Jump to content

Talk:Michael Flynn/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

RfC: FBI agents spotted no deception in body language?

Should the article include a sentence about how the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn said they did not spot any physical signs of deception in Flynn's tone and body language?[1] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Survey

  • No. It lends credence to the pseudoscience of being able to spot deception from just looking at someone. It's nothing short of mind-reading. It adds nothing of value to the article, except misleads some uninformed readers that there is evidence that Flynn did not lie in his FBI interviews. To summarize, inclusion serves the purpose of propping up a pseudoscience and impairing readers' understanding of the topic. Also, could you imagine adding content to a BLP where we say that law enforcement judged a BLP to be deceptive through body language? Is that some kind of precedent that should be introduced? Of course not – it's absolute BS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes. (Here is the news article currently cited for this fact, by the way.) Body language of potential suspects is a standard piece of evidence used by law enforcement around the world, I believe - see Body language#Law enforcement, for example. I doubt it's ever enough to convict or acquit on its own, and I'm sure that it can be faked and misinterpreted, but still it's considered useful information. Clearly the FBI agents thought it was relevant, or they wouldn't have reported it in the first place. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Nope, it's straight-up pseudoscience (as is the case with all kinds of techniques that law enforcement use), as this[2] 2019 Annual Review of Psychology article makes clear. It's been so debunked that "lively debates about the merits of nonverbal lie detection no longer take place at the scientific conferences that we attend." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing the relevance of the YouTube videos, posted by the IP, as sources for this discussion. The first one is obviously meant to be humorous (not a reliable source and irrelevant). The second one does not discuss the usefulness or lack of usefulness of body language in discerning deception (irrelevant). And YouTube videos are not usually considered reliable sources anyway. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
That is WP:ORIGINAL research/ WP:SYNTH. Unless you have a reliable source that actually says Comey's testimony is based on pseudoscience then we can include his attributed testimony.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
WP:ORIGINAL and WP:SYNTH do not apply to talk pages/discussion threads, and reasons for not including something in an article don't need to be justified with reliable sources.

Firejuggler86 (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Translation: It isn't the point that I want to emphasize and therefore everyone should ignore it. Display name 99 (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
To Display name 99 - I voted on the survey question; I do not give you permission to strike my so do not ever strike my vote again. BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
BetsyRMadison, I could not care less whether you gave me permission to strike it or not. Your second vote was illegitimate. Hence, I did the right thing. I'd have no reason to strike a vote of yours at this time considering the fact that my strike caused you to remove your second vote. Display name 99 (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
To Display name 99 - I have made myself clear. Do not tamper with my vote ever again & do not tamper with my comments to my votes ever again. And do not personally attack me by telling other editors to "ignore" my comments just because you either do not like, or cannot understand my comment WP:CIVILITY "Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment." BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
BetsyRMadison, I will once again tamper with a vote that you make if that vote ever happens to be an illegitimate second vote like the one that you just made. Also, I did not tell anyone to ignore your comments. Rather, the simpler version of what you had written was to say that you felt people should ignore what the FBI agents said about Flynn because it did not reinforce the single piece of information which you wished to emphasize, that being his conviction. Display name 99 (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Do not put words into other editors' mouths. WP:CIV O3000 (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Well it's clearly what they meant. By the way, BetsyRMadison, I see you've voted twice in this RfC. No editor has the right to do that. It gives the impression to an editor who is not reading extremely carefully that there are more votes a certain way than there actually are. Therefore, I've decided to strike your second response. Display name 99 (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
To Display name 99 - I do not give you permission to strike my votes nor to strike my comments to my votes. If you see that I have accidentally voted more than once, then, you should assume good faith and tell me so that I can make the necessary corrections. BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Accidentally? How do you accidentally vote more than once? Anyhow, I did not assume that it was intentional, but I did strike it so that other editors would know not to count it. Display name 99 (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • No. Not enough coverage to establish noteworthy for something that would normally be considered essentially irrelevant. --Aquillion (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes-Standard evidence on potential criminal suspects should be included. Display name 99 (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • No. When a suspect acts guilty, that can be notable. When they don't, it's not notable. It's easy to train oneself to act this way. --A D Monroe III(talk) 01:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, as long as it's properly sourced I'm not sure if that statement is true, but if a trustworthy source says that that is true then it's fine to add. Otherwise it shouldn't be added. Smith0124 (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes - but only with the proper context I agree with including this but only on strong conditions. As others mentioned, this is an indicator used by law enforcement agencies (but not necessarily evidence). It is irrelevant for the inclusion of this if Mr. Flynn managed to fake/lie or not. However, it is extremely relevant that the full context is included. This detail should not be presented separate from the context if that context is already present - and if not present then it should too be added along this. It is important, if included, to underline that this is just a piece of the puzzle (one among many evidence/indicators) that the FBI put together based on the principle of convergence of evidence. So, unless it is stated by a WP:RS that this was indeed a crucial piece of evidence, it should not be emphasized as such (thus the need for context).Cealicuca (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes' - it happened, it's real, it is cited to a RS, we include it. Atsme Talk 📧 22:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
He said he looked like he was lying. The man who killed Ahmaud Arbery said he instinctively knew that he was a bad person. This kind of crap does not belong in an encyclopedia, or anywhere -- unless it is added as evidence of seriously poor reasoning. O3000 (talk) 00:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
If anything, this just shows Michael Flynn is comfortable lying & lies with a straight face. So far, Flynn has lied to the FBI about national security issues, then pleaded guilty two times to lying to the FBI about national security issues, then pleaded to the court that he lied to the court with his two guilty pleas, then said his 1st lawyer's made him lie to the court, and then said the FBI made him lie to them. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes per Cealicuca. Springee (talk) 02:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • No I initially was okay with including this as some sort of compromise, but have come to recognize that it's wrong. FBI agents may not have "detected deception", but they're historically not good at detecting deception. Here is an FBI agent writing in Psychology Today about how we're no better at detecting deception than we would be if we flipped a coin and say "heads he's lying, tails he's telling the truth". And here's one on the FBI's website that also shows how difficult it is to detect deception. For instance: Twenty-three out of 24 peer-reviewed studies published in scientific journals reporting experiments on eye behavior as an indicator of lying have rejected this hypothesis. Flynn lied, and admitted it under oath in court. Whether or not the FBI agents who interviewed him "detected deception" is really a moot point, even though it is reliably sourced. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • No I don't think it belongs on Flynn's page. However, if we create a new page for U.S. v Flynn, it could be mentioned there, as it's discussed in some of the briefs and exhibits. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed split

