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @EllenCT: - it is my understanding (from reading others on the Internet, which of course might be wrong) that what Manafort did is not considered part of election interference because he was doing it for himself. In a separate point, this sentence is part of the executive summary: the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election. Is what I quoted here deceptive? You appear to be questioning the investigation's conclusions, and it is not our job to question the investigation on such a key finding. We are to report it, when our reliable sources of course will do. starship.paint ~ KO 01:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
The Special Counsel did find links but did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities. Both of these are factually correct. If you are using the final report as a source, make sure you use a secondary scours to back it up to avoid WP:UNDUE and WP:OR. Just go ahead and add it. Wikipedia does say to be bold. Aviartm (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
@Starship.paint: it's misleading to claim that they did not have sufficient evidence to charge those who had already been convicted for "making false statements and obstructing justice" in relation to their underlying acts. Here are two reasons why:
the measures taken late on January 29 by the State and Treasury departments were met with disbelief by many observers, who expected asset freezes, travel bans, and other sanctions to be imposed, none of which happened.[12]
and
“Kilimnik requested the meeting to deliver in person a peace plan for Ukraine that Manafort acknowledged to the Special Counsel’s Office was a ‘backdoor’ way for Russia to control part of eastern Ukraine,” reads the report, “both men believed the plan would require candidate Trump’s assent to succeed (were he to be elected President).”... Mueller’s team added that both men discussed the Trump campaign’s strategy for winning Democratic votes in Midwestern states, months after Manafort “had caused internal polling data to be shared with Kilimnik.”[13]
They didn't have the evidence to charge Flynn and Manafort in relation to those coordination efforts because of their lies, for which they have been convicted. To say that they didn't without saying why is deceptive. EllenCT (talk) 01:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @EllenCT: I don't have the time or energy to understand all these conspiracy stuff. Qualify it however you want, just make sure the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election. is in the lede somehow, with whatever qualifications and explanations. This is an egregious omission and should not continue. I repeat that we will be seen as biased to omit this from the lede. starship.paint ~ KO 02:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I've included a proposed compromise based on the excerpt from page 180 above. Here's a much longer passage on the same topic from the main article's intro:
The redacted final report states that Mueller did not charge Trump with a crime due to two reasons: firstly, to abide by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion that a sitting president cannot stand trial.[53][54][55] Secondly, sealed charges could leak, while Mueller felt a charge would impair the president's governing ability "and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct," with a footnote reference to impeachment.[54][56][57] In addition, Mueller rejected the alternative of accusing Trump of a crime without a charge, as without a trial, Mueller felt it would be unfair for Trump to be unable to clear his own name.[53][54][58] The special counsel's office did not exonerate Trump because they were not confident that Trump was clearly innocent after examining his intent and actions.[59][60] The report also states that Trump attempted to control the investigation in private, but was mostly unsuccessful in influencing the investigation in large part because his aides refused to carry out his orders.[61][62] The special counsel's office also concluded that Congress has the authority to take action against Trump regarding the possible obstruction.[63][64][65]
EllenCT (talk) 02:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @EllenCT: - wait wait wait. You were talking about Manafort and Gates on conspiracy. Now you are talking about Trump and obstruction of justice? I’m thoroughly bamboozled at the change in topic. starship.paint ~ KO 03:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • EllenCT, as Aviartm said just be be bold, and insert your writing on conspiracy. Now is not the time to dawdle on this key ruling while this article is linked on mainspace. Be bold, insert it, if people revert we’ll come back and discuss here. starship.paint ~ KO 03:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Starship.paint Took me about 30 seconds to find the message that tagged me, lol. EllenCT But yes, just be bold. And as I previously mentioned, there are links between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government but the Special Counsel could not determine any "nefarious intentions". Not the words obviously but that is the message. Just use secondary sources that back your interpretations and just post it and we will see. Aviartm (talk) 05:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Aviartm - I think EllenCT may have done it here [14], some part is already removed because the lead was trimmed, but the crucial part is still gone! the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities. It's not there and I think it should be. I added a hidden note as I will not reinsert the text myself. starship.paint ~ KO 05:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Starship.paint Oh boy! I am just about to start making an edit and I will add it back in. Thank you for pointing it out for me! :) Aviartm (talk) 06:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Starship.paint Our edits got conflicted here. Just to let you know so you can reimplement your edits. Aviartm (talk) 06:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Aviartm - thanks will do. I notice you didn't add the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities. ... does that mean you agree it should not be there? starship.paint ~ KO 06:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Starship.paint Ah, that. I added. Thought it was referring to the charges but I forgot about the sentence. Added. Edit: And Thank You for pointing it out to me. I do agree it should be there because it is crucial and important to make the distinction. Aviartm (talk) 07:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@EllenCT: - please insert the content you put in the lede for conspiracy to the body as well. starship.paint ~ KO 00:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Establish Lead Consensus

There has been a little history as to how the first lead sentence should be written. Let's try to establish consensus on how the first lead sentence should be written.

