This is an archive of past discussions about William Barr. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
In a rare departure from his usual full-throated support of Donald Trump, Barr rebuked the president's use of Twitter interference in DOJ matters. Barr's comments follow criticism of the department for its poor handling of the sentencing of Roger J. Stone Jr. in which four prosecutors withdrew from the case after DOJ actions seen as favorable to Trump and his allies.
I would support that inclusion, minus "full-throated," which is a bit of editorializing. I'm not sure it will have enduring notability, specific to really just this one case, but let's see. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
X1\, I don't think this has encyclopedic notability - yet, at least. Wikipedia isn't a newspaper, and we don't need a play-by-play of every Barr-related story that makes it into the news. Perhaps this will be notable at a later date, but for now it doesn't seem so. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧15:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Since I saw these, May His Shadow Fall Upon You, I have seen more recent analysis questioning the sincerity of Barr's comments, in that it might be a CYA situation; relating the pushing-back on the injustice and inappropriateness of Trump's Justice Department's actions. May be to keep out until more context has time to surface. X1\ (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Barr's involvement in cases related to Trump associates/adversaries
A lot of content was removed related to Barr's controversial involvement in cases related to Trump associates/adversaries. This content has extensive and detailed RS coverage, and is obviously DUE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
It’s a bit hard to judge the encyclopedic value of that stuff at the moment. It is certainly given a lot of attention in current media venues, but to me it just seems like one of the many blips in coverage for things like this. Not everything reported in the news is encyclopedic. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
What else is Barr known for? Summary style analysis of his administration of the Justice Department is the essence of his life story. Not newsy tidbits, but perspective narration. SPECIFICOtalk16:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Let me make sure I understand - Bill Barr intervened in a case where the prosecutors suggested 7-9 years in prison, and therefore he should resign? 7-9 years is a draconian recommendation for the process crimes Stone committed. By the way it was funny to see John Dean, who was sentenced to 1-4 years and served 4 months, come on TV with a complete lack of self awareness and say Stone deserved 7-9 years. This is of such minor relevance in the grand scheme of this article. Let's at least wait until after Barr testifies on March 31st, and see what comes of that. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Rusf10, you removed the entire Politically sensitive cases section, asserting it needed to be discussed, yet you did not initiate a discussion about it. I suggest you self-revert and discuss what you specifically object to, because I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that every word of the section can be meaningfully challenged. If you are unwilling to self-revert, I seek consensus to restore the content. soibangla (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Support the removal until consensus establishes what should go in, keeping in mind the desperate hits on Barr’s reputation, given what we now know about the total failure of the Russia story to have any real legs. I remember when the story was Barr covering up the Mueller report, which was, contrary to what the media breathlessly reported for years, a complete non story. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
”Desperate hit on... [his] reputation”, “total failure of the Russia story”, “non story”. Thank you for noting your adherence to conspiracy theories. Whether or not you think this is impeachable, this has been the story that’s gripped the world in nearly every country, and has been fundamentally confirmed both here and abroad. I can appreciate a different ideological mindset, but I think we need to shut this shit down when it comes to editors espousing “hoax” propaganda. As far as it concerns Barr, a litany, nay, a multitude of sources both domestically and abroad virtually only report on a perceived change in the independence of the Justice Department. It’s the only thing people outside the US know about him. Can we please have a reality check? Let’s reflect what reliable sources say, not Breitbart. Because sources like that are the only ones phrasing things the way you are. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk)
Normally I would engage you in good faith and ignore such unfounded attacks, but I can’t help but see your account as clearly someone socking to avoid scrutiny, so I will simply wish you good day. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Mr Ernie, if you’re going to accuse me of being a sock, then file a report at WP:SPI. This is the only account I use to edit. It was formerly my alternative account, but it’s now the only one I use. My previous account, User:Quinto Simmaco, is linked on my user page for all to see. I’ve been involved in Wikipedia projects both on and off-wiki for years, and I do it all above-board, and with visibility.