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Law#Does_U.S._v._Flynn_merit_a_page. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 02:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I think now is the time to split it off. soibangla (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Appeals court orders judge to dismiss criminal case against Michael Flynn

Looks like the Appeals Court didn't approve of what Judge Sullivan was doing. They ordered him to grant the motion to dismiss the case against General Flynn. Flynn is effectively a free man. The 13th 4postle (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

We don't deal in effectively. This is a notable development in the case, but I don't think anyone is clear as to whether there are any other twists and turns to come, or if it really is over. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
The 13th 4postle - The first question is whether the case will be reheard en banc. Rules for en banc rehearing in CADC here: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/home.nsf/Content/VL%20-%20RPP%20-%20Handbook%202006%20Rev%202007/$FILE/Handbook20191201a.pdf To be honest, I'll be surprised if there is no request for an en banc rehearing, though I don't know whether the court would vote in favor. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that's even applicable in this case. 69.116.73.107 (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
69.116.73.107 If you read the document I linked to, you'll learn that the CADC can always choose to rehear en banc. Not sure why you think the court's rules are not applicable here. Personal beliefs are also moot w.r.t. Flynn's page. If we simply wait, we'll find out. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
It is not necessarily over. This was a three-judge panel decision that can be appealed to the full court, and even to SCOTUS. soibangla (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Who has standing to appeal this? Mr Ernie (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
That's for the courts to determine. If someone brings an appeal and they say the entity doesn't have standing, we'll know. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
The “courts” ordered the dismissal per the government’s request. Who has standing to appeal that? I don’t think your response makes any sense. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I'm confused about it too, because this whole process has been out of the ordinary. I think we just have to wait and see if anyone even thinks they have standing to appeal, or what other steps there may be. Obviously if the judge dismisses the case, then we would know it's dismissed. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
From what I'm reading, Sullivan could request a rehearing, or the full court could take it up and toss the three judge panel's decision.[7] – Muboshgu (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
In fact, the full court might choose to hear the case, regardless of any appeal. soibangla (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that is what I meant. The full court may look at this opinion and choose to toss it and rehear the case. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC: FBI agents spotted no deception in body language?

