Talk:William Barr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Vital Statistics[edit]

Age/D.o.B. would be good here? 172.97.207.7 (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 7 December 2018[edit]

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: moved(closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 15:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC)



– (after moving William Barr to William Barr (disambiguation), per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Yes, he was just nominated to be US AG (again), so there may be some WP:RECENTISM concerns, but given the page view counts all the other uses are so obscure it's clear that this nomination alone establishes this William Barr as primary topic for the foreseeable future. В²C 17:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I have changed this to a multi-move. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - likely a good idea. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in agreement with the nomination statement.--Bob from the Beltway (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support is my inclination, but I would like to know if there is any potential confusion involving other similarly named people with or without middle initials. (However I should be regarded as rather ignorant and I don't even know where to look for Wikipedia's policies on article names or middle initials. Notwithstanding, my personal preference would be to go with the person's own preference about the name.) Shanen (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
    • WP's policy is to follow usage in reliable sources. For example, the singer Cat Stevens has gone by Yusuf Islam for decades, but we keep the article at Cat Stevens because that's how he is most commonly referred to in reliable sources. All of the reliable sources that I can find don't refer to this William Barr with his middle initial, so his WP:COMMONNAME is "William Barr". But, then, there are other William Barrs who have the same COMMONNAME. So prior to this nomination we had no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "William Barr", and thus it was appropriate to have a "disambiguation page" at William Barr. That's no longer the case; the nomination changes everything. --В²C 18:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Clearly the primary topic. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support w1n5t0n (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:F8D2:1EE7:484D:EC37 (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. – Braxton C. Womacktalk to me! 23:11, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support this logical suggestion per reasoning in the nom. – Athaenara 04:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Question: it was moved and then moved back again? (Log.) – Athaenara 16:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, primary topic. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 02:31, 11 December 2018 (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.

Trump-related Issues[edit]

As Mr. Barr has recently been nominated to high office, it would be useful if those with access to his speeches and writings could put together any positions he may have taken with regard to divine right of kings, high crimes and misdemeanors, rape, sexual assault, incest and presidential immunity. NRPanikker (talk) 13:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

While it may be arguable that those topics are relevant for Trump's presidency, this is still clearly a trolling recommendation of something for inclusion Workster 03:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Workster (talkcontribs)

The section pertaining to Trump and the 2016 campaign reads like a condemnation. Having sources doesn't mean what you write isn't wholly biased to one side of the isle or the other. Whoever worked on that section: don't you think Barr has done one single thing in 2016, 2017, 2018, or 2019 that wasn't "running cover" for President Trump? I think the section needs reworked to at least have some semblance of balance. AnonElectricSheep (talk) 05:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

"Succeeding" Whitaker[edit]

As he has not yet been confirmed, I would rather he was called the "nominee", not "succeeding" Whitaker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.166.102.21 (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Columbia University Degree[edit]

As far as I know, Columbia doesn't offer an undergraduate degree in government, nor has it in the past. It does offer a major in political science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.204.153 (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2019[edit]

I have found errors in your description of Barr's letter regarding the Special Counsel findings. Your report that their is "no evidence" is incorrect. Barr actually wrote that Mueller "did not establish" a prosecution level, which means that the evidence does not rise to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" level but it does not suggest "no evidence". We need to get this right! Thank you. 66.241.81.241 (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done a few days ago by BenKovitz ~ Amory (utc) 14:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2019[edit]

Barr could not have received his MA from Columbia College. CC does not award MAs. It would have had to have been awarded by the School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA), or (less likely) the graduate school of arts and sciences. Consider changing "Columbia College" to "Columbia University" to make it technically correct. 160.39.142.173 (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done Source just says Columbia College. NiciVampireHeart 20:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


Draft status?[edit]

What do we know about this gentleman's draft status? ''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 04:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

He is 68 years old. That is a little old to be serving in the military. --rogerd (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Photo of Barr receiving oath of office: Do we know for sure that the pictured book is a Bible?[edit]

Seriously, I do realize that some Bibles have (Oh, what do you call those fingertip-accessible impressions, in the page edges of dictionaries and some other books, to serve as shortcuts, external bookmarks of a kind, to certain locations...? —In a dictionary, they often subdivide individual letters of the alphabet; e.g., Ai, Aq, Ba, Bh, ...). However, the book on which Mr. Barr has his left hand really does look like a dictionary to me. Does anybody have actual evidence (rather than just general knowledge of what is customary) as to the nature & identity of the book? Thanks in advance. --IfYouDoIfYouDon't (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

