Talk:Jeff Sessions/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Deleting the "deliberately committed perjury" sentence

I am going to delete this sentence right now: "Democratic members of Congress have alleged that during his confirmation hearings he deliberately committed perjury by denying he had any discussions with representatives of the Russian government, and that he should resign his post as United States Attorney General." "deliberately committed perjury" is an accusation of a crime, with many possible other explanations for what he said, and it violates BLP for us to include it without stronger support (such as an actual criminal accusation or indictment). --MelanieN (talk) 23:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Lot's a sources for the allegation, but I agree, it probably doesn't belong unless he is formally charged. He has been formally accused by representatives in Congress in one of their letters from the committees but not charged as of yet. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

if ever something like that sentence does get added, "deliberately" is probably not needed to describe "perjury", no? Isn't intent required for perjury? See [1]G1729 (talk) 05:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. That is pretty redundant. I thought that was what the discussion was going to be about. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Is it true thought that allegations cannot be covered without an indictment? That does not sound right to me--especially if the allegations are widely covered. Consider all the shooting cases. We can't say, "the police allege ____ committed the crime" before an indictment? (Consider for example Death_of_Eric_Garner which has the sentence "An official said that numerous of these arrests had been for allegedly selling unlicensed cigarettes." Is that sentence impermissible?). I'm not sure what you mean by "an actual criminal accusation." Alleging perjury is a criminal accusation. As I understand it, there are already investigations going on about Sessions that he has recused himself from. [2]. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

A charge from the police, or a government agency, would certainly be worth mentioning. Maybe even the actual existence of an investigation. But all we have here is a letter, from Democrats only so admittedly partisan, asking the FBI and the local U.S. Attorney to launch a criminal investigation. The letter says Trump's actions "could potentially implicate a number of criminal laws including Lying to Congress and Perjury."[3] "Could potentially implicate" is a long way from "deliberately committed perjury", and the fact that it comes only from Democrats further weakens its importance. Bottom line, the source does not support the strong wording of this sentence, and the rest of it belongs in the "reactions" paragraph under other partisan commentary. Finally, this charge has not gotten much coverage. I had a terrible time even finding it on Google; most of my searches turned up the Democrats' use of Coretta Scott King's letter which got far more coverage. And the consensus of what I did find was that he almost certainly did not commit perjury under the law.[4][5] All of this is a reason I feel we must exclude that loaded word from his biography, unless it becomes a big enough deal later to cover in detail - and then the contrary claims must be covered in detail also.--MelanieN (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Your assertion "the consensus of what I did find was that he almost certainly did not commit perjury under the law.[6][7]" is not supported by your sources. Your first source says "probably not" rather than "almost certainly not" [8]. The second source (and nearly all sources of a Google search of "sessions perjury") say perjury is "difficult to prove" [9]. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The bottom line remains that 1) hardly anyone thinks he is convictable of perjury and 2) in any case the allegation does not belong in the article at this time. --MelanieN (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the motive of the democratic members of congress is to convict him of perjury, what they are attempting here is to sling enough mud around that Sessions ends up resigning or is forced out. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

If the sources say "hardly anyone thinks he is convictable of perjury," then the article should reflect that, right? (I prefer phrasing above: "difficult to prove".) If the WP:RS says that allegations are being made that he committed perjury, lied or lied under oath, that he should resign, etc., then we should state that, right? I don't understand the basis for leaving out material that is relevant and notable to the article that is found in the WP:RS. He is a public figure and hence the standard WP:PUBLICFIGURE applies: "BLPs should simply document what these sources say." --David Tornheim (talk) 00:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Suggested edit: "Democratic members of Congress have alleged that during his confirmation hearings he denied he had any discussions with representatives of the Russian government. Democrats in congress have asked that he should resign his post as United States Attorney General.". No mention of perjury and it matches up with the text further down in the article. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@Octoberwoodland: If you want to add that somewhere, such as the lede, I am fine with it. I would try to reduce the second occurrence of "Democrats in congress" with a pronoun or conjunction. I believe some organizations such as the ACLU (I believe I saw that in the Slate or LA Time article) had made similar claims--not exclusively Democrats in Congress. Those other orgs may not be lede notable, but I think they should probably go in the body in proportion to how much WP:RS identifies them. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. If MelanieN disagrees, please feel free to remove it again. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

There is an issue with this proposed language: It's not the Democratic Members of Congress who are alleging that he denied having discussions with Russian representatives. That he made that statement and that the statement is false is well established. (If we want to source it, then it should be to the Washington Post that broke the story.) The Democrats (and others) are alleging that he should resign as a result of what he did.

Suggested tweak: "During his confirmation hearings he denied he had any discussions with representatives of the Russian government. Reporting by the Washington Post demonstrated that he had in fact met twice with the Russian ambassador to the United States during the campaign. Democrats in Congress have asked that he should resign his post as United States Attorney General because of this incident.". [[PPX]] (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The language added by Volunteer Marek captures this and works for me. It was reverted by Colipon. I reverted back because it accomplishes what we have been discussing. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the issue might be having it in the lede. It was removed under WP:RECENTISM grounds. I think the discussion above was about the content in the article's body, but I could be wrong. Marquardtika (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

McCaskill

I added the following content to Russia controversy section:

Senator Claire McCaskill called on Sessions to resign and falsely claimed that during her 10-year tenure in the Armed Services Committee she had never met the Russian ambassador or had a phone call with him. Her spokesperson later said that McCaskill's and Sessions' interactions with Kislyak were different.

References

This was later reduced to

Senator Claire McCaskill called on Sessions to resign.

References

with an edit summary "This article is about Sessions, not McCaskill". I don't understand the justification for removal. In the article we are quoting Sessions' spokesperson who claims that Sessions took meetings "as a senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee". McCaskill's tweet that referred to service in the Armed Services Committee and the call for resignation were widely reported in the first flurry of news stories. Claims of never meeting or calling the Russian ambassador were soon fact-checked by numerous news outlets.

If something needs to be removed, it's the spokesperson's response – I only included that because I wanted to edit this material conservatively, and hence let the spokesperson to explain McCaskill's statement.

I don't particularly like saying "falsely claimed" in Wikipedia's voice – even in cases like this when it's easily verifiable – and used the expression for brevity. If someone has a suggestion how we can convey the same message without being too wordy, it would be nice. Politrukki (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

It's apples and oranges. McCaskill wasn't under oath testifying to a Congressional committee. She just misspoke. This is straight up POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there's something to what Volunteer Marek is saying: including the back and forth about whether, and what type of, meetings McCaskill had with foreign diplomats does seem like it might be about POV pushing. Certainly unattributed statements like "falsely claimed" and the paucity of explanation over how her dealings were substantially different than what Sessions did (i.e. no one-on-one meeting) are indications that this is not NPOV.