And please, enlighten me as to how that is a personal attack, and not just an observation that the rhetoric matches. It only makes sense in the context of some level of adherence to those conspiracy theories, and “counter-narratives”. I could have stated it in a more civil manner, but I’m not sure I should assume good faith. The fact is, over the past couple of years several editors have stonewalled critical themes in the articles related to Trump and his associates, on a scale that I’ve never seen in the AmPol topic area. It’s an obvious attempt to white-wash, and it’s becoming tiresome. I won’t speculate as to what the personal motivations of those editors are, as I don’t know any of you. The end result is the same. Even when policy is cited, it’s usually just a thin veneer covering WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I’ve honestly never seen this level of slow-burn obstructionism on Wikipedia, outside the ARBPIA area, and articles relating to certain BLPs, like Putin and Erdogan. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 05:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Multiple reliable sources have since Barr became AG reported on his evident bias, beginning with the Barr letter five weeks after he took office, which was not, as you characterize, "what the media breathlessly reported for years, a complete non story." We now have a significant body of evidence to include a major section on this in his BLP, though Hannity and Dobbs viewers may not be aware of any of it and would prefer not to. soibangla (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Mostly WP:NOTNEWS, give it some time to settle and see if it is actually something with lasting significance on his life. Yes there is a little media blip at the moment, but we need to see if it is just news of the day or not. PackMecEng (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Those who have been closely following reliable sources know that these matters have been extensively reported for many months, it's only now with the Stone matter that some, particularly those who consume unreliable conservative sources, may have been suddenly jolted awake and have the impression this is "news." I would venture a guess that most conservative media consumers are unaware that Rudy is under investigation by SDNY for numerous possible major felonies and may be stunned to discover that here, as well as the escapades of frequent Hannity guests diGenova and Toensing, and may respond to this content accordingly. soibangla (talk) 23:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I do not care if you are a conservative media consumer. What does that have to do with anything? You have not actually addressed my point at all. PackMecEng (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I did. It's "news" only to those who haven't been paying attention or prefer not to by the media choices they make. soibangla (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
No, it's not and no you have not. It is the same old same old. Give it time, there is no deadline. So far it is not really panning out to be much of anything. PackMecEng (talk) 23:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I would suggest you read policy and what WP:NOTNEWS actually is. Regardless, this is becoming no longer productive and it appears you are just bludgeoning everyone that disagrees with you. You may want to reconsider your strategy here. PackMecEng (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
There is no bludgeoning, and an assertion there is approaches a personal attack. I suggest you and me just stop talkin' now. soibangla (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I submit that the proper process here is not to remove the entire section without specific cause, then compel others to defend all of the content to have it restored. That approach is tantamount to whitewashing the entire topic because WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT with the possible expectation that it will thus be forever deep-sixed. Rather, the content should remain and editors should edit it and/or discuss in Talk specifically what they object to, so we can collaborate on reaching consensus language. I request an uninvolved admin take a look here so we can expeditiously resolve this dispute. soibangla (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
The material probably needed some trimming and copyediting to put it into better perspective, but it certainly should not have been removed so sloppily. The correct action would have been to edit the material, not remove the entire section. Also, I'm restoring "poor" which the same editor removed without any regard for the discussion in which the wording was agreed to. - MrX 🖋 23:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
For an entire four-paragraph section? I think not. Disputed content should be edited or Talked, not removed in wholesale fashion. No effort was made by the reverting editor to even tweak a single word. soibangla (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
@MrX:I do not see any clear consensus above for your addition at all, with or without the word "poor". For the record, I have no objection other than to the use of the word "poor", you already mentioned that the handling of the sentencing was criticized, but it is a violation of neutrality to say that he did a poor job in wikipedia's voice.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Please read the sources before you remove or change material: "Mr. Barr’s remarks were aimed at containing the fallout from the department’s botched handling of its sentencing recommendation for Mr. Trump’s longtime friend Roger J. Stone Jr.,..."[1] - MrX 🖋 01:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
You added a lot of content in a short period of time. I am not going to comment on it all. But a lot of this is speculation. It has not been proven that Barr did anything wrong. Also, lots of WP:WEASEL words such as "Some Barr critics suggested". You call Hunter Biden's activities in Ukraine a conspiracy theory (even though the source does not) and go into a long off-topic discussion about Rudy Giuliani. There are just a few of my objections.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