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

[1] Have a go at this if you want. I'm also posting this at Mueller Report 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 08:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

FYI this is not a joke. There is a chance that the report cannot be hosted on commons due to a handful of images with unknown copyright status present in the report. - PaulT+/C 19:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

The lede should cover his actions as AG[edit]

An editor removed this paragraph[2] from the lede:

  • Prior to his appointment as Attorney General in the Trump administration, Barr had publicly criticized Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, and criticized the probe for purportedly examining alleged obstruction of justice by President Trump. In March 2019, when Mueller concluded the investigation and submitted a report on the probe's findings, Barr had become Attorney General. Barr released a four-page summary of the Mueller report and held a press conference; when the full report was published, fact-checkers and news outlets noted that Barr had mischaracterized several aspects of the probe. Mueller himself had sent Barr a letter shortly after the release of the four-page summary, where Mueller said the summary "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance" of the probe's findings.

The argument for removing it was "This shouldn't be added to the lead, unless consensus is reached on the talk page (or unless the lead is significantly expanded to include other important parts of his political career)." However, this is the issue that's covered at greatest length in the body of his Wikipedia article, and clearly an issue that will define his life and career (if he does more notable things in his career, then the lede can be updated), and which has long-term encyclopedic value. The only other single issue that's covered at any length other than this in the body is Barr's advice that GHW Bush pardon actors involved in the Iran-Contra scandal while the investigation was on-going. Perhaps we can add a sentence on that. Are there any other issues that should be in the lede?

At the very least, it's absurd that the AG only has ONE lede paragraph. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

A statement was added to the lead without any consensus. I found errors and reverted the statement by Snooganssnoogans claiming that:
  • "Prior to his appointment as Attorney General in the Trump administration, Barr had publicly criticized Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, and criticized the probe for purportedly examining alleged obstruction of justice by President Trump. In March 2019, when Mueller concluded the investigation and submitted a report on the probe's findings, Barr had become Attorney General. Barr released a four-page summary of the Mueller report and held a press conference; when the full report was published, fact-checkers and news outlets noted that Barr had mischaracterized several aspects of the probe. Mueller himself had sent Barr a letter shortly after the release of the four-page summary, where Mueller said the summary "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance" of the probe's findings."
There are no citations for this description and I reverted this edit and want to confirm that there shouldn't be any non-neutral political statements that relate with William Barr's career in the lead section. This distorts his profile on the page in terms of important parts of his career. My rationale was that: "This shouldn't be added to the lead, unless consensus is reached on the talk page (or unless the lead is significantly expanded to include other important parts of his political career)." This issue is not covered at greatest length in the body of the article. Snooganssnoogans added extraneous information that is not considered in the body paragraphs. The term "long-term encyclopedic value" is an opinion that doesn't mean it should be used to defame the lead of a political figure. The editor should cite their sources and then keep this under a section other than the lead. Can I get consensus from other people to agree that the article should remain at a one paragraph lead? Thank you! Kozak4512 (talk) 04:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
(1) The citations for this are all in the body. A lede doesn't require cites if they are already in the body, but I'd be happy to add them to the lede if that's your true concern.
(2) Please point out what parts of the lede are "not considered in the body paragraphs".
(3) This is the subject that's covered at greatest length in the body of the article, as it encompasses the whole "Mueller investigation and report" sub-section and half of the "Comments about the Trump administration" sub-section. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Kozak4512. 84percent (talk) 23:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Could you elaborate? Do you agree with Kozak's false claim that the content was unsourced, his false claim that this is not the issue covered at greatest length in the body and/or the false claim the text didn't mirror anything in the body? Or do you agree with some other aspect? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans, you've been warned and previously banned for your uncivility. I recommend you work on your communication skills. As I said, I agree with Kozak4512 -- it's implied that I agree with his points in whole. 84percent (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much 84percent for your agreement on this consensus. Much appreciated. Kozak4512 (talk) 06:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Do you intend to respond to the points I made? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Bar admission[edit]

In what jurisdictions has he been admitted to the bar and therefore is licensed to practice law?