But more to the point, even if the whole episode were presented in a NPOV, it still would not be about Jeff Sessions, the subject of this article. Rather it would be about another person altogether, Senator McCaskill. The only piece that is clearly relevant here is her call with respect to Sessions to resign. Although, to me, that also seems like a "Kitchen Sink" item that perhaps we can do without as well. Just because a reliable secondary source wrote about something doesn't mean it belongs in Wikipedia. [[PPX]] (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Infobox image

Sessions' infobox image is only about 130x130 pixels. Surely someone can find a better resolution for the same image? CatcherStorm ^talk 16:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Phrasing

I edited 2nd paragraph to "During his time in Congress, Sessions was considered one of the most conservative members of the U.S. Senate. He was noted for supporting lower legal immigration and expansion of the border fence with Mexico and opposing illegal immigration and amnesty."

Volunteer_Marek changed this to "During his time in Congress, Sessions was considered one of the most conservative members of the U.S. Senate. During his tenure, Sessions was considered one of the most conservative members of the U.S. Senate. During his time in Congress, he opposed legal and illegal immigration and amnesty and supported expansion of the border fence with Mexico."

"opposed legal and illegal immigration" is in the body but I would say my version is better: 3x repeats of "During his ...". Also, "opposed legal... immigration" makes it sound like JS opposed all legal immigration per se , and that my phrasing better gets Js's position and how it is described in the sources, but this is under 1RR so I want consensus. NPalgan2 (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

You can change the "During his..." part. The other part though more accurately reflects sources and the text it's summarizing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy

2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy may need to be mentioned in the article's prose, but I've added a link to the "See also" section for now. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect date?

71.197.125.70 (talk) 05:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)3/10/17 I believe the date is wrong in the following sentence, in that the date has yet to occur. "The next interaction between Sessions and Kislyak took place September 8, 2017, when they met in Sessions' office during the alleged Russian cyber hacking campaign and interference in the US presidential election."

Arbitration remedies question

I challenged this material by removing it. It was then reinstated. The arbitration notice at the top of this talk page says "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." I'm not too familiar with arbitration enforcement, but does that reversion violate it in this instance? I don't think the material belongs because, as as I said in my edit summary, a (very small) majority in one poll said they think Sessions should resign, which seems to be a different thing than is being claimed, which is that the majority of all Americans think he should resign. Marquardtika (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

"but does that reversion violate it in this instance?" I don't believe so, but coming here to discuss was the right thing. Please read WP:BRD and WP:1RR. If you deleted it again within 24hours that would be a violation of WP:1RR. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I would recommend "pinging" the editors who did the revert by using {{ping|username}} or {{u|username}} so they know you wish to discuss the edit.--David Tornheim (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Good idea, thanks. On that note, pinging @Casprings: I think your revert may have violated the arbitration sanctions listed above, what is your take? Thanks. Marquardtika (talk) 20:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

It isn't in violation of the sanctions, IMHO. If you disagree, you can always report the violation. That said, I agree with the below. It is a poll, which the text said. A poll, by its nature, is a statistical representation of the population and not the whole population. The poll found a majority of Americans thought he should resign.Casprings (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

You are correct, Marquardtika: this is a clear-cut violation of arbitration remedies, and I already asked Casprings to self-revert. Politrukki (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Pinging MelanieN as an administrator who has been recently active on this page. Could you please help clarify whether there has been a violation of arbitration enforcement here, and if so, what the appropriate next steps would be? Thank you. Marquardtika (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

You report it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement It won't be a violation for an editor, who views well sourced material removed from a article to come and use his 1rr to revert. I did not put the material in nor was I involved with it before hand. However, I saw an editor remove what remains important and well sourced material and I reverted once. You are welcome to bring a case against me there.Casprings (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Marquardtika. But since I am an WP:INVOLVED administrator at these articles I do not rule on issues like this. I will say, speaking in generalities and without viewing the edits being debated here, that the sanction against "reinstating an edit which has been challenged" is confusing, and its interpretation is to some extent in dispute. There are conflicting opinions among administrators about how to interpret that rule, and I know of at least one case where it was removed from the article for that reason. It is not like 1RR which is a clear, bright line. For that reason I would advise you to avoid disputes about whether there was a violation of the DS and if so, who committed it - and to concentrate instead on developing consensus about what the article should include. --MelanieN (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Content discussion

On the merits of the material: Although I agree that 2% is "slight" (of course elections are won by "slight" majorities) and that any poll is just a small (ideally representative) sample, we don't insert our interpretation, we just put in what the WP:RS says. If you wanted to put in 52% (and the margin error), I don't see a problem there. If there is other equal quality WP:RS that reports the poll differently, then we can change the language according to WP:WEIGHT. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with David Tornheim's analysis of the merits of the material. [[PPX]] (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The poll has been impeached in The Washington Post:

Sessions didn't exactly say that he didn't have contact with the Russians "while working with the campaign" as Quinnipiac puts it. He said, "I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign, and I did not have communications with the Russians."

...

This poll seems to be a great example of the way you ask the question determining the answers you get. We'll see if there are more polls. – Aaron Blake, The Washington Post, 2017-03-08

Also, "false testimony during his confirmation hearings" is a gross misrepresentation of the source. Politico poll says: 38 percent of voters said Sessions lied, 29 percent said he was truthful. Neither of these polls is biographically significant. Wikipedia is not news. Politrukki (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Per the Washington Post article mentioned above, I think the poll should be removed. It seems to be a rather suspect one-off poll, and until and unless there are other similar, corroborating polls, it seems undue to include this one, given the concerns stated in the Washington Post piece. Marquardtika (talk) 16:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The poll is reported in multiple sources (the hill, vox, etc) and is from a well respected source. Moreover, WP is a WP:RS. The fact that a good quality poll found that more then half the population want him to resign is historically significant.Casprings (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Right, the Washington Post is a reliable source, and it criticized the poll's methodology. That would be a reason to exclude or appropriately contextualize the poll, not to include it in its current form. Marquardtika (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Can I clarify.... it's not "half the population". It's half the respondents. Polls aren't as simple as they sound. Certain demographics are usually over-represented in polls. And yes, questions can be worded to lead responses. BTW, I did change the wording to respondents in the article. In polls, there's always a question of whether or not the respondent is truthful. We don't know that they were "Americans" and the poll was limited to those who claim to be registered voters. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The article is questioning the methodology of the poll and its use of questions. I find it odd that the questioning is based on other questions besides the basic question of "should he resign", which received the most coverage elsewhere. That said, it did receive coverage elsewhere as in politico, The Hill, CBS news, etc. Of course a poll doesn't ask 300 million people within the US. A poll is designed to be a statistical sample that represents the whole population. Quinnipiac has a good rep and one reason it was picked up by so many WP:RS.Casprings (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm familiar with how polls work, but there are different kinds of polls. Some weight answers based on demographics, some go strictly by numbers. I'm not saying Quinnipiac faked numbers, but the question is leading, as pointed out by other reliable sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

William Sessions was fired by Clinton, not Jeff Sessions

It seems there are some 1984-esque problems with this wikipedia entry. According to the data here, Ronald Reagan failed to nominate Jeff Sessions to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama in 1986. Then, in 1993, even though Sessions did not hold this position, Bill Clinton fired him from it. Yesterday this page cited a fake news article from Breitbart to support this bizarre claim (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/11/precedent-right-after-1992-election-bill-clinton-fired-u-s-attorney-jeff-sessions/); today the source has been removed, though user Arnon81's claim is still in Sessions' introduction (as well as a hastily-written and grammatically-incorrect clause in under "Failed Nomination To the District Court"). Currently the only sources I can find on the internet supporting these assertions are notoriously trustworthy rightwing blogs, while a cursory glance at Arnon81's profile strongly suggests that he/she is a member of Putin's troll army. Since this page is locked, I don't understand how anyone could have changed it. Compounding the confusion is the fact that William Sessions, former director of the FBI, was fired by Clinton in 1993 (http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/20/us/defiant-fbi-chief-removed-from-job-by-the-president.html).