You added a lot of content in a short period of time Is there a problem with that? a lot of this is speculation Such as? It has not been proven that Barr did anything wrong The content does not state he did anything wrong, it describes various ways he has been involved in politically sensitive cases. lots of WP:WEASEL words such as "Some Barr critics suggested" I don't see how that's WEASEL, and even if it is, that doesn't constitute "lots," and you could've simply excised that specific sentence. You call Hunter Biden's activities in Ukraine a conspiracy theory (even though the source does not) But the Hunter Biden BLP states it is, supported by RS, but if you want me to add a source to show that here, a simple CN tag would've sufficed, or someone else could've added it. a long off-topic discussion about Rudy Giuliani It's not off-topic at all, as WaPo reported Friday, "the parallel developments mean that one part of the Justice Department is scrutinizing Giuliani while another is accepting information from him allegedly concerning a political rival of the president."There are just a few of my objections I think I've addressed your objections, and I suggest that the better way to have handled this is the way JackUpland did in another article, which is to come straight to Talk and list the problems you perceive, rather than just reflexively ripping the whole thing out. It makes it difficult for me to AGF. soibangla (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
It's widely reported that Barr's administration of the Justice Dept. is unprecedented in several critical respects. That's not opinion. That, along with significant detail, is ripe for inclusion in this article. SPECIFICOtalk02:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Rusf10 I believe I have addressed the concerns you have expressed and I suggest it would be appropriate you self-revert your edit, at which point we may address on Talk any other specific concerns you or others may have — line by line, word by word — as the approach should have been in the first place. soibangla (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Sure, I'm aware. However, reliable sources are citing this particular document hosted on Medium, so that does lend a fair amount of reliability per WP:USEBYOTHERS. - MrX 🖋 00:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Stone sentenced to 40 months, exactly in the range of where Barr suggested. What again was improper about any of this behavior? link. Here’s the kicker - “ U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson said Stone’s crimes demanded a significant time behind bars, but she said the seven to nine years originally recommended by the Justice Department were excessive.” Will These justice department officials protest Judge ABJ? This trivial affair needs no mention in Barr’s BLP. An entirely predictable media storm that is gone as quickly as it started. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Judges have full sentencing discretion, they can ignore the prosecutor recommendations as they please, and they often do. The fact ABJ decided to do so does not negate the fact that senior DOJ officials made an extraordinary intervention. What is likely to be "entirely predictable" is unreliable conservative media hollering "See? Barr was right all along!" as they completely miss the whole point. soibangla (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Ok, so you support saying the original sentencing was a bit extreme and
The DOJ has well over 100000 employees. "Former DOJ employees" is a group of several hundred thousand people. To make a big deal of 2000 online signatures without stating that they come from a population easily 100 times larger is a form of Lying With Statistics and is POV pushing, not encyclopedic. It's easily possible the petition was publicized to 20000 people and only 10 percent signed. This is fake news without the population size or response rate. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 07:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans, the way you write articles is like a news story. "In October 2019, Barr..." If you want to describe his views on secularism per the window of that one speech, then please make it more encyclopedic. It is not supposed to be lists of dates and times where newspapers published a story about him. Mr Ernie (talk) 07:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
This got extremely heavy coverage, though; it's clearly impacted how he's perceived, and therefore deserves a mention in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
It is particularly notable, especially in light of what you'd see if you go to state.gov right now. These guys are preaching Christian gospel now. Establishment clause, anyone? soibangla (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
The current weight of reporting and RS descriptions of its significance clearly warrants brief inclusion. With time, who knows -- maybe mainstream reporting will change and this will no longer be considered shocking and significant. Until then, a brief reference to this is appropriate. The Hill is not some left wing rag. SPECIFICOtalk17:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
MrX, I don't know if you saw this discussion before removing the note about secularists, but FWIW I supported it then and still now on the basis that it has no lasting importance. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Again, Barr's hostility towards secularism obviously belongs in the article. It's standard 'political worldview' type content for a political figure, never mind the Attorney General for the United States. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Barr's views on secularism and traditional values was the subject of a detailed NYT piece.[5] Again, demonstrating just how baseless the removal of this content was, and how dysfunctional it is to try to edit in American politics. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Barr's views on secularism was literally the intro to this in-depth New Yorker piece on his tenure as AG in the Trump admin.[6] Again, demonstrating just how baseless the removal of this content was. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
There’s been a lot of news coverage today of a Judge’s criticism of Barr’s handling of the Mueller Report. Do editors think it warrants inclusion? Some links: (had to remove because they were from google amp - I’m on mobile and do not know how to access the home sites but they are from CNN, WaPo, Fox, and The Guardian - appreciate if someone else can provide them]. The Judge has ordered the DOJ to turn over an unredacted copy of the Mueller Report which seems quite significant. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Initially I think there’s too many close quotes to be encyclopedic but I think we can improve that. Thank you. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Held indefinitely without trial, Trump DoJ request; add here ?