Prior to his appointment by President Trump, Chicago law firm, Kirkland & Ellis employed him (an international law firm and arguably the most influential law firm in existence today). He graduated with a JD degree, with highest honors, in 1977 from George Washington University Law School. Hope this helped. B'H. 69.113.157.12 (talk) 08:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

This Assertion By Somebody is Patently Not True.[edit]

I'm not finding that in the article. It must have been removed already. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

During Barr’s first appearance before Congress in April, Sen. Chris Van Hollen asked the attorney general out right, “Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion?” Barr looked the Maryland Democrat in the eye and responded, “I don’t know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion.” That was a straight-out lie. He knew exactly how Mueller felt because Mueller had told him in the letter the month before.

Iran contra[edit]

The subsection on Iran Contra, under the U.S. Attorney general section, seems unnecessarily harsh. and a bit pointless. It all comes down to the idea that Barr may have advised the president to make a pardon, but it reads like "Let's get revenge for whatever we wanted to complain about," especially since Barr was unanimously approved by the judiciary Committee the first time. I will leave it intact and let others read it and see what they think.Princetoniac (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Princetoniac, I took "controversy" out of the section header per WP:CSECTION and cut out a little bit of the WP:PUFFERY. That should help some. Do you have any specific suggestions? Barr's confirmation was prior to this, so it's not at all relevant. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your edit, Muboshgu. I just now noticed that much of the section is based on footnotes retrieved in the last two weeks, which means the section may not have existed at the start of the year, before Mr. Barr became attorney general a second time. Thus, I will just say the Iran contra section could be condensed to a sentence or two, considering how long ago the incident took place. I will give it a try without deleting the whole thing and see if it works.Princetoniac (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

My edit was quickly reverted by Soibangla, who stated that I did not explain the edit, which implies he/she did not read this section of the talk page. I do not want to start an edit war but if a revert should occur only after reviewing the discussion.Princetoniac (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Princetoniac, you should have at the least used an edit summary to make your edit's purpose clearer. You can't expect that every reader will read every section of every talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

You have a good point Moboshgu Princetoniac (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Princetoniac, also that's not the right way to ping another editor. You're using brackets, the way we would link to articles. Use {{u}} or {{ping}}, which will ping the editor you want to ping. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

My original edit was appropriate and should be restored, and anyone can see my contributions on Wikipedia have been on a wide variety of subjects. A look at the contributions page of Soibangla shows that every edit he makes is related to Donald Trump. Princetoniac (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you've also noticed that very few of my edits are reverted. Would you care to guess why? Just include an edit summary and there will be no drama. soibangla (talk) 23:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit reverted and need consensus per discretionary sanctions...[edit]

My most recent edit was reverted with two minutes by PunxtawneyPickle with no explanation whatsoever and since the page has discretionary sanctions, I am here.

This is the edit that I made compared:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Barr&type=revision&diff=895255657&oldid=895255435

Aviartm (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Your text removes Mueller's POV and insert's Barr's. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 01:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
PunxtawneyPickle No, it does not.
My edit:
On March 27, Mueller sent Barr a 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". The letter prompted Barr to call Mueller to discuss about his letter. Barr clarified on the intention of his letter in both his phone call with Barr and in another letter to Congress that his letter was not intended to be a summary of the report, but rather serve as a description of the principal findings of the report. On April 10, 2019, in one of his testimonies before the House Judiciary Committee, Barr said "I don’t know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion."
Currently:
On March 25, the day after the release of Barr's summary, Mueller himself sent Barr a private letter, the contents of which were reported by The Washington Post in late April 2019. 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". After Mueller sent his letter, the men discussed the matter on the phone. On March 27 Mueller sent another letter, again criticizing Barr's summary and urging Barr to immediately release the report's own introductions and summaries; however, Barr did not release them. Later Barr testified to the House Judiciary Committee on April 10, 2019: "I don’t know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion."
There are also factual errors on the page currently. The current edit implies that the March 25 letter says "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance," when that was the March 27 letter.1, 2, 3, 4, etc.
Verbatim, Mueller's current POV was never tampered it. Aviartm (talk) 01:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
The part I'm objecting to is "Barr clarified on the intention of his letter in both his phone call with Barr and in another letter to Congress that his letter was not intended to be a summary of the report, but rather serve as a description of the principal findings of the report." PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
PunxtawneyPickle Not the same thing but I'll address that. What you quoted, which is what I added, is true. "In their call, Barr also took issue with Mueller calling his memo a “summary,” saying he had never intended to summarize the voluminous report, but instead provide an account of its top conclusions, officials said." – Washington Post. "They said Barr also repeated that his letter was not intended to be a summary of the report. The department spokeswoman described the phone call as "cordial and professional."" – NBC News. "“The Attorney General and the Special Counsel agreed to get the full report out with necessary redactions as expeditiously as possible,” Kupec’s statement continued. “The next day, the Attorney General sent a letter to Congress reiterating that his March 24 letter was not intended to be a summary of the report, but instead only stated the Special Counsel’s principal conclusions, and volunteered to testify before both Senate and House Judiciary Committees on May 1st and 2nd.”" – Politico... Note: ""Barr clarified on the intention of his letter in both his phone call with Barr (Meant to say Mueller, not Barr)..." Aviartm (talk) 03:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no need for us to use the word "summary" at all. Our description of Barr's letter says "On March 24, Barr wrote a four-page letter to Congress describing what he said were the report's principal conclusions." He didn't call it a summary, and he later disavowed the word. But we use the word "summary" three or four times in the paragraph that begins "On March 25, the day after the release of Barr's summary". Just replace our word "summary" with "letter" or "memo" and the problem goes away. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