Wikipedia: please find facts to support these bogus assertions or remove them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derek Honeybun (talk • contribs) 03:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

This 1993 piece says that "All 93 United States Attorneys knew they would be asked to step down, since all are Republican holdovers, and 16 have resigned so far." That includes Jeff Sessions, though he isn't mentioned by name. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

on illegal immigration

Re this, the source [10] basically says "we have no idea what he's talking about". Also, the text being inserted treats Sessions' claim about "false tax credit" (whatever the fuck that is) at face value. Actually, never-mind, that doesn't even make sense. Anyway, it's written as if these "false tax credits" do in fact go to "mostly Mexicans" and it says that in Wikipedia voice, whereas the source is pretty clear that that may not be the case at all and Sessions is basically just making shit up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Dick Durbin quote

I removed a Dick Durbin quote which reads "...with Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) complaining 'He’s been the No. 1. opponent of the bipartisan effort in the Senate to reduce mandatory minimums for low-level nonviolent drug offenses'", the quote was then restored by the original editor. I believe it runs afoul of WP:IMPARTIAL, which says, in part "Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute." Sessions and Durbin were adversarial in this instance, being on different sides of legislation. I think we should neutrally present Sessions' voting/views/involvement with the legislation, but there's no need to quote directly from an adversary. Surely we can get across that Sessions opposed mandatory minimum sentencing reform without needing to take Durbin's word for it. Take, for example, this CNN article which discusses Sessions' efforts to impose harsher penalties for drug offenses. Marquardtika (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The direct quote is the best way to convey that Durbin regarded Sessions as his “No. 1 opponent” and also because of its concise description of the bill. This is particularly notable both because of Durbin’s high rank in the minority leadership and because he co-sponsored the bill. I don’t see this as running afoul of WP:IMPARTIAL because Durbin and Sessions were adversaries regarding the passage of the bill, not regarding Sessions level opposition or the description of its contents. I would be comfortable with any proposed language other than the quote that conveys all the same information, although we would probably need to WP:INTEXT Durbin regardless. Lord Monboddo (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Durbin wrote the bill, and Sessions voted against it. This seems like a classic case of WP:IMPARTIAL. We should have a neutral, third-party description of events, not the description of one of the opposing actors. Do you have a recommendation on alternate language we could use to convey Sessions' involvement with the bill? Marquardtika (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

We could convey some of the information without a direct quote by saying “The bipartisan bill sought to reduce mandatory minimum sentences for some nonviolent crimes. Sessions ultimately succeeded in preventing the bill from ever getting a floor vote, with Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) complaining that he had been its top opponent.” This copy is less precise and more wordy, but it does address any concerns about quoting legislators on legislation. Lord Monboddo (talk) 02:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I suggest: "In October 2015, Sessions opposed Chairman Chuck Grassley's (R-IA) Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act when the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary approved it by a vote of 15-5. According to The New York Times, opposition to the bill from Sessions, Tom Cotton, and David Perdue "stalled the bill in the Senate and sapped momentum from a simultaneous House effort." Marquardtika (talk) 04:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

References

The Cotten and Perdue positions seem off topic, but I’m happy as long as we also include a description of the bill and the perception that Sessions was its No. 1 opponent. Would you be comfortable with: "In October 2015, Sessions opposed Chairman Chuck Grassley's (R-IA) Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act when the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary approved the bill by a vote of 15-5. According to Politico, the bipartisan bill sought to reduce mandatory minimum sentences for some nonviolent crimes. According to The New York Times, opposition to the bill from Sessions, Tom Cotton, and David Perdue "stalled the bill in the Senate and sapped momentum from a simultaneous House effort." Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), a co-sponsor of the bill, has said Sessions was its top opponent." Lord Monboddo (talk) 09:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

References

NYT says "Sessions was more than willing to cede the limelight on the issue to Mr. Cotton" and "Sessions remained a crucial force". Politico mentions that Durbin and Sessions. Durbin quote does not appear to be highly controversial, so I would support the latest proposal. If the description is not disputed, "According to Politico" can be dropped. Politrukki (talk) 12:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I like this, and made a few minor tweaks for readability: "In October 2015, Sessions opposed Chairman Chuck Grassley's (R-IA) Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act, a bipartisan bill which sought to reduce mandatory minimum sentences for some nonviolent crimes. The United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary approved the bill by a vote of 15-5. According to The New York Times, Sessions, Tom Cotton, and David Perdue "stalled the bill in the Senate and sapped momentum from a simultaneous House effort." Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), a co-sponsor of the bill, has said Sessions was its top opponent." Marquardtika (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Judicial nominees

User:Marquardtika also removed my addition regarding Session’s support for the nominations Charles W. Pickering and Dennis Shedd, explaining in the edit summary “this is pretty clear WP:CHERRYPICKING leading to WP:UNDUE--the source devotes one sentence to this”. I initially restored the additions with an additional source and added the controversy over William Pryor but I self-reverted to secure consensus after being warned the page is under discretionary sanctions by User:Politrukki. First thing, The New Republic article dedicates a paragraph, not a sentence, to the judges. TNR's take on Sessions’ position was widely observed upon, including in The Nation, TNR again in 2009, Slate, Talking Points Memo, and many others, which is unsurprising since the filibustering and recess appointments of these nominees were a major episode leading to the nuclear option.