In one request, the DoJ asked Congress to give the attorney general (William Barr, implied in ref) and top judges broad powers that would allow them to pause court proceedings during emergencies or “whenever the district court is fully or partially closed by virtue of any natural disaster, civil disobedience, or other emergency situation.” These new powers would apply to “any statutes or rules of procedure otherwise affecting pre-arrest, post-arrest, pre-trial, trial, and post-trial procedures in criminal and juvenile proceedings and all civil process and proceedings.”
I propose adding the following content under the sub-heading Second Tenure:
"On July 9, 2019 Barr announced that, after consulting with career Department of Justice ethics officials, he had declined to recuse himself from oversight of the high-profile case involving American financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.[1] This question of Barr's recusal arose because Epstein had once retained legal counsel from Barr's former law firm, Kirkland and Ellis. On August 10, 2019, Epstein died in his prison cell in the Metropolitan Correctional Center. Barr's Department of Justice quickly opened multiple federal investigations into the circumstances surrounding Epstein's death, all of which Barr is personally overseeing.[2]"
Suggestions, rewrites, additions, removals, etc are of course all welcome. But Barr's handling of the high-profile Epstein case clearly deserves at least a brief mention somewhere in this biography.
The former acting assistant attorney general for national security Mary McCord accused Barr of twisting her words to suggest that the FBI’s interview with Michael Flynnin 2017 was illegitimate. Mary McCord’s interview with Flynn was used by Barr and the DoJ as evidence that the FBI had no valid counterintelligence reason to interview Flynn. McCord claims her interview with Flynn was “constitutional, lawful and for a legitimate counterintelligence purpose,” but said Barr’s motion to dismiss the charges against Flynn “makes a contorted argument that Mr. Flynn’s false statements and omissions to the F.B.I. were not ‘material’ to any matter under investigation.” McCord added that her interview doesn’t support the DoJ’s conclusion that the interview shouldn’t have taken place, and said it was “disingenuous for the department to twist my words to suggest that it does.”[8]
I don't find McCord's opinion of Barr's actions to be DUE or notable enough for inclusion. Regarding the signature thing, it may be better to wait to see what the judge does before including. That is, if the judge accepts the DOJ's new actions then I'm not sure the signatures would be relevant. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Adding long Bill Barr quote to the lead without pushback
An editor edit-warred a recently added long quote by Barr into the lead. The quote is Obamagate drivel. The quote should not be in the lead because it's long and it's conspiracy drivel that is just presented without any pushback. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree. Quotes, especially partisan quotes from a subject, don't belong in the lead of a biography. - MrX 🖋14:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry about the inadvertent edit-war. I made a mistake didn't know I could not reinsert that text, thought it was obviously WP:DUE and WP:RS and would have self-reverted but MrX beat me to it. As far as including text in lead maybe not the entire statement by Barr but at least a portion seems due for inclusion in the lead. The Atty General of the United States is accusing intelligence and law enforcement agencies of severe wrongdoing/potentially criminal actions. There are multiple RS that report Barr's statements the other day that the Trump/Russia collusion narrative pushed by law enforcement and intel agencies was a baseless conspiracy theory. That phrase gets thrown around a lot but usually it goes in one direction. Like nobody in the U.S. government in positions of authority would ever do something like that in the United States (e.g. claims of WMD in Iraq 2002/2003 which turned out to be false and led to an actual major war and the deaths of many innocent people). Yodabyte (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Just to respond to the false obamagate claim that was made above - Barr actually pushed back against Trump on that so if anything he was separating himself from the obamagate stuff Trump is pushing the past few weeks. Barr said Biden and Obama would not be charged criminally and that John Durham was looking at filing potential criminal charges against "others" meaning other high-up people involved, but not Obama or Biden. Yodabyte (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Obamagate, to what extent that any of the disingenuous rightwing hacks who advocate for it can actually explain what it is, is the baseless rightwing conspiracy theory that the Obama administration conspired against Trump and used illegal means to do so. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
This is about including Barr's statement from Monday in the lead, please stay on topic and don't distract by bringing up "obamagate".Yodabyte (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Classmate Jimmy Lohman's statements about William Barr's conduct during high school and college years
Civil Rights attorney Jimmy Lohman not only directly experienced William Barr's conduct but wrote about it in the Florida Flambeau in 1991. He stated that William Barr and his brothers picketed Junior Carnival in Horace Mann because the proceeds were going to the NAACP and that in Columbia he was known for teaming up with riot police to attack anti-war protestors. Seems like this information should be admissible in some regard, although my edits were reverted. Here is the revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Barr&type=revision&diff=960836290&oldid=960832202 and here is the source, direct from Florida Flambeau archives: https://fsu.digital.flvc.org/islandora/object/fsu%3A467664#page/Page+4/mode/2up
Here's a more neutral way of saying it:
Jimmy Lohman, Florida based civil rights attorney and longtime classmate of William Barr, stated in 1991 Op-Ed in the Florida Flambeau that Barr and his brothers picketed the Junior Carnival because the proceeds were going to the NAACP.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I would like to implement this edit, if there are no further comments about this revision. I ask that if Jimmy Lohman's op-ed is for some reason deemed to require further conversation (though it is a compelling, published first-person account from a credible source), then at least the sentences about Barr's participation at Columbia are included.