During Barr’s call to Mueller, he describes a point in which Mueller adds that the media is misleading the findings. The exact quote should be added to the end of that conversation so this section isn’t so blatantly biased. LordWilliamII (talk) 05:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

How much does Barr Weigh?[edit]

How much does Barr Weigh?

Completely irrelevant. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I do infer that this secret no signature person wants dumbbell.

More importantly there is no contempt listed.

Dhsert (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Mueller report and contempt of Congress in the lead[edit]

I'm trying to gauge the consensus about whether it's appropriate for the lead to have that passage. Any thoughts? El_C 02:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts does not mean reverting without even an explanatory edit summary, not to mention failing to participate in this section about the particular dispute, here. Needless to say, user sanctioned and further sanctions will follow for edit warring on this page. No more warnings. El_C 11:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I support a variation of that passage which goes:
  • "Prior to his appointment as Attorney General in the Trump administration, Barr had publicly criticized Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, and criticized the probe for purportedly examining alleged obstruction of justice by President Trump. In March 2019, when Mueller concluded the investigation and submitted a report on the probe's findings, Barr had become Attorney General. Barr released a four-page summary of the Mueller report and held a press conference; when the full report was published, fact-checkers and news outlets noted that Barr had mischaracterized several aspects of the probe. Mueller himself had sent Barr a letter shortly after the release of the four-page summary, where Mueller said the summary "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance" of the probe's findings."
... but which includes the contempt charge. The reasons for including it is that this is the issue that's covered at greatest length in the body of his Wikipedia article, and clearly an issue that will define his life and career (if he does more notable things in his career, then the lede can be updated), and which has long-term encyclopedic value. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Support I find that an alright lead, assuming no one has objections to it.. ZiplineWhy (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
It feels UNDUE for the lead, at the moment. He hasn't been held in contempt yet, requiring a full vote from the House. If or after that happens it could be re-assessed. As such, it's also missing a bit of context as to why he withheld the report, claiming that it was a violation of law to release material not in compliance with Rule 6e. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I thought that normally if material is challenged then consensus must be established before re-inserting it. I’ve just checked the history and the DS placed on this article, and technically the re-addition of the material after the revert is a violation. The material in question should not be in the article at the moment. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
The user was blocked for that revert, yes. El_C 14:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
But the challenged material is still on the page, which is what the DS tries to prevent. You need to remove it until there is consensus for inclusion, per the DS. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't need to do anything. But you are free to revert back to the status quo ante. El_C 14:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Well I was asking you to do it because you’re an administrator. A lowly editor like me risks a block. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
No, that's not the case. And you weren't asking. But I am sorry you feel that this is the environment in which you edit. At the event, it has been reverted since. In order for it to be reverted back, the addition need to enjoy consensus. Thanks. El_C 15:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
This is a piece of breaking news so I think we need to give it a bit of a waiting period to see what the historical effect will be. Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