Furthermore, I do not follow the editor’s policy concerns. WP:CHERRYPICKING is concerned with selectively using only one side of a source’s description of a dispute. The advised remedy is not to delete the information but to include the other side. Here there is no dispute, only the undisputed fact that Sessions supported the nominations. Likewise, I do not follow the undue weight concern, there is no countervailing view regarding Sessions’ support of the nominees to give weight to. I would be comfortable with different language and possibly with removing the direct quotes from Sessions. However, we need to include Sessions’ position on these highly notable controversies. Lord Monboddo (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

It's fine to include Sessions' support of these judicial nominees. What's not fine is to say he supported Pickering's nomination "who had once defended anti-miscegenation laws." That's not even in Pickering's page. In fact, Pickering's page says "he worked with the Federal Bureau of Investigation to pursue the Ku Klux Klan in Mississippi." There are a lot of things we could include about Pickering, but it's subjective WP:CHERRYPICKING to include one over the other, especially a controversial one. Information about Pickering's nomination (and Shedd's nomination) should really go on their respective pages. Marquardtika (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, the secondary sources highlight the anti-miscegenation stance, and Sessions himself responded to the concern, which I directly quoted him on. We should provide the reader with both point and counterpoint in a controversy. The Judiciary Committee hearings themselves seem to have focused on the leniency Judge Pickering had shown to a cross-burner, but, because the secondary sources all focused on anti-miscegenation, so should we.

It would be cherrypicking if I had gone through the source, included all the negative information about Pickering, and included none of the positive information. I did not, however, omit any positive information on Pickering that the source provided. Here, TNR simply identified the controversy over Pickering’s anti-miscegenation article and included Sessions’ defense of him as “a leader for racial harmony”, “courageous”, a “quality individual”, and being treated as a “political pawn.” What other language would you suggest to describe both sides of the controversy? Lord Monboddo (talk) 02:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

We could write a whole boatload about the Pickering nomination battle, but that would be WP:COATRACK and WP:UNDUE here. The sources you presented may highlight accusations of racism against Pickering, but there are many other sources out there that tell a different story--for example, here, here, and here. There's obviously substantial disagreement about whether he was an icky Southern racist or a civil rights hero. We can find ample sourcing for both POVs. But this isn't Pickering's page, and it's not the place to present the highlights of his confirmation battle--none of that is substantially about Sessions. To avoid the issues highlighted above, I would suggest the following content for the article: "As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sessions supported the unsuccessful circuit court nomination of Charles W. Pickering. He voted for the successful circuit court nomination of Dennis Shedd." Readers can click through to the wikilinks to get thorough context on each individual and their nomination, but this page isn't the place to give thorough context, and absent that context, we shouldn't be subjectively choosing bits and pieces of information to include about Pickering or Shedd. Marquardtika (talk) 04:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

References

I agree that we shouldn’t have an extended discussion on the Pickering nomination battle and that "There's obviously substantial disagreement about whether he was an icky Southern racist or a civil rights hero." The Washington Times editorial, Pickering's 60 Minutes interview, and City Journal article you linked all do a good job of making Pickering’s case, but none of them ever mention Sessions or his position. Can we agree we should simply tell the reader there was a controversy, what it was about, and the position Sessions took?

I'd be happy with the following copy: "As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sessions defended unsuccessful circuit court nominee Charles W. Pickering against allegations of racism, saying he was "a leader for racial harmony". Sessions rejected criticisms of successful circuit court nominee Dennis Shedd's record, saying he "should have been commended for the rulings he has made.""

In the edit I self-reverted after the warning from User:Politrukki, I added Sessions' position on another notable nominations controversy. Is there any problem with the following content?

In 2003, Sessions viewed criticisms of Alabama Attorney General William H. Pryor Jr.'s ultimately successful circuit court appointment as being due to his faith, stating that "Are we not saying that good Catholics need not apply?" Lord Monboddo (talk) 09:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Based on the discussion above – I don't know much about Pickering or Shedd, or have forgotten more than I know – I would support a version that drops "anti-miscegenation". No comment on Pryor, meaning that if no one else opposes, you can move forward. Politrukki (talk) 12:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Lord Monboddo's proposed version looks good to me, and I think the Pryor content is fine as well. Marquardtika (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Senate tenure

The lede used to contain the following paragraph, all of it unsourced.

During his time in Congress, Sessions was considered one of the most conservative members of the U.S. Senate. He opposed legal and illegal immigration and amnesty and supported expansion of the border fence with Mexico. He supported the major legislative efforts of the George W. Bush administration, including the 2001 and 2003 tax cut packages, the Iraq War, and a proposed national amendment to ban same-sex marriage. He opposed the establishment of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the 2009 stimulus bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare"), and the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act. As the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, he opposed all three of President Obama's nominees for the Supreme Court.

None of this material was to be found in the article, although the lede is supposed to reflect what is in the article. I noticed it because of the unusual claim that he opposed "legal and illegal immigration." When I looked to the article for support for that allegation, I found there was no mention of any of it. So I moved the paragraph out of the lede and tagged it unsourced. We need to find support for this summary of his tenure, or remove it. --MelanieN (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Hm, good catch. Since it isn't sourced at all, perhaps we should remove it entirely from the article, preserving the content here on the talk page unless/until someone can find sourcing? Marquardtika (talk) 18:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Works for me. It has been in the article, entirely unsourced, for way too long IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Done. Marquardtika (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Someone with an account change the name of his father back

Even though I got a laugh out of it, his dad's name is not the same as the Keebler elf. Someone with an account change it back to Jefferson Beauregard Sessions Jr. (1913-1989) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8804:8600:205:C0EF:8692:5F52:5669 (talk) 02:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. --MelanieN (talk) 02:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

FactCheck.org on marijuana

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/03/sessions-dubious-drug-claims/
Sessions’ Dubious Drug Claims
By Vanessa Schipani
March 31, 2017
FactCheck.org
Sessions said marijuana is “only slightly less awful” than heroin, an illicit opioid.

... he is “astonished to hear people suggest that we can solve our heroin crisis by legalizing marijuana.”

--Nbauman (talk) 13:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2017

broken link in External links for Politico s/b http://www.politico.com/news/jeff-sessions 2600:1008:B118:F4C:DC3B:979B:7625:7A32 (talk) 11:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Done Izno (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Latest report from the Washington Post

I have moved this headline-of-the-day out of the lede into the article text, per WP:NOTNEWS. In a few days we will know 1) if the report is confirmed - its origins and timing seem a little shady - and 2) how important it is in the big picture. At that time we can consider whether it is lede-worthy. --MelanieN (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that what we have in the lede now is just the beginning of the story, but for some reason we exclude the follow up. I think as far as 2) goes, it's there already. As far as 1) - what kind of "confirmation" do we actually need?

Also, with regard to your edit you included that phrase "If the new report is accurate". That qualification is NOT in any of the actual sources. Nobody's actually disputing that Kislyak actually said these things to his superior. Some, possibly, are disputing, whether what Kislyak said was true. But that's a different thing.