Should the lead be written as:

Version One – The Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election, commonly known as the Mueller Report, is the official report documenting the findings and conclusions of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 United States presidential election, allegations of conspiracy[1] between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the Russian government, and allegations of obstruction of justice,[2] as well as "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation."[3]

or

Version Two – Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election, commonly known as the Mueller Report, is the official report documenting Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 United States presidential election, allegations of conspiracy[1] between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the Russian government, allegations of obstruction of justice,[2] as well as "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation."[3] The report was prepared by the Special Counsel investigation, led by Robert Mueller.

(NOTE: Version One is the current lead paragraph; both versions are slightly different to accommodate to the correct info with citations. To see originals, click here.)

References

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference justice2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference CNNscramble was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b "Order No. 3915-2017". United States Department of Justice. May 17, 2017. Retrieved April 17, 2019. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)

Votes/Discussion

Version Two – Because the Starr Report lead mentions the party who did the investigation. Kenneth Starr, at the end, not at the beginning. We do not need the individual's name, Robert Mueller, mentioned twice within 12 words of each other. We already know who made the report because the Wikipedia page is named "Mueller Report". WP:OSE states "arguing in favor of consistency among Wikipedia articles is not inherently wrong–it is to be preferred." Aviartm (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Version One - Because I don't like the way the last sentence in version two reads. An investigation is a process. It doesn't do things like writing reports. A trial doesn't do a judgement. A judge writes the judgement. "The report and its findings were done by the Special Counsel investigation" Micronor (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Micronor Correct. The investigation investigates and concluded on March 22. In any area where there is no conclusion, it goes to the top; in this case obstruction of justice and the conclusion regarding it, Attorney General Barr's had the final say per DOJ policy and law, which is extensively detailed in the article already. The investigation made the report and found its findings that are concluded in the report. Aviartm (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Version One - because I simply think that the special counsel investigation link should come first. starship.paint ~ KO 01:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Starship.paint Question of style, I slightly prefer yours being less tangled. I also still don't really like that "the investigation prepared the report" in version two. I'd rather not see the investigation as an agent but as a process. Micronor (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

It is kind of hard to see the differences between these two versions and fairly evaluate them without the proper context of the links/references as they would be present in the actual article. Can this proposal be re-stated using {{talk quote block}} and the direct code that constitutes each version? - PaulT+/C 03:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Alternate first paragraph proposal

Thanks for making this change. It is much easier to read now, but the first sentence is still way too long and wordy. I did some poking around at MOS:LEADSENTENCE and found The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is. and Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead. Given those points, I think a better version of the first sentence/paragraph is as follows:

The Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election, commonly known as the Mueller Report, is the official report documenting the findings and conclusions of the Special Counsel investigation, which is led by Robert Mueller and began on May 17, 2017. The report was delivered to Attorney General William Barr on March 22, 2019 and documents Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 United States presidential election, allegations of conspiracy[1] between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the Russian government, and allegations of obstruction of justice,[2] as well as "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation."[3] A redacted version of the 448-page report was publicly released by the Department of Justice (DOJ) on April 18, 2019 and has two volumes: Volume I (pages 1–207) focusing on Russian interference and matters of conspiracy[1] and Volume II (pages 208–448) on obstruction of justice.[4][5][6]