For what its worth, the editor Kozak4512 appears to hold a brazenly unprincipled and inconsistent position on the issue. While he's edit-warring to remove text from the William Barr article, he's simultaneously edit-warring to insert nearly identical text into the Janet Reno article.[3] Thus, his views on the issue should IMO not count for anything because there is zero adherence to any sort of principles or consistent interpretation of Wikipedia policy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I kind of agree with you here - these gestures by an opposition party committee or Congress seem to be entirely political. Would be nice to see RS write up a good summary of the history and precedent here. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
This shouldn't be included in the lead since this has been edited by hundreds of wikipedians over the years, who did not feel that this was notable enough for inclusion in the lede. We don't start revising history simply because of current events, when those events are not specifically and directly related to _this particular person's BLP_. Now after a consensus is already reached, another talk page is being opened up to try to include this in the lead when it should not be. I agree with Cosmic Sans that we should wait until there is a notable historical effect from this event. Instead, some editors want to immediately include this in the lead, which completely distorts the nuetrality of his profile. I would also like to ask that this nonsense edit-warring started by Snooganssnoogans to stop and for him to stop blaming me and other users for a edit-war he started. It is unfair to say the least. Kozak4512 (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
The event DID NOT OCCUR before this month. How would this be representative of "hundreds of editors" (nevertheless one) opposing adding it to the lead? ZiplineWhy (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems appropriate to me. The allegation that he misrepresented the contents of the Mueller report has received a significant amount of public attention, and the other AG who has been held in contempt of Congress - Eric Holder - has had the votes against him included in his lead as well.ZiplineWhy (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

The question isn't whether it is notable or not, but whether it is DUE for inclusion in the lead. Factually you are incorrect - Barr hasn't been held in contempt of Congress yet. Mr Ernie (talk) 07:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

In the section named "Mueller investigation and Report" I am taking out the phrase, "in remarks apparently intended to excuse Trump's potentially obstructive behavior," which seems to violate NPOV. The phrase refers to Barr;'s motives and private thoughts which cannot be known.Princetoniac (talk) 00:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

No, it refers to the context of the comments. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Princetoniac - we aren't in any position to speculate as to intentions. We should just stick to the facts. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

In the same section, the phrase "Barr falsely claimed" should be changed to "Barr claimed." I suggest thatsaying "falsely' is POV as well.Princetoniac (talk) 00:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

No, that's literally what the RS say. It would be a NPOV vio not to describe a false statement as false. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Contempt of Congress Section[edit]

I added a little more detail as to the vote for contempt of congress. The old section appeared to claim that the Judiciary voted to hold Barr in contempt because he misrepresented the Mueller report, which was not actually the reason. The reason was that Barr failed to comply with a subpoena that requested the entire Mueller report. I added a cite to support that and also included the Justice Department's position on the matter. I'm sure this section will fill out in greater detail as these events progress. Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I also clarified that he is not yet in contempt. The matter is now in the hands of the entire House of Representatives for a vote. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Expand lede beyond one short paragraph[edit]

Should the second paragraph be added to the lede (excluding the citations which are already in the body)?: Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

William Pelham Barr (born May 23, 1950) is an American attorney. He was appointed by Donald Trump as the 85th United States Attorney General, and has served in that role since February 14, 2019. He had previously served in the position from 1991 to 1993, in the administration of George H. W. Bush. Before becoming attorney general the first time, Barr held numerous other posts within the Department of Justice, including serving as Deputy Attorney General from 1990 to 1991. He is a member of the Republican Party.

Prior to his appointment as Attorney General in the Trump administration, Barr had publicly criticized Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, and criticized the probe for purportedly examining alleged obstruction of justice by President Trump[1][2][3][4][5] In March 2019, when Mueller concluded the investigation and submitted a report on the probe's findings, Barr had become Attorney General. Barr released a four-page summary of the Mueller report; when the full report was published, fact-checkers and news outlets noted that Barr had mischaracterized several aspects of the probe.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12] Mueller himself had sent Barr a letter shortly after the release of the four-page summary, where Mueller said the summary "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance" of the probe's findings.[12]