Note also that the "denial" by Sessions has changed from "did not discuss Trump campaign" to "did not discuss any type of interference with any campaign or election". He's moved the goalposts. So it's not actually a denial.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it does seem that Sessions is moving the goalpost (again!). Good point.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Is "moving the goalpost" the new euphemism for "Alternative facts"?- MrX 12:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jeff Sessions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721062607/http://sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=LegislativeResources.FloorStatements&ContentRecord_id=F47F3278-7E9C-9AF9-71D5-0E5838E76081%2F to http://sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=LegislativeResources.FloorStatements&ContentRecord_id=F47F3278-7E9C-9AF9-71D5-0E5838E76081%2F
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100226052101/http://www.al.com/business/birminghamnews/junderwood.ssf?%2Fbase%2Fbusiness%2F1226826984175590.xml&coll=2 to http://www.al.com/business/birminghamnews/junderwood.ssf?%2Fbase%2Fbusiness%2F1226826984175590.xml&coll=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118101101/http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/statebriefs.ssf?%2Fbase%2Fnews%2F1233306965206530.xml&coll=2 to http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/statebriefs.ssf?%2Fbase%2Fnews%2F1233306965206530.xml&coll=2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Famous JS quote: "I used to respect the Klan, but I don't anymore because they smoke marijuana'

Please add! Ref: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trumps-pick-for-attorney-general-is-shadowed-by-race-and-history/2016/12/24/1432cffa-b650-11e6-959c-172c82123976_story.html?tid=hybrid_collaborative_1_na

NAACP on appointment

Six NAACP activists, including NAACP President Cornell William Brooks, were arrested at a January 2017 sit in protesting the nomination of Jeff Sessions for U.S. Attorney General. 1. Wang, Amy B (2017-01-04). "NAACP president among those arrested at sit-in to protest Trump's nomination of Sessions". Washington Post. Retrieved 2017-01-04. 2. Chan, Melissa. "NAACP President Arrested After Sit-In Against Jeff Sessions". TIME.com. Retrieved 2017-01-04.

Bias

"Supporters of non-legacy, private spaceflight" is pretty clearly biased in favor of private spaceflight, I'm changing it to "Supporters of private spaceflight", as that seems unbiased to me, but feel free to chime in if you disagree.

Edit: I obviously can't edit the page so a mod make that change for me?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jeff Sessions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161118101049/http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news-releases?ID=d56295eb-7e9c-9af9-7522-8e77db1334d9 to http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news-releases?ID=d56295eb-7e9c-9af9-7522-8e77db1334d9
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161208022038/http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/family to http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/family
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170109114217/http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2009/7/sessions-speaks-on-his-support-of-nuclear-power to http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2009/7/sessions-speaks-on-his-support-of-nuclear-power

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Seeking permission to reinstate edits

I made edits at 05:39 on 9 January and 06:02 on 9 January and 06:35 on 9 January. They were all reverted by an edit at 06:54 on 9 January with the edit summary "restore wording which actually reflects the sources". Regarding my first edit, I do not understand how my formatting a bare URL in a footnote made the footnote not reflect the cited source. Regarding my second edit, I do not understand why the following does not reflect the source: "If the report about the intercept is accurate, and if Kislyak was not inflating his conversations with Sessions, the report could contradict Sessions's sworn testimony" given that the source says "it's possible Kislyak could have inflated or misconstrued his conversations"; why is it more accurate for us to say "If the new report is accurate it could contradict Sessions's sworn testimony"? Regarding my third edit, why is it more reflective of the source for us to say "If the new report is accurate" instead of "If the report about the intercept is accurate" given that the report about the intercept is many months old (not "new"). I regard the revert of these three edits of mine by User:Volunteer Marek as groundless, disruptive, and worse. Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Your 05:39 9 January edit was OK, but not ideal. You should use Template:Citation instead, or leave a bare URL so that it can be filled in by Refill. Your 06:02 9 January edit adds editorializing and WP:OR. Your 06:35 9 January edit seem fine to me. I would be OK with you restoring the third edit.- MrX 13:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I don’t like citation templates and almost never use them. I think it’s quite absurd for you to prefer a bare url to a perfectly good looking footnote, but nothing surprises me anymore at Wikipedia. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

You "don't like them" is not very solid reasoning for asking for your edit to be supported. There is a reason why our best articles almost exclusively use the citation template. I won't bore you with the details.- MrX 13:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

So why don’t you follow me around and revert me every time I insert a footnote without citation template? It strikes me as a waste of your time and mine, but whatever turns you on. Anyway, this mess of a biased article is far from one of Wikipedia’s best. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Why would I do that? - MrX 21:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Because you just finished saying that I should leave a bare url unless I am willing to use a citation template: “You should use Template:Citation instead, or leave a bare URL”. Thus, I cannot restore my edit replacing the bare url with the formatted footnote. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the 6:02 edit, the source says “it's possible Kislyak could have inflated or misconstrued his conversations”. Apparently you want this BLP to ignore that fact which you find inconvenient. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, I see you were referring to the source before the material. I reviewed the Politico source. Indeed, the CNBC source writes "While it's possible Kislyak could have inflated or misconstrued his conversations, officials told the Post that the former ambassador had a reputation for accuracy." So your second edit is still bad. It emphasizes a point in such a way as to cast doubt, which is almost the opposite of what the source is actually doing.- MrX 13:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to the footnote after the material “<ref name=Wang />” which harkens back to a footnote preceding the material. It’s all CNBC, and has nothing to do with Politico. My edit didn’t say whether Kislyak was apt to exaggerate or not, but if you’d like to add that his reputation was of the latter type then fine. The point is, the mere fact that Kislyak said something to his boss would not necessarily mean what he was saying was 100% accurate rather than (1) misleading his boss or (2) helping his boss to mislead U.S. surveillance. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

"While it's possible" is quite different from "if Kisylak was not". Basically what MrX said. Also, in that *series* of edits you also changed "after initially denying having met with Kisylak" to "After being questioned during his confirmation hearing about meeting with Russians", hence the edit summary. So no.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

”No” I may not reinstate the three edits in question because you disagree with another edit that I have not asked to reinstate? That’s ridiculous. As to the other edit, it removed “after initially denying having met with Kisylak”, because such a statement in wikivoice is inappropriate given that many sources say Sessions did not deny meeting with Kislyak (e.g. Mukasey quoted in this BLP, plus the Vanity Fair and Slate pieces that you removed). Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Anything, this article is not about Kislyak. That's a slippery slope. SPECIFICO talk 19:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Right now, Kislyak is already mentioned twice in that paragraph. And my edits (prior to VM's reverts) would have kept it at two mentions.[11] There's no slope here, slippery or otherwise. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

"the explanation was later confirmed"

Resolved

I removed this bit of text and then it was restored by User:TheTimesAreAChanging [12].

On the merits of the matter - the source [13] does NOT say "it was later confirmed" or anything like that. All it does is say "CNN reported that". In other words, it just links to a source which says the same thing as the sentence right above it. Somebody's doing WP:OR here - "if there is one more source which can be used to back up a claim then that means I can add "it was confirmed"". No, that's original research.