Please change, in early life and education:
As a child he attended a Catholic grammar school, Corpus Christi School, and then the non-sectarian Horace Mann School. After high school, he attended Columbia University, where he majored in government and graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in 1971.
into
As a child he attended a Catholic grammar school, Corpus Christi School, and then the non-sectarian Horace Mann School. Jimmy Lohman, Florida based civil rights attorney and classmate of William Barr's at Horace Mann, stated in a 1991 Op-Ed in the Florida Flambeau that Barr and his brothers picketed the Junior Carnival because the proceeds were going to the NAACP.[1] After high school, he attended Columbia University, where he majored in government and graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in 1971. There, Barr was an active member of the Majority Coalition, a campus group that organized against anti-war protestors. In 1968, campus group Students for a Democratic Society took over Low Memorial Library and the offices of Columbia's president, and the Majority Coalition formed a line around the library, eventually fist-fighting SDS' members. In an interview with the New York Times, Barr stated he took part in the fistfight, stating, "I was in the fistfight... I had the football team around me! I picked my opponents carefully."[2]
Regarding the first sentence you want to add, it's a complete non-sequitur with the preceding so I fail to see why it should be included. No opinion on the rest, though it might be a bit too much (i.e. WP:UNDUE, 3 sentences for what appears to be mostly one minor incident half a century ago). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Alright, I'll say it. If he gets impeached are we gonna keep it on this page because he isn't as relevant as Trump, or will he get three different pages as well (Inquiry, impeachment and impeachment trial)? I think we should communicate as the House gets ready to subpoena him. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 09:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Epstein
Barr oversaw the DOJ at the time of Epstein's incarceration and death, issued official statements to the news media about the case, and personally ordered ultiple, high-profile criminal investigations into the circumstances surrounding Epstein's suicide. One of these investigations has already resulted in criminal charges. All of these facts are undisputed, of widespread public interest, and deserve to be at least *mentioned* in the subsection on Barr's second AG tenure. I welcome discussion from fellow editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1120:60:15A8:9B92:B9C0:D8DF (talk) 23:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Ruby Ridge involvement- why the missing data?
Barr was AG during teh govts misconduct and murder of citiznes at Ruby Ridge. i see no references to his involvement or his promotion of gun confiscation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.63.244.241 (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
FinCEN
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change:
"Mary left her post at the Department of Justice as the Trump Administration's point woman on the opioid crisis"
This article focuses on a 1995 article Barr wrote when discussing his positions on social issues, but it fails to mention the multiple speeches he's made since his 2nd confirmation as AG explicitly calling for a stronger place for religion and morality in public life. This article should mention this. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Because Barr has spoken on this topic more than once since the beginning of 2019, we should clearly note this frequency, or add multiple sources from at least some of those speeches. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
because they reflect a continuing pattern of Barr supporting Trump's narratives. Those who closely follow these stories are well aware of it, while others may be less so. Removing this content removes vital context. The fact that the bulk of the text may refer to Trump rather than Barr is irrelevant.