Should the article include a sentence about how the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn said they did not spot any physical signs of deception in Flynn's tone and body language?[8] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Survey

  • No. It lends credence to the pseudoscience of being able to spot deception from just looking at someone. It's nothing short of mind-reading. It adds nothing of value to the article, except misleads some uninformed readers that there is evidence that Flynn did not lie in his FBI interviews. To summarize, inclusion serves the purpose of propping up a pseudoscience and impairing readers' understanding of the topic. Also, could you imagine adding content to a BLP where we say that law enforcement judged a BLP to be deceptive through body language? Is that some kind of precedent that should be introduced? Of course not – it's absolute BS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes. (Here is the news article currently cited for this fact, by the way.) Body language of potential suspects is a standard piece of evidence used by law enforcement around the world, I believe - see Body language#Law enforcement, for example. I doubt it's ever enough to convict or acquit on its own, and I'm sure that it can be faked and misinterpreted, but still it's considered useful information. Clearly the FBI agents thought it was relevant, or they wouldn't have reported it in the first place. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Nope, it's straight-up pseudoscience (as is the case with all kinds of techniques that law enforcement use), as this[9] 2019 Annual Review of Psychology article makes clear. It's been so debunked that "lively debates about the merits of nonverbal lie detection no longer take place at the scientific conferences that we attend." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing the relevance of the YouTube videos, posted by the IP, as sources for this discussion. The first one is obviously meant to be humorous (not a reliable source and irrelevant). The second one does not discuss the usefulness or lack of usefulness of body language in discerning deception (irrelevant). And YouTube videos are not usually considered reliable sources anyway. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
That is WP:ORIGINAL research/ WP:SYNTH. Unless you have a reliable source that actually says Comey's testimony is based on pseudoscience then we can include his attributed testimony.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
WP:ORIGINAL and WP:SYNTH do not apply to talk pages/discussion threads, and reasons for not including something in an article don't need to be justified with reliable sources.

Firejuggler86 (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Translation: It isn't the point that I want to emphasize and therefore everyone should ignore it. Display name 99 (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
To Display name 99 - I voted on the survey question; I do not give you permission to strike my so do not ever strike my vote again. BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
BetsyRMadison, I could not care less whether you gave me permission to strike it or not. Your second vote was illegitimate. Hence, I did the right thing. I'd have no reason to strike a vote of yours at this time considering the fact that my strike caused you to remove your second vote. Display name 99 (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
To Display name 99 - I have made myself clear. Do not tamper with my vote ever again & do not tamper with my comments to my votes ever again. And do not personally attack me by telling other editors to "ignore" my comments just because you either do not like, or cannot understand my comment WP:CIVILITY "Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment." BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
BetsyRMadison, I will once again tamper with a vote that you make if that vote ever happens to be an illegitimate second vote like the one that you just made. Also, I did not tell anyone to ignore your comments. Rather, the simpler version of what you had written was to say that you felt people should ignore what the FBI agents said about Flynn because it did not reinforce the single piece of information which you wished to emphasize, that being his conviction. Display name 99 (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Do not put words into other editors' mouths. WP:CIV O3000 (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Well it's clearly what they meant. By the way, BetsyRMadison, I see you've voted twice in this RfC. No editor has the right to do that. It gives the impression to an editor who is not reading extremely carefully that there are more votes a certain way than there actually are. Therefore, I've decided to strike your second response. Display name 99 (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
To Display name 99 - I do not give you permission to strike my votes nor to strike my comments to my votes. If you see that I have accidentally voted more than once, then, you should assume good faith and tell me so that I can make the necessary corrections. BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Accidentally? How do you accidentally vote more than once? Anyhow, I did not assume that it was intentional, but I did strike it so that other editors would know not to count it. Display name 99 (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • No. Not enough coverage to establish noteworthy for something that would normally be considered essentially irrelevant. --Aquillion (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes-Standard evidence on potential criminal suspects should be included. Display name 99 (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • No. When a suspect acts guilty, that can be notable. When they don't, it's not notable. It's easy to train oneself to act this way. --A D Monroe III(talk) 01:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, as long as it's properly sourced I'm not sure if that statement is true, but if a trustworthy source says that that is true then it's fine to add. Otherwise it shouldn't be