(the second source is an editorial from Slate which shouldn't be used at all. And the "confirmed" in that source refers to confirmation that Session DID in fact talk to the Russians)

Regarding the stated reason for the restoration and discretionary sanctions - "factually correct" only applies if the source says it. It doesn't. And "it has been here for weeks" is a really lame reason to include something. In particular, if the "consensus required" provision means more or less the same thing as WP:ONUS (as User:TonyBallioni has argued) then it doesn't matter how long it's been in there, my removal "challenged" the text and should not have been restored without consensus. Hence, this is a discretionary sanction violation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with this. There's no reason for the "it was confirmed part", as that's just redundant with the previous sentence and getting into WP:OR territory. Marquardtika (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

No comment on if the text should be there or not. But if the material was in the article for a while and you removed it. It was TheTimesAreAChanging challenging the change by revision. The difference between onus and consensus required is that with onus it is to include any material while consensus required is, as stated above, any edit. PackMecEng (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, you're better than this. Are you really telling me that you are not capable of grasping the difference between the explanation attributed to DOJ's official spokesman in May 2017 and the breaking news that the FBI confirmed this explanation in December 2017? The original CNN source wasn't cited, but it should have been, because it makes clear that CNN acquired the email from the FBI to a Sessions aide in which the FBI states "that Sessions wasn't required to disclose foreign contacts that occurred in the course of carrying out his government duties when he was a senator." This is no longer a he-said, she-said; the FBI email from CNN unequivocally "confirms" Sessions's earlier explanation of what the FBI told him as a matter of fact, and we're not allowed to hold onto our own "alternative facts" here at Wikipedia. Omitting this material and implying that the truth of the matter remains unknown is a lie by omission and probably a BLP violation. Now, I have no idea why Anythingyouwant felt the need to add a Slate editorial that appeared months before this confirmation, as well as extra POV modifiers to the long-standing text; but if my understanding of the Discretionary Sanctions is correct, then it is Marquardtika that has violated them by removing long-standing content without consensus. The long-standing content, minus Anythingyouwant's additions, must be restored.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Since I was mentioned, I’ll respond. The URL of the Slate piece says it was “news” and an “article”: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/07/jeff_sessions_has_a_good_excuse_for_not_disclosing_his_russia_meetings_jared.html This Slate piece states that Sessions gave a credible explanation for his testimony to Franken and Leahy, just like the other removed piece from Vanity Fair said.[14] The reason for the footnote to Slate was solely to support insertion of the word “credible”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I also fully endorse the explanation given by TheTimesAreAChanging at 17:49, 10 January 2018 except for his remarks about me and my edits. The removal of the longstanding content is erroneous and lacks consensus. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

This reinsertion lies somewhere on the spectrum between SYNTH and dead-out POV OR. I don't know how it could have survived in the article for any period of time, by whatever - folks are busy and accidents will happen. It needs to be removed. SPECIFICO talk 20:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Can anyone advocating this sentence explain why it's important to readers' understanding of the subject? I'm really not understanding the importance of it being later confirmed, when the previous sentence stands on its own. Why not just include the additional two references with the previous sentence and call it a day.- MrX 21:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I qualify as anyone. This BLP says “the Justice Department reported that Sessions had failed to disclose meetings”, and then the BLP says Sessions’ staff claimed a valid reason for not listing ambassadorial meetings. The implication is either that there was a failure by Sessions to disclose, or may have been a failure by Sessions to disclose, when actually there was no failure by Sessions to disclose and the FBI has acknowledged Sessions’ staff is correct. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I guess I don't read it that way, but a better solution would be to rewrite the last sentence as such:

"Sessions staff had been advised by the FBI that meetings with foreign dignitaries and their staff connected with his Senate activities did not need to be disclosed."

- MrX 21:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Better to merge that with the previous sentence, like so: "During the presidential campaign in 2016, when he was applying for his security clearance, the FBI advised Sessions' staff that meetings with foreign dignitaries connected with his Senate activities did not need to be disclosed, and no meeting with Kislyak was then disclosed." If we keep all the footnotes, then that would work. It’s easier for readers to understand stories that are told concisely and chronologically. I would install the sentence I just quoted in place of the whole paragraph:

On March 20, 2017, FBI Director James Comey testified in front of the House Intelligence Committee that since July 2016, the FBI has been conducting a counter-intelligence investigation to assess the extent of Russia's interference into the 2016 presidential election and whether Trump associates played a role in Russia's efforts.[120] In May 2017 the Justice Department reported that Sessions had failed to disclose meetings with Russian officials during the presidential campaign in 2016, when he applied for his security clearance.[121] According to Department of Justice spokesman Ian Prior, his "staff consulted with those familiar with the process, as well as the F.B.I. investigator handling the background check, and was instructed not to list meetings with foreign dignitaries and their staff connected with his Senate activities".[122] [123][124]

Source 120 says nothing about Sessions except that he had contacts with the Russian ambassador, which is already stated here in this BLP. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I prefer my version or the existing content (without "The explanation was later confirmed."). Let's see what others think.- MrX 23:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Why do you prefer it? The paragraph is bloated, non-chronological, and detours into stuff that’s not about Sessions. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Your version lacks important context, and creates a causal connection between the advice that the FBI gave and Sessions' actions. As far as I can tell, no such connection is established in the sources.- MrX 23:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding context, the events in question about the security clearance occurred in 2016. Why preface it with 2017 stuff about Comey that doesn’t even mention Sessions? Comey and the FBI’s Russia investigation are already covered in the next paragraph. As for a supposed causal connection, you are seeking to present these events nonchronologically which obviously removes sequential connections and comprehensibility. Saying (per my counter proposal) that the FBI advised meetings “did not need to be disclosed, and no meeting with Kislyak was then disclosed” does not indicate anything other than the sequence of two events reported by reliable sources, and if you can find a reliable source that says these two events were related to each other or were unrelated to each other then we can include that. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think RS tells us that Sessions' excuse was "confirmed" -- it's lemons vs. limes. Not as bad as apples and oranges, but not the same thing either. SPECIFICO talk 00:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The CNN source cited above says "affirmed". Anyway, the version I suggest does not use the word "confirmed" or "affirmed", but rather follows the NYT article whose headline states that "Sessions Was Advised Not to Disclose Russia Meetings on Security Forms".[15] There's no argument about whether he got that advice from the FBI. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

A sharpshootin' attorney such as yerself knows theres a big diff betw. "affirm" and "confirm" -- capiche? SPECIFICO talk 01:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Did I mention a profession? Anyway, please don't advertise my profession or what you think my profession is. The difference between "confirm" and "affirm" is not a big diff, they're often synonymous, and it makes no diff if we go with my draft: "During the presidential campaign in 2016, when he was applying for his security clearance, the FBI advised Sessions' staff that meetings with foreign dignitaries connected with his Senate activities did not need to be disclosed, and no meeting with Kislyak was then disclosed." Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry -- just a dud wisecrack based on your get out of jail acrobatics. Really, sorry. SPECIFICO talk 02:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with MrX's proposed revision, but we still need consensus to change this long-standing content under Coffee's Discretionary Sanctions. The important thing is that we should not erroneously attribute the FBI's advice to a DOJ or Sessions spokesperson.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Again, if the proper interpretation of the "consensus required" provision is similar to that of WP:ONUS then it doesn't matter (as User:Marquardtika pointed out) how long it's been in there. YOU are the one who violated the sanction. Now, the first time, sure, it could've been due to confusion. But the second time [16], after this has been explained to you, appears to be a willful violation. *Especially* since it's clear here that there is no consensus to include, with four editors (myself, Marquardtika, MrX and SPECIFICO) objecting to it and only YOU only YOU and Anythingyouwant wanting to include.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect, I support including it until we can work out a rewrite of this horribly jumbled paragraph. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