They are clearly well sourced and directly related to Barr and his actions. I see no credible objection, since the relevant connection has been widely reported in RS. I believe this thread demonstrates my reinstatement reflects consensus. If that changes, I will self-revert per the page restriction. SPECIFICOtalk02:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
They do not mention Barr, thus they can't possibly be "directly related to Barr". If you have a an RS making the connection directly, you need to present it, otherwise , this is WP:SYN, and a credible objection. You are now in violation of the restriction on this page which states that 'You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article' . Please undo your edit, pending such consensus. Trying to reconnect (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Here are a few examples of RS's making these links between Trump's claims and Barr's:
And you will note that these statements (i.e the thugs related comment, or mail fraud) are still in the article, mentioning the Trump connection, and were not removed by me, as they had sources making that connection. But that's not what the disputed edits above are about. Trying to reconnect (talk)
When I look at the diff that Soibangla introduced at the top of this discussion, you removed claims about both voting and thugs. The reason that those claims are currently in the article is that your removal was reinstated by SPECIFICO. You then requested "an RS making the connection directly," so I gave some. Since you say "that's not what the disputed edits above are about," please clarify what you believe the disputed edits *are* about. Thanks. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
You are not following the chain of events closely. Those claims were in the article even after my removal, and were not reinstated by SPECIFICO. They are there because they use sources that mention Barr in connection to them. Conversely, the material I removed is a lengthy paragraph about Trump - In an August 2020 interview, Trump asserted that “people that are in the dark shadows” control his opponent Joe Biden, then claimed “we had somebody get on a plane from a certain city this weekend, and in the plane it was almost completely loaded with thugs, wearing these dark uniforms, black uniforms, with gear and this and that,” adding “they’re people that are on the streets. They’re people that are controlling the streets.” Antifa activists commonly dress in black. Trump’s remarks were similar to false social media rumors during preceding months that planes and buses full of antifa gangs were preparing to invade communities, allegedly funded by George Soros. - which is sourced to two NBC articles and one AZ central article which DO NOT MENTION BARR. They are then connected to an article mentioning Barr's later actions with an editorial comment that says "Two days later, Barr..."- this is obvious synthesis. The fact that the same claims also appear elsewhere in the article, supported by sources that DO mention Barr is yet another reason to removed them - there's no need for this sort of duplication in an article that is already very long. Trying to reconnect (talk) 14:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I did fix it- I removed the duplicate material inserted vi synthesis, and left in the claims that made the connection. You then broke it again, while violating a clear restriction on editing the article. I ask you again to undo that disruptive edit. Trying to reconnect (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Your concerns have been fully addressed. I suggest you step back and see whether any other editors appear who dissent from the current consensus. Then we can proceed from there. SPECIFICOtalk14:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
No, my concerns have not been addressed- they are repeated above for your convenience. The article now contains duplicate material, which was inserted via a disruptive edit and in violation of WP:SYN. I suggest you first undo your edit made (using a false edit summary) in violation of this restriction - "You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article", and the we can discuss what parts pf the challenged materiel can be restored without repeating material already in the article Trying to reconnect (talk) 15:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree that we should have a section in the article, about Barr supporting false claims by Trump, but I think the version being discussed here goes into way too much detail about what Trump said, rather than focusing on Barr. I have drafted a version that focuses on Barr; this article is about him, after all. But I see that the original version has been restored, complete with lots of quotes from Trump, so I will propose my version here. It minimizes the quoting from Trump and instead concentrates on Barr's echoing or supporting Trump's claims. I think we should say:
Barr has sometimes supported controversial or false statements made by Trump.[1] In an August 2020 interview, Trump claimed that a plane full of "thugs in dark uniforms", implying antifa, had recently flown from one unidentified city to another with the intention of fomenting riots. His claim appeared to be based on months-old social media rumors.[2][3] Two days later, Barr asserted he knew that antifa activists “are flying around the country” and “we are following them.”[4]
During the 2020 presidential campaign, Trump repeatedly claimed that voting by mail created a risk of widespread election fraud.[1] In a September 2020 CNN interview, Barr falsely asserted the Justice Department had indicted a Texas man for fraudulently completing 1,700 mail-in ballots. There was no such indictment, and the matter actually involved a series of errors by election officials during a county election, rather than fraud.[5] Barr also repeated a claim that foreign adversaries could flood the country with counterfeit ballots to disrupt the election, a threat that experts characterized as nearly impossible to execute.[6] Senior American intelligence officials have said there was no evidence any foreign powers intended to manipulate mail-in voting.[7] The day after Barr's interview, the Department of Homeland Security issued an intelligence bulletin warning that Russia is using social media and other venues to promote false claims that mail voting will lead to widespread fraud, in order "to undermine public trust in the electoral process."[8]