Is this a good compromise between the two presented options?
Per MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH: The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time. It should also establish the boundaries of the topic; for example, the lead for the article List of environmental issues succinctly states that the list covers "harmful aspects of human activity on the biophysical environment".
I think this paragraph is a good, concise summary of the document itself. It gives a sense of size, boundaries, and timing and doesn't mention anything about the conclusions of the report, staying as NPOV as possible. - PaulT+/C 23:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - good overview, yes, timing included, the volumes should be in the first paragraph as well, agreed. Also, I fixed some typos. starship.paint ~ KO 00:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose changing first sentence, agree with merging first two paragraphs Why do we need to change the first sentence and add unnecessary verbiage? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
    The current first lead paragraph is perfect in my opinion. Covers the main topics and who did the investigating. We do not really need the timing of it as that is mentioned in Background. To just be consistent, with who did the investigating should be mentioned towards the end of the first paragraph. The vast, vast majority of people, if not anybody who has known about the investigation and all, know who did it. What people don't know much of are the contents. Aviartm (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
    • The current lead sentence is way too long and is very dense. See Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead. from MOS:LEADSENTENCE. That is the primary reason why I tried to break it up with my stab at the first paragraph above. Regardless, the first paragraph should definately NOT just be the one sentence as it was when this section started. - PaulT+/C 16:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Solely because of the following subsentence: "conclusions of the Special Counsel investigation, which is led by Robert Mueller and began on May 17, 2017." Problems as follows: a) there has been another special counsel investigation, so needs to be qualified; b) it was led, not is; c) the investigation has ended and that's more important than the exact date it was started. Micronor (talk) 12:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
    As far as I know he is still the special council and is still on the DoJ payroll. He delivered the report but there are a number of trial activity still ongoing, which means he is still leading the effort. I agree though that the end of that sentence could use improvement though. The start date was included because the date of the report is directly afterwards, showing how long it took for the report to be made. - PaulT+/C 16:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Mueller Report, vol. I, p.2: In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion".
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference CNNscramble was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ "Order No. 3915-2017". United States Department of Justice. May 17, 2017. Retrieved April 17, 2019. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  4. ^ Zapotosky, Matt; Leonnig, Carol D.; Helderman, Rosalind S.; Barrett, Devlin (April 17, 2019). "Mueller report will be lightly redacted, revealing detailed look at obstruction of justice investigation". The Washington Post. Retrieved April 17, 2019. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  5. ^ Axelrod, Tal (April 17, 2019). "DOJ plans to release 'lightly redacted' version of Mueller report Thursday: WaPo". The Hill. Retrieved April 18, 2019.
  6. ^ LaFraniere, Sharon (April 17, 2019). "The Mueller Report Will Be Released on Thursday. Here's a Guide". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved April 18, 2019.

Mueller report

Why are we italicizing a simple descriptive phrase? --Khajidha (talk) 03:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

MOS:ITALICTITLE for multi-volume works / booklets. EllenCT (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Looking further, I reverse my preference for italics, per our convention described below and WP:COMMONNAME usage in the press. EllenCT (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
And that would apply to its actual title, but "Mueller report" is just a description. --Khajidha (talk) 03:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Exactly. Compare Taylor Report and Starr Report which are not italicized. Pawnkingthree (talk) 06:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Taylor Report's formal name should be italicized which I will go do. And Starr Report was italicized until The Man In Question unitalicized it. And looking at the policies at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Titles_of_works, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#Names_and_titles; "The English-language titles of compositions (books and other print works, songs and other audio works, films and other visual media works, paintings and other artworks, etc.) are given in title case, in which every word is given an initial capital except for certain less important words (as detailed at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Composition_titles). In Names and titles, the report falls under MOS:MAJORWORK. So EllenCT is correct. Aviartm (talk) 06:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Again, the policy applies to titles, not descriptions. The title of this work is Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election, not Mueller Report. The title of the Starr Report is Referral from Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr in Conformity with the Requirement of Title 28, United States Code, Section 595(c). The title of the Taylor Report is Hillsborough Stadium Disaster Inquiry report. So, again, why are we italicizing a simple descriptive phrase/authorial attribution? --Khajidha (talk) 12:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Scott Report shows the best format from my understanding of MOS. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 15:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I also think there's a difference between "Mueller report" and "Mueller Report". The former most certainly wouldn't be italicised, but I can see plenty of good reason to italicise the latter, even if it's just an alt-name, it's still a name for a work. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't see a real difference netween "Mueller report" and "Mueller Report". Both seem like descriptions, neither seems like a title, and one is improperly capitalized. --Khajidha (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I could see Mueller Report as a possibility. --Khajidha (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

But it's not an official name or a name that's printed on the cover page.
As noted at WP:ERRORS, italicization of titles generally is reserved for works of art, e.g. novels, poems, films, paintings, etc., plus non-fiction books/films and newspaper/periodical names. (There's also a tradition of italicizing ships' names, which I rather like.) But bureaucratic reports or government proclamations don't generally take italicization, though they are capitalized, and informal names for such documents certainly don't. – Sca (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree. I just opened a move request to lowercase version, per MOS:TITLECAPS. — JFG talk 10:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the title should have any italics, but I'm currently neutral on capitalization. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Capitalization of section titles in "Episodes of alleged obstruction"