My bad, I corrected above. This has nothing to do with the para being "jumbled". And putting in unsourced OR which is redundant anyway just jumbles it up, no? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

This has something to do with being jumbled if that sentence jumbles it up (and why is the first sentence of the paragraph all about events following the rest of the paragraph's events, and Sessions is barely mentioned in the footnote for the first sentence). Please take a look at the proposals above by MrX and me and opine, thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, you're wrong on all counts. If you want to know how to interpret the DS, ask Coffee—he would know. BTW, MrX wants to revise the text but retain the same meaning—your proposal to completely ignore basic facts because you dislike them is extreme and unreasonable.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging, I'm simply going by the interpretation of the DS that was provided by an admin at WP:AE previously. Coffee's on vacation or something, isn't he? And you DIDN'T implement MrX's revision (which is quite different actually), rather just reverted to your preferred version again. Without consensus. Actually against consensus as pointed out above. That is "extreme and unreasonable".Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

While I am fine with MrX's reasonable proposal, this discussion has not yet reached a new, binding, enforceable consensus. The long-standing text authored by Emir of Wikipedia is not "my version."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The fact that you restored it twice makes it your version. The fact that you restored it after objections from four users makes it a violation of discretionary sanctions. The fact that you restored it rather than implement MrX's proposal, after claiming that MrX's proposal was basically the same, and are now claiming that MrX's proposal does not have consensus sort of illustrates that you are just using MrX's proposal as an excuse for edit warring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I support MrX's proposal as an interim measure at least. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Alright, so we can change it to "Sessions staff had been advised by the FBI that meetings with foreign dignitaries and their staff connected with his Senate activities did not need to be disclosed." Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

spurious cn tag

added here. The source source says " The attorney general has been accused of potentially lying under oath after he said during his confirmation hearing that he had “not had communications with the Russians” ". So the source is actually right there. Why is this cn tag being added? Come on! Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I already removed the tag. Come on! Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, after you made POV changes to the text. Again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Removing POV, actually. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

More deletion without attempt to preserve

The following edit has just been made:

On March 1, 2017, Sessions came under scrutiny after reports surfaced that he had contact with Russian government officials during the 2016 U.S. presidential election, even though whereas during previous questioning at his confirmation hearings he denied having he had any discussions with representatives of the Russian government during that period, though that question and answer were not without ambiguity.

References

The edit summary states, "no, challenging this change too. 1) You need to show that this is a common opinion among experts, not cherry picked 2) the 'ambiguity' refers to whether this was perjury or not, which we don't even mention so SYNTH". Things would go a lot more smoothly arund this place if editors would at least make a token effort to comply with the policy WP:PRESERVE which says, "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Likewise, as long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the 'finished' article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability and No original research." I strongly object to painting Sessions as having lied under oath when we have very reliable sources like USA Today and FactCheck.org that indicate the matter is not so clear. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The original text does NOT claim Session lied under oath. So you're basically constructing a strawman. Again. As the source points out for it to be a lie (perjury) it would have to be intentional - and THAT is the part where the ambiguity comes in (did he forget, or did he lie). IF the text said he lied under oath, you'd have a point. But it doesn't. So you don't.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The BLP says essentially "Sessions did something even though he testified he didn't". That's a charge of lying under oath in wikivoice, plain and simple, it doesn't have to be verbatim "lied under oath" to be discussing that very thing. Anyway, the content is very relevant and from very reliable sources that are uncontradicted AFAIK. Let's clue in the readers, please. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

No, the BLP says what sources say (and what happens to be factually true). It does not say that he "lied". You are making - inventing - that part up yourself. The distinction between "saying something which isn't true" (perhaps by mistake) and "lie" has already been explained to you. I don't know why I have to explain it again. Likewise, the fact that the sources talk about ambiguity with regard to the charge of perjury - and NOT whether or not he said something which wasn't true - has also been explained.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is for lay people, not law professors, and any lay person who reads what's in the BLP now will say, "Hey, Wikipedia says Sessions perjured himself. Maybe he did!" Now, if it would improve things in your eyes, I would be glad to edit this to explicitly include the word perjury. BTW, that's because I try to seek compromise and look at things from the other person's point of view. So try this:

On March 1, 2017, Sessions came under scrutiny after reports surfaced that he had contact with Russian government officials during the 2016 U.S. presidential election, whereas during previous questioning at his confirmation hearings he denied having had any discussions with representatives of the Russian government during that period, though that question and answer were sufficiently ambiguous to make a perjury charge unlikely.

References

Please also note the titles of both cited sources, which explicitly extend the scope of those articles beyond perjury to lying more generally. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Your interpretation of what "lay person" would say is quite convenient to your POV. It's also original research. And one more time - both sources you post above refer to ambiguity with reference to whether it was perjury or a lie. NOT with regard to whether "he did something he said he didn't do".Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek, what good does it do for me to put the word “perjury” into this draft proposal if you’re going to completely ignore it? & your comment about my POV sounds a bit like pot and kettle. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Because you're still doing SYNTH.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Irreparably in your view? Please elaborate how this purported SYNTH might be resolved to your satisfaction. Is anything I might propose, that suggests the question and answer were less than perfectly clear and damning, going to be SYNTH in your view? Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a need for more stuff about perjury as there's already a good bit of special pleading at the end of that paragraph. And I object strongly to any WP:WEASEL changes to the first four sentences. They're fine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The bit that we've been discussing that's in the BLP right now strongly suggests to any reader --- lawyer or not --- that Sessions may have committed perjury, when in fact the actual consensus that's developed among experts and reliable sources is the opposite, because the question and answer were too ambiguous for a perjury charge to succeed; this article does not so much as hint at that RS consensus right now, but it is a consensus strongly reflected in these two sources I've presented and others. You apparently want to make it appear that only Sessions and his underlings believe that the question and answer contained ambiguity, but that is simply false; undisputed reliable journalists report that there was too much ambiguity for a perjury charge. So I strongly oppose your efforts to mislead the reader in this way. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't "apparently" want to do anything of the sort, so please stop putting words in my mouth. You are again constructing a strawman.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, more than apparently. You’ve said that the “special pleading” by Sessions and his underling Flores regarding the ambiguity of the exchange with Franken is a sufficient substitute for telling the reader in wikivoice that such ambiguity existed. That’s a lot stinkier than a straw man, IMHO. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Anything, you are weirding us out. You threw up a straw man. Who said anything about stinking? Please stay on point. We need to parse the source exactly and not insinuate POV into the wording and juxtaposition. I believe Marek and MrX have offered thoughtful insights in this regard. SPECIFICO talk 16:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I did not throw up a straw man (or anything else). VM does not want us to say anything in wikivoice about ambiguity in the exchange beteeen Franken and Sessions; he thinks it’s sufficient to quote Sessions and his underlings about that, notwithstanding that multiple RS say there was ambiguity in the exchange. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