As I said immediately above, the current version seemed too wordy. So regardless of where we end up, I think MelanieN's version is an improvement. The only concern I have is that Barr has sometimes supported controversial or false statements made by Trump sounds as if it's incidental or trivial, while of course the reason for including it in the first place is that RS treat it as unprecedented and highly significant. So I would prefer Barr has supported controversial false statements made by Trump, arousing concern among the legal community and the public or something like that to contextualize the content. SPECIFICOtalk17:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I would have included a stronger statement, but I had trouble finding a source that was that explicit about Barr supporting Trump's falsehoods. I used this: "In Barr, Trump has powerful ally for challenging mail voting." Can you suggest a better, more comprehensive source that is still RS rather than opinion? -- MelanieN (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree that it's an improvement. I've been able to find a transcript for the video in the "Barr's response to Trump's claim stuns CNN reporter" link I posted above. The following excerpt from Perez is relevant: "I was stunned to see the Attorney General sort of try to hang some measure of truth to what the President seemed to be passing on, which was a conspiracy theory that has been living on Facebook. ... The Attorney General sort of was trying to grasps at straws to try to make that true. And that's part of the problem, Wolf, with the Attorney General and why he's perceived in the way he is. He's very defensive when people accuse them of trying to defend the President, being there simply for the sake of the President. And it's incidents like what we just saw today that make people make that accusation. And I think that's one of the problems for this Attorney General." Or Toobin's response is more concise: "it's all part of the theme that Evan described, which is the Attorney General acts as kind of a simultaneous translator. The President says something completely outrageous, completely false. And then the Attorney General says, well, know what he really meant was something less insane." Perhaps a short excerpt from this in Perez's or Toobin's voice would work as RSOPINION? -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
it is relevant to the section "Origins of the Russia investigation," because it shows the scope of that investigation has expanded
if the reverter wants to assert it's "not directly relevant to this article," then maybe we can discuss if the entire section is not relevant and remove it. until then, this particular edit should be restored soibangla (talk) 00:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Neither, I want to remove the parts that do not directly reference Barr. But yes, the entire section can go. This is not supposed to be a blow-by-blow account of political developments related to his 2nd tenure - but a bio of the man's life. Trying to reconnect (talk) 00:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I find the argumentation that simply because one edit in a section about an investigation he ordered does not mention his name, means that the edit is not relevant to him, to be amusing. A great deal about this investigation has been written in reliable sources for over a year and it is a major component of his "Second tenure," which itself will likely be at the core of biographies of him to be written in coming years, as it has really made an impression. soibangla (talk) 00:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
It is highly questionable whether a section on the "Origins of the Russia investigation" belongs in a biography of the man, certainly to the level of detail it currently has (eclipsing in length obviously relevant biographical details like his early lie, education of even his entire first tenure as AG). But it is beyond dispute that a comment about the investigation which does not even mention him does not belong. Trying to reconnect (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
COVID public health measures are the greatest civil rights violation since slavery?
The editor Emir of Wikipedia removed (i) Barr's rhetoric about COVID-related health measures (calling stay-at-home orders "the greatest intrusion on civil liberties in American history" since slavery) [12] and (ii) Barr's refusal to self-quarantine even though he interacted with COVID-positive individuals. The content meets WP:DUE, in particular the Attorney General's comments on COVID-related public health measures, as they illuminate his personal philosophy, and where he stands on an issue that is litigated in courts across the country. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Do you have a substantive rationale for removing well-sourced content about the Attorney General's comments on stay-at-home orders? This is the state's top law enforcement officer commenting on an issue that is (i) being addressed in courts across the United States, and (ii) the most pressing problem in the country. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Detailed final paragraph in lead
Does the final paragraph in the lead need to be so detailed? I don't think it illuminate about him so I trimmed it. When I did this I was accused by Snooganssnoogans of introducing "one sentence of weasel words about his tenure as AG under Trump", despite not introducing any new text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emir of Wikipedia (talk • contribs)
It is absurd to summarize his entire tenure as AG under Trump (and the lengthiest part of the body) with "During his ongoing term, he has received criticism from some for his handling of several challenges" and nothing else. The text says absolutely nothing, and could be transplanted into the bio of any politician. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Barr's full resignation letter is on Commons - it seems appropriate to update the resignation section with at least a reference? I'll give it a shot. What's the best way to modify the infobox to show end date in office? : AG Barr Resignaion Letter of 2020-12-14 21:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewell D D (talk • contribs)
Webster comment
I believe I addressed the objections to the original edit by replacing the primary source with two secondary RS, making the edit DUE. I restored before noticing DS, so reverted, but I suggest this content be restored.