In the section "Episodes of alleged obstruction", the subheaders are improperly capitalized, e.g. "The Campaign's Response to Reports About Russian Support for Trump". Per WP:NCCAPS, Wikipedia does not use this style of capitalization. An in-source comment states that " DO NOT CHANGE LABELS OF EPISODES OR ORDER OF IT. THIS IS THE EXACT TITLES AND ORDER FROM THE REPORT." But I can't readily find these titles. I suggest that we either standardize the capitalization, or put quotation marks around the titles, if they are really direct quotations and we want to preserve them as such. Sandstein 09:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

If the capitalization does not follow Wikipedia's policies, you could change it. And the episodes titles are all in Volume II of the report verbatim. And looking at MOS:TITLECAPS, it looks like the episode titles adhere. Not every single word within the titles are uppercased. Some are lowercased. Aviartm (talk) 10:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Someone shortened these section names and I think it looks a lot better than the "official" quoted sections from the report. I added anchor terms to each of these sections with the direct quote from the report and that should suffice for now. There is no reason the sections need to be identical matches to what is in the report, especially if the shorter names are easier to understand. I do agree that the order should be kept the same as the report and changed the in-souce comment to reflect this. - PaulT+/C 17:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Totally agree with shorter section titles; much clearer to parse. — JFG talk 17:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

We have a neutrally-titled article called Links between Trump associates and Russian officials, and some editors have pipe-linked it to misleading descriptions such as "links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign" or "contacts between Trump advisors and affiliates of the Russian government". I have restored the simple link to the article title, but I would welcome discussion on whether and why any changes are necessary. — JFG talk 18:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I think the title without any pipes is perfectly acceptable. I don't see any compelling reason to alter it, but I'm open to hearing otherwise if there is good reason. - PaulT+/C 18:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

"Final report"

Repeatedly, the article refers to the "final report"; at other times, it only refers to "the report". This is confusing. It makes readers assume that there are various reports: a "final report", and then presumably one or several non-final reports, and then whatever "the report" without qualifier is. I advise that we strike all the "final"s and refer to this work throughout only as "the report". Sandstein 09:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I have removed all instances of "final" from the lead, because indeed it's the only report. I'll do the same for the article body now. — JFG talk 10:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Good idea Sandstein. Thanks also JFG. starship.paint ~ KO 11:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 Done — JFG talk 11:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

The report. Final report is misleading, as this is the redacted report, and the unredacted report will be the final report. There is a difference. Much of the time "the report" will work fine, but sometimes we should make sure it's "the redacted report". -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Do we call the report "the" report?

Throughout the article we refer to the report as "the" report; for instance, we do not write that "Report alleges that", but rather "The report alleges that ...". That seems logical, because we treat "report" as a description of what this piece of writing is, not a formal title. Only in the lead do we start out with "Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election, commonly known as the Mueller Report ..." I've twice or so added a "The" so that the lead sentence reads "The Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference ...", but somebody else removed it. What do others think? Sandstein 09:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@JFG, Starship.paint, Aviartm, Psantora, and Soibangla: as the currently most active editors on this article, could you consider providing an opinion about this and the other two stylistic issues raised below? Sandstein 09:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I am addressing this and other stylistic issues by copyediting work this morning. — JFG talk 10:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Sandstein I think we should address "the report" as "the report" when referring to it in the article; albeit, I am guilty of saying "final report" at times. Thank you JFG for addressing the minor issue. "The" Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election has been removed from me. I find it just awkward firstly. An unformatted word by a bolden and italicized title doesn't fit well.
The Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election etc. etc. etc.
It just looks awkward. And it's not necessary to have "The" in front of "Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election". Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election as the beginning works just fine. Aviartm (talk) 10:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I would suggest leading with the common name, thus: "The Mueller report, formally known as the Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election, is […]" — JFG talk 10:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Support what JFG just wrote. Article name first. With “the” starship.paint ~ KO 11:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, support JFG's version. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
The term "report" should be used everywhere instead of "final report". The article "the" can be used or omitted as needed. As for the lead sentence, I don't think it makes much of a difference either way, but the sentence does need work overall. See my comments at #Alternate first paragraph proposal. - PaulT+/C 18:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Ah, my mistake. This is specifically about the use of the article "the". Hmm... I don't think it makes sense to be consistent on this necessarily. Sometimes it makes sense to use the article, sometimes it is unnecessary. Are there specific examples that you can point to so I can see what you are referring to exactly? - PaulT+/C 18:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

11th case of obstruction?