"Underlings" sounds like birds and is disrespectful. My dog threw up a straw man once after she munched on the lawn clippings. You posed a false equivalence that was unresponsive to Marek's concern. I believe that's fair to say. SPECIFICO talk 16:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

You must know that I was not suggesting to put the word “underlIngs” into this BLP. I’ll rephrase my comment, though, if it makes you feel better. I did not throw up any false equivalency. On the contrary, VM falsely equates quotations from Sessions and his subordinates with a statement in wikivoice that there was ambiguity in the exchange between Franken and Sessions. They’re not equivalent at all. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I have explained the problem with your proposal sufficiently. There's no point in me explaining it again and again and again and again. The fact that you choose to engage in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is not my problem.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek, you said “I don't see a need for more stuff about perjury as there's already a good bit of special pleading at the end of that paragraph.” Here’s the paragraph in question of this BLP:

“ On March 1, 2017, Sessions came under scrutiny after reports surfaced that he had contact with Russian government officials during the 2016 U.S. presidential election, even though during his confirmation hearings he denied he had any discussions with representatives of the Russian government.[100] News reports revealed that Sessions had spoken twice with Russia's ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak.[100][101] The first communication took place after a Heritage Foundation event at the 2016 Republican National Convention attended by several ambassadors, including the Russian Ambassador Kislyak who spoke with Senator Sessions. The second interaction took place on September 8, 2016, when they met in Sessions's office;[102] Sessions said they discussed Ukraine and terrorism.[103] Sessions released a statement on March 1, 2017, saying "I never met with any Russian officials to discuss issues of the campaign. I have no idea what this allegation is about. It is false."[104][105][106] U.S. Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said: "There was absolutely nothing misleading about his answer. He was asked during the hearing about communications between Russia and the Trump campaign – not about meetings he took as a senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee ... Last year, the Senator had over 25 conversations with foreign ambassadors as a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, including the British, Korean, Japanese, Polish, Indian, Chinese, Canadian, Australian, German and Russian ambassadors."[104][105][107][108] ”

Obviously, the stuff at the end of the paragraph (to which you refer) consists of quotes from Sessions and his subordinates, which is obviously-biased material. The presence of that biased material is your stated rationale for not letting us say in wikivoice —— citing unbiased reliable sources —- that the exchange with Franken was too ambiguous to be perjury. If that’s not what you meant, then you are keeping what you meant secret. There is nothing in that paragraph now in wikivoice about his testimony being ambiguous such that perjury charges were not appropriate, and if you’re replying that we can include such material if we cut back on the quotes at the end of the paragraph, then I’m glad to consider that, although the next paragraph is jam-packed with quoted Democratic accusations that Sessions lied. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Anything, it's not helpful to politicize everything. There's broad consensus that he was not forthright at the Committee, plausible or implausible deniability notwithstanding. SPECIFICO talk 01:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Sessions himself has said that he wishes he had slowed down and given fuller answers. But there’s also broad consensus that he didn’t commit perjury, because the question and answer had ambiguities. We ought to be able to say that. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Dog bites man! What's the alternative? He announces that he did commit perjury? Cmon. Let's work on something else. SPECIFICO talk 02:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

We are publishing the dog bites man stuff (see quotes at end of this paragraph), and hiding the consensus that he didn’t commit perjury. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

That is your own idiosyncratic and erroneous interpretation of the text. The reason you keep pushing this mischaracterization of what the text actually said is because you've constructed a particular strawman and pretend it says something it doesn't. This has been pointed out and explained to you repeatedly. Please stop wasting other editors' time. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Input from non-idiosyncratic editors is invited. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

• Donald Trump official portrait.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

This article is biased

One third of the lead paragraph is about his brief meetings with the Russian ambassador, followed by a much longer section on the same subject. Much of the article seems like cherry picking anything to make Sessions look bad, without context, and it contains unsubstantiated claims that Sessions has denied. The section on Sessions' judicial nomination in 1986 is three times longer than the entire section on his twenty years in the Senate, and a third of the section on his Senate career is not about his tenure in the Senate at all. The article sprinkles words and phrases like "racist," "racially insensitive" and "disgrace" within the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplethree (talk • contribs) 18:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Our coverage reflects the coverage that has happened in Reliable Sources. That’s the nature of an encyclopedia.

As for your specific complaints: “racist” occurs once, quoting a civil rights lawyer saying that Sessions is NOT a racist. “Racially insensitive” does not occur anywhere, but four co-workers are quoted as saying that he made “racially offensive” remarks. “Disgrace” occurs three times: once in a purported quote from Sessions which he denies making, once in a quote from Teddy Kennedy about Sessions, and once when Franklin Graham describes the child separation policy as “disgraceful”. The confirmation hearings coverage is extensive, because the media coverage was extensive, but it includes a lot of pro-Sessions as well as anti-Sessions material. Sessions has had a long and controversial career, and has changed some of his attitudes markedly during that time, and the length our article reflects that. One area that I do think needs trimming is the large paragraph quoting half a dozen Democratic senators saying he should resign after the Russia misstatement came out; I think is WP:UNDUE and I will condense that material into a sentence or two. --MelanieN (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

There does seem to be a lack of content about his Senate career. If you have sourced content that goes beyond "he voted to support bills X Y and Z", please add it. I don't see a need for major removals of other content, but there is a little bit of cruft. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

This is so blatantally biased. Conservatives supported sessions because of Edward Kennedy. This is a huge stretch to say the least. Politics By Steve (talk) 03:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Donald, please restrict your comments to Twitter. Isn't that enough for you? 98.194.39.86 (talk) 10:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Trump on Sessions: 'I don't have an attorney general'

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45577781

https://nypost.com/2018/09/19/trump-ups-assault-on-sessions-i-dont-have-an-attorney-general/

I'm no native speaker + propose to mention this ... in the article. --Neun-x (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect start date for US Attorney term

I can't edit this myself because of protected status, but the info box says he started as US Attorney in February 1981. He was confirmed on July 31, 1981, and here's the source: https://www.congress.gov/nomination/97th-congress/502/actions --Yorgborg (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2018

The last word in the "Tenure" section is misspelled: "occasion," not "occasiob." Please correct. 68.198.201.59 (talk) 00:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done LittlePuppers (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2018

Add a wikilink to United States elections, 2018 on the phrase "midterm elections" in the fifth paragraph of the lead. Sharpery 23:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done LittlePuppers (talk) 01:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)