The editor Rusf10 removed text sourced to three RS (NY Times, NPR, CNN) which summarized his tenure as AG in the Trump administration (the editor's edit summary falsely claimed that the content was "editorial", and "opinion"). The content in question belongs in the article and has long-term encyclopedic value. It's hard to think of encyclopedic content that is more DUE than RS content that specifically summarizes a tenure. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
The way this is written is biased and inaccurate. Barr explained before congress that the protesters were not peaceful. They set fire to the church, broke bones and caused other injuries to Secret Service personnel, etc. That is the reason tear gas was deployed against them. It was not done "so that President Trump could have a photo op", but it is true that Trump did do the photo op after the fact but that wasn't the reason why it was done. Barr compared it to MacArthur's landing in the Philippines during WW2. The Philippines campaign wasn't done "so that MacArthur could have a photo op".
Bottom line though, setting fire to churches and assaulting people is not "peaceful" by any definition. Tear gas was justifiably deployed in that situation. Tear gas is non-lethal crowd control and that's exactly what it was for. There was nothing wrong in how it was used in that situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C48:7C00:E767:2471:869E:EA74:1DE9 (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
All of this is uh, no. He used riot teams to clear out a church so he could take a selfie in front of it. None of this was justifiably deployed unless you believe you live in a dictatorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.221.146.230 (talk) 07:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Judge criticizes Barr as 'Not Worthy of Credence' and making ‘Disingenuous’ Claims
"mischaracterized summary and selective redaction" is not POV...
in reference to the Barr letter, as extensively documented by numerous reliable sources (and Mueller himself) in the body, which needs to be summarized in the lead, so this removal by LikkerdySplit should be restored. In fact, exclusion of "mischaracterized summary and selective redaction" is itself tacit POV, ironically similar to what Barr did in his letter. From the body:
The Department of Justice released a redacted version of the special counsel's report in the morning of April 18, 2019. After the release of the full report, fact-checkers and news outlets characterized Barr's initial letter as a deliberate mischaracterization of the Mueller Report and its conclusions. (six references provided) The New York Times reported instances in which the Barr letter omitted information and quoted sentence fragments out of context in ways that significantly altered the Mueller findings, including:
• A sentence fragment described only one possible motive for Trump to obstruct justice, while the Mueller report listed other possible motives.
• Omission of words and a full sentence that twice suggested there was knowing and complicit behavior between the Trump campaign and Russians that stopped short of coordination
• Omission of language that indicated Trump could be subject to indictment after leaving office, to suggest that Trump was cleared in full
According to the Associated Press, Barr "misrepresented the report in several ways," saying the report gave no indication that Congress could make a determination on obstruction of justice (the report specifically stated "that Congress may apply obstruction laws") and that "these reports are not supposed to be made public" (when DOJ regulations give the AG wide authority in releasing reports such as this one). Barr falsely claimed in his summary of the report that "the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel's investigation." The Washington Post fact-checker described Barr's claim as "astonishing" and PolitiFact said it was "false". In actuality, Trump declined to grant the Special Counsel an in-person interview, and the Special Counsel report characterized Trump's written responses to interview questions as "inadequate."
On March 25, Mueller reportedly wrote a letter to Barr, as described in the New York Times as "expressing his and his team's concerns that the attorney general had inadequately portrayed their conclusions". In USA Today it was described that Mueller "expressed his differences with Barr".
On March 27, Mueller sent Barr another letter describing his concerns of Barr's letter to Congress and the public on March 24. In it, Mueller complained that the summary "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance" of the Special Counsel's probe, adding, "There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations." Both before and after the release of Barr's summary, Mueller repeatedly tried to get Barr to release the report's introductions and executive summaries.
Question.
Is William Barry the same Bill Barr whom was VP of the Smart Card Forum.
Who in the 1990's predicted 'most Americans will have a smart card in their pocket by 2001'
The SCF was a consortium of banks credit card companies and technology firms. 208.38.231.37 (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