References

  1. ^ Zapotosky, Matt (July 5, 2017). "As Mueller builds his Russia special-counsel team, every hire is under scrutiny". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 16, 2019.
  2. ^ Sommer, Will (June 17, 2017). "Trump allies hit Mueller on relationship with Comey". The Hill. Retrieved March 28, 2019.
  3. ^ Watkins, Eli (March 26, 2019). "Barr authored memo last year ruling out obstruction of justice". CNN. Retrieved May 2, 2019.
  4. ^ Gurman, Sadie; Viswanatha, Aruna (December 20, 2018). "Trump's Attorney General Pick Criticized an Aspect of Mueller Probe in Memo to Justice Department". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved March 28, 2019.
  5. ^ Blake, Aaron (January 15, 2019). "Barr confirms he shared his Mueller memo with lots of people around Trump". The Washington Post.
  6. ^ Savage, Charlie (April 20, 2019). "How Barr's Excerpts Compare to the Mueller Report's Findings". The New York Times. Retrieved April 21, 2019.
  7. ^ Rizzo, Salvador (April 19, 2019). "What Attorney General Barr said vs. what the Mueller report said". The Washington Post. Retrieved April 21, 2019.
  8. ^ "3 times Mueller and Barr gave different pictures of Trump obstruction probe". PBS NewsHour. April 19, 2019. Retrieved May 1, 2019.
  9. ^ Eliason, Randall D. (April 19, 2019). "William Barr's incredibly misleading words". The Washington Post. Retrieved April 21, 2019.
  10. ^ Chait, Jonathan (April 18, 2019). "Congress Should Impeach William Barr". Intelligencer. New York. Retrieved April 21, 2019.
  11. ^ "Did Trump 'fully' cooperate with Mueller investigation? No". politifact. Retrieved April 23, 2019.
  12. ^ a b "Did Attorney General Barr mislead Congress?". The Washington Post. 2019.

Please indicate whether you support or oppose something similar to the above text, along with your reasoning. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

  • Support: Recent events are the most notable of Barr's career and should be in lead, as should mention he is proponent of unitary executive theory of expansive presidential authority. soibangla (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support If memory serves, this was in the article lead at one point but got removed. Yes, these are recent events, but they are massively covered on an ongoing basis, and they do need to be summarized in the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC) P.S. However, the proposed paragraph is way overcited. The first paragraph of the lead contains no references, as is usual for a lead. This proposal contains 12 - all of which are repeated in the text. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Non-neutral in many ways. Basically reads as a polemic against Barr and gives much too much weight to the current controversy. R2 (bleep) 00:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as UNDUE. The majority of the lead would then be devoted to the last few months of his life and career. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • This is by far the most sizable part of his Wikipedia article. If there is anything else that this man has done and which is notable, it should be added to the body and then possibly to the lede if the depth of coverage justifies it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as UNDUE. We have to be mindful of recentism, and the fact that this story is still developing on a daily basis. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: PER WP:WEIGHT. The level of coverage warrant it to be in the lede. This will certainly define his term as AG and will clearly be important in WP:10.Casprings (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. The level and tone of current coverage makes it reasonable to conclude that this is the defining feature of his tenure as AG, which is patiently the most notable part of his career. --Aquillion (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. This is the single issue that's covered at greatest length in the body of his Wikipedia article, and clearly an issue that will define his life and career (if this 68-year old man does more notable things in his career, then the lede can be updated), and which has long-term encyclopedic value. If there are other notable things that Barr has done in his past, then they need to be added to the body and then we can evaluate whether they are covered at sufficient depth to be included in the lede. We can perhaps add a line about his advocacy for the unitary executive theory, as well as a line about his role in the Iran-Contra scandal. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose UNDUE and POV-pushing. This covers a small portion of his career. --rogerd (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • This is by far the most sizable part of his Wikipedia article. If there is anything else that this man has done and which is notable, please point it out. Also, point out what part of this is a NPOV violation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • It's only sizeable due to a lot of coatracking and recentism issues.--MONGO (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as UNDUE weight. Barr has had a long career and the article as it currently sits is plagued by serious recentism issues. I suggest a split off of some of those more recent issues to better comply with BLP on the primary biographical page.--MONGO (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
This article is basically the poster child for recentism. Cosmic Sans (talk) 02:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support . According to WP guidelines, the lead should "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Can't get more prominent than something that's been mentioned by Trump himself and his supporters and opponents practically on a daily basis since Trump took office. Barr prominently inserted himself into the controversy with his summary exoneration of Trump. Even staunch Trump supporter Napolitano called his memo a "foolish attempt to sanitize the Mueller report. It was misleading, disingenuous and deceptive. Also, because Barr knew that all or nearly all of the Mueller report would soon enter the public domain, it was dumb and insulting." (Newsweek, The Hill) Keeping s.th. like this out of the lead is non-neutral and POV-pushing (see "sanitize"). I'd shorten it, 'though. Instead of a lengthy explanation on this page, I edited the lead and then self-reverted.
Controversies predating Wikipedia (e.g., his role in the Iran-Contra cover-up, instituting—at the time illegal—wiretapping of Americans in 1992 (kinda ironic, isn't it?), incarceration) not being mentioned in the lead—yet—is not a good reason to suppress mention of the ongoing big one. What ARE the positive things he is known for? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as POV-pushing a particular counter-opinion of Barr's own opinion. Also undue detail and recentism. — JFG talk 22:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • There is no dispute in RS that Barr misrepresented aspects of the probe. It's not "opinion". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - This is relevant and important background. I agree with Space4Time3Continuum2x's explanation above. Still, it is probably best to identify who the specific "fact-checkers" and news outlets are to avoid weasel issues. We should be clear about "who says".--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Trump's "frustrations"[edit]