Aviartm - thank you so much for writing about the 10 cases of obstruction. Simply massive work. I have to inform you though that some sources are quoting 11 cases of obstruction. Guardian - Factcheck.org - PBS. I think you know more than me on this - what do you think? starship.paint ~ KO 07:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint Thank you Starship! :) When it comes to how many episodes, I am not sure honestly. Because there are also numerous that report 10: CNBC, Washington Post, Vox, and New York Times. And I know this is not a numbers game and it shouldn't. Just that the reliable sources seem to report either 10 episodes or 11 episodes.

And for your most recent edit that you tagged me in, yes, that was me, lol. I can't figure out a way to properly include multiple authors in a citation when I do it manually in Visual Editor. I looked at your edit and it appears you edited it from source. Aviartm (talk) 07:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Aviartm: - I assume I'm also using Visual editor, have you ever tried clicking that green plus icon next to First name? On 10 or 11, first we have to identify the difference, what the is extra incident? My head hurts, I couldn't even find it LOL. starship.paint ~ KO 07:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
@Starship.paint: In Visual Editor, there is no green plus sign next to "First name" unless it is a setting that I need to turn on. I think half the media is not counting "The Campaign's Response to Reports About Russian Support for Trump" as Trump was not President then. And I too have thought about that. Can a presidential candidate "really" obstruct justice? In the link you sent, it goes into detail about the section in question and after quickly skimming it, it is detailing more of Russian interference because of WikiLeaks publications and Trump Tower Moscow. Aviartm (talk) 08:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Oh sorry. I definitely am not using Visual Editor, since I just found out what it is. So I don't know. On the article, yes, anyone can obstruct justice, Manafort did, so even a presidential candidate or a president-elect can. Vol II pg 17 to 23 are both about Trump and his campaign. So 10 episodes as president, 1 episode before presidency. If, of course, the sources report that. starship.paint ~ KO 08:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Starship.paint Would make sense. I plan on expanding the contexts for The Campaign's Response to Reports About Russian Support for Trump section. I, however, do not understand how there is obstruction for the section. I can see speculated Russian coordination at the time but that was disproven in the report obviously. Aviartm (talk) 08:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
@Aviartm: I think these are the 'offenses': 1) Trump responded to questions about possible connections to Russia by denying any business involvement in Russia 2) Trump also expressed skepticism that Russia had hacked the emails 3) the President-Elect continued to deny any connections to Russia and privately expressed concerns that reports of Russian election interference might lead the public to question the legitimacy of his election. Are these obstruction? I don't know. Furthermore, this footnote is relevant, I think. This section summarizes and cites various news stories not for the truth of the information contained in the stories, but rather to place candidate Trump’s response to those stories in context. Volume I of this report analyzes the underlying facts of several relevant events that were reported on by the media during the campaign. My brain isn't really working already. I'm getting off-wiki, have other work. starship.paint ~ KO 08:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
@Starship.paint: Yes, however, all of those offenses just sound like lies. And lying is not illegal unless under oath and what not, which Trump wasn't. Aviartm (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
@Aviartm: - I think they were establishing context on Trump's intent. But I get your point. Could we write that some sources say 10, some say 11, and the disputed one is the campaign incident? starship.paint ~ KO 01:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@Starship.paint: I've thought about detailing the 10-11 discrepancy but if you look at the section, we detail what Trump was then. Aviartm (talk) 01:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@Aviartm: - but the Hill source doesn't word it that way like Wikipedia (and CNBC is just parroting what Barr said). It says Here are the 10 incidents involving Trump that Mueller raised. The point is that some sources agree with you, only 10 episodes total, but some sources say 11 episodes total. They didn't exactly restrict it, as is written in Wikipedia, that 10 episodes President. starship.paint ~ KO 01:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@Starship.paint: I understand that. I am not sure who specifically made the clarification. And I don't think that is really something that needs a citation because readers will recognize the first episode would be during/after the presidential election prior to Trump becoming President. Aviartm (talk) 01:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Lying can still serve the purpose of obstructing justice. It is easy to obstruct justice without committing any crime. The obstruction itself is often the only crime. Anything that redirects attention, slows down, interferes, wastes time, deceives, covers-up, etc. can obstruct the efforts to serve the cause of justice, and that's why there are so many instances. None of them have to be crimes. Only the worst instances would be used in a trial. Many people around Trump, many Congressmen, and many of Trump notable sycophant media personalities, could be charged with obstruction. They were part of the cover-up and deception. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mueller_report/Archive_1&oldid=1235278382"