The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been
designated as a contentious topic.
This article was nominated for
deletion on 5 December 2017. The result of
the discussion was keep.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the
legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the
scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please
Join,
Create, and
Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
Peter Strzok is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of
espionage,
intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the
project page, or contribute to the
discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
Minnesota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Donald Trump, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Donald Trump on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Donald TrumpWikipedia:WikiProject Donald TrumpTemplate:WikiProject Donald TrumpDonald Trump articles
Questions about Masters degree in relation to Army and FBI
Peter’s resume doesn’t make sense. How could he receive his Masters , then Army, then FBI in that short of time? Also, where is his CIA employment?
24.107.155.225 (
talk)
04:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Undergrad program 1987-1991, Army 1991-1996, FBI 1996-2018. A Masters is not a full-day commitment like a job, you work on it over time, and he completed his in 2013 while an FBI agent. Strzok was never in the CIA, that is a QAnon-fueled fantasy.
ValarianB (
talk)
12:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Deletion of material from lead without any explanation or discussion
This edit deletes well-sourced accurate information from the lead, with the following edit summary: "BLP violation mischaracterizing source". No hint is given by
User:SPECIFICO what the mischaracterization is, or what part of
WP:BLP is violated. The deleted material in the lead is indicated by strikethrough:
“
A comprehensive review in February 2018 of Strzok's messages by The Wall Street Journal concluded that "texts critical of Mr. Trump represent a fraction of the roughly 7,000 messages, which stretch across 384 pages and show no evidence of a conspiracy against Mr. Trump".[1]Several months later, in July 2018, additional text messages were released by the
United States Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, which showed that agent Strzok had promised to stop Trump from being elected president.[2]
If you are withdrawing your assertion of a BLP violation, please say so. Otherwise, I'll take this straight to
WP:BLPN (I will probably go there anyway). Your assertion that Strzok was merely engaging in untruthful and insincere "pillowtalk" is interesting, but the cited New York Times article indicates otherwise. Moreover, you're wildly off base if you think the DOJ inspector general was engaging in pillow talk when he released the additional text messages. If all of these text messages were pillow talk, then we should not be mentioning any texts in the lead at all, but you seem to only like to call texts "pillowtalk" when they reflect poorly upon Mr. Strzok,
User:SPECIFICO. You are engaged in "excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view" which is explicitly forbidden by
WP:NPOV.
Anythingyouwant (
talk)
04:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I have rephrased and reinserted the material. This addresses your concerns and mine too. Also, the lead no longer gives the FALSE and DISHONEST impression that Strzok was fired from the FBI for text messages that the Wall Street Journal had found unproblematic.
Anythingyouwant (
talk)
04:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)reply
The lead says, “On August 10, 2018, FBI deputy director David Bowdich fired Strzok for the text messages in spite of the fact that the FBI's employee disciplinary office had recommended that Strzok only be suspended for 60 days and demoted.” I suggest that a more neutral and concise phrasing would replace “in spite of the fact that” with “after”.
Per
MOS:EDITORIAL, “When used to link two statements, words such as but, despite, however, and although may imply a relationship where none exists, possibly unduly calling the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second.” Indeed, the current language in the lead calls into question the firing while giving undue weight to the disciplinary action.
It’s true that the cited WaPo article uses language similar to “in spite of” (i.e. “even though”) but that was in course of describing what Strzok’s attorney had said, rather than in WaPo-voice:
Aitan Goelman, Strzok’s attorney, said FBI Deputy Director David L. Bowdich ordered the firing Friday, even though the director of the FBI office that usually handles employee discipline had decided that Strzok, 48, should face only a demotion and a 60-day suspension.
Your proposal sounds reasonable. I quickly reviewed ten reliable sources (not cited in our article, AFAIK) that mentioned "60-day suspension" and all except one specifically attributed the statement to Strzok's attorney.
Politrukki (
talk)
16:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)reply
That last change doesn't completely catch the situation. Sometimes a "but" or "even though" is most accurate. Mentioning the lawyer's statement serves the purpose of alerting the reader to the unusual context. It is now without context and reads as if a road is smooth, without warning the reader that there is actually a huge bump they should have noticed. Without mentioning the lawyer, the original was better. Keep in mind that
MOS:EDITORIAL and
WP:WTW are only guidelines that can and should be ignored at times. --
Valjean (
talk) (PING me)
17:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)reply
The lead currently says, “On August 10, 2018, FBI deputy director David Bowdich fired Strzok for the text messages after the FBI's employee disciplinary office had recommended that Strzok only be suspended for 60 days and demoted.” This seems simple and accurate, no?
Anythingyouwant (
talk)
18:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes, technically correct, but missing vital context and thus somewhat misleading. The sources provide us vital information we are withholding by not giving it more weight with the language we are suppressing. That's not right. We must convey that information. The attribution is a good thing, but not sufficient to do that. It works in the body, but the lead also needs it.
I have underlined key text differences below:
Original lead: "On August 10, 2018,
FBI deputy directorDavid Bowdich fired Strzok for the text messages in spite of the fact that the FBI's employee disciplinary office had recommended that Strzok only be suspended for 60 days and demoted."
Current lead: "On August 10, 2018,
FBI deputy directorDavid Bowdich fired Strzok for the text messages after the FBI's employee disciplinary office had recommended that Strzok only be suspended for 60 days and demoted."
Suggested: "On August 10, 2018,
FBI deputy directorDavid Bowdich fired Strzok for the text messages in spite of the fact that, according to his lawyer, the FBI's employee disciplinary office had recommended that Strzok only be suspended for 60 days and demoted."
Yes, I have IAR as guidelines are not policies/rules, just recommendations that we all know should be ignored at times. This is such a time. By including attribution in the lead, we make it clear that the lawyer is trying to make the "in spite of" point, a point we have to make for them. --
Valjean (
talk) (PING me)
19:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Alternatively, how about if we simply add a footnote in the article body?
According to the LA Times, “Peter Strzok, the FBI agent whose anti-Trump text messages to a colleague during the 2016 campaign have been cited by the president as evidence of bias within the agency, has been fired….Strzok had initially been demoted and given a 60-day suspension after the bureau’s traditional independent review.” The lead already tracks that pretty well. I’ve just inserted the footnote.
Anythingyouwant (
talk)
20:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)reply
My suggestion, to be a little more clear about what is being attributed and to whom:
"On August 10, 2018,
FBI deputy directorDavid Bowdich fired Strzok because of the text messages. Strzok's lawyer said the dismissal happened despite a recommendation by the FBI's employee disciplinary office for only a 60 day suspension and demotion."
The LA Times does not rely upon the lawyer for the fact that Strzok was first given a lesser penalty by the office of professional responsibility before being fired. Adding the lawyer’s opinion into the lead is therefore unnecessary, doesn’t add much, and is kind of one-sided, because the lawyer would be expected to side with the lesser penalty whereas the FBI lawyers would be expected to take the other side.
Anythingyouwant (
talk)
21:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)reply
IP’s proposal to merge book article into this article
As a merge proposal has been suggested, but no discussion at the book article's talk page (as there should be), I'm pinging the article's creator.
User:Dcw2003.
I don’t expect any response here at the talk page, so why should I bother making a proposal here? For example, restoration of the merge tag hasn’t been explained here even though someone removed it at the other article. Nor has any alternative way of shortening the lead been suggested here, so that tag can be removed,
User:SPECIFICO. Nor has any explanation been given for reverting
this edit which inserted a date into a footnote. When edits are reverted for no reason, with no explanation, it’s hard to see what point is served by making formal proposals at the talk page.
Anythingyouwant (
talk)
19:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)reply