The editor Aviartm has twice within 23hrs altered text so that it no longer makes clear that Barr's claims about Trump's frustrations mitigating his obstructing were not in Mueller's report (despite Barr's suggestion). Aviartm's change should be reverted. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

What Wikipedia said prior:
"however, the report gave no indication that Trump's frustrations with the investigation would mitigate obstructing behavior." – 1
What Wikipedia says now:
"Further, Mueller’s report did not say that Trump’s frustration mitigated the evidence of obstruction." – 2
As editors of Wikipedia, we need to abide by RS. Looking at the RS and the attributed text in Wikipedia prior to my edit, they were not matching. I initially removed it but after looking even further, the meaning was still inherently distorted. My newest edit is taken from Cit: 88 on the page from the Washington Post: "Mueller’s report does not say Trump’s anger and frustration mitigated the evidence of obstruction." Furthermore, 1 is discussing about the contents of the Mueller Report, not Barr's take. 1 is also implying that Trump's frustrations mitigated "obstructing behavior", when that is not true given the RSs on the page. Aviartm (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Are you going to self-revert your 1RR violation or not? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
The text needs to make absolutely clear that Barr's statement was misleading. This is what the WaPo says, "Barr seemed to excuse some of Trump’s attacks and roadblocks of the Mueller investigation by saying that “as the Special Counsel’s report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that the President was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks.” Mueller’s report does not say Trump’s anger and frustration mitigated the evidence of obstruction."[4] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
As 1RR is a branch of 3RR: "The one-revert rule is analogous to the three-revert rule as described above, with the words "more than three reverts" replaced by "more than one revert"."; exceptions are also applied. You also proved my point. Wikipedia currently mentions half of the quote that you said:
Wikipedia: "During a press conference, Barr said Mueller's report contained "substantial evidence" that Trump was "frustrated and angered" because of his belief that the "investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks". (Whoever added the quote broke it up into sections but that is the same quote)
WaPo: "Barr seemed to excuse some of Trump’s attacks and roadblocks of the Mueller investigation by saying that “as the Special Counsel’s report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that the President was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks.”
You also provided the quote from the WaPo article that I did as well, which is what I added to the page, which is discussed in full in my first response. Thank you for proving why my edit is correct and sound in relation to the RSs. Aviartm (talk) 00:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Either the Wikipedia text should make clear that Barr is excusing the evidence of obstruction or it should make clear that the Mueller report does not contain what Barr suggests it contains - that's the crux of the WaPO text. Your version of the text does neither and misleads readers into thinking Barr's statement and Mueller's report are unrelated with a weird and confusing "further". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
The paragraph where my edit is situated is not a continuum from one sentence to the other talking about the same topic. It is more of a batch of details that Barr mentioned at his press conference. The paragraph goes from general details; Mueller report; president telling staffers to lie not obstruction; and a president could terminate an investigation into him, etc. And since the paragraph is about Barr's remarks, then the edit before mine and my edit should be removed then if we are to focus exclusively on Barr's remarks at his press conference. Nonetheless, the text prior to my edit did correlate remotely to the RSs attributed to it that is why I made the correct changes. Aviartm (talk) 01:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I think both are pretty close in meaning, but the older version clearly summarized the sources accurately and flowed better; your proposed replacement is stilted and awkward. In fact, since you lifted a sentence directly without making it clear that it was a quote, it could be argued that your proposed replacement is a copyvio - we're supposed to broadly summarize sources, not lift text from them directly. Even putting copyvio issues aside, quotes tend to raise potential issues in terms of stripping out the context. --Aquillion (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Aquillion In terms of flow, I do agree the former was better in that aspect but that gimmick does not supersede RS. The issue with the former is the implication that Trump’s frustrations “mitigated obstruction” when that is not true as stated above with the source in comparing the two. Aviartm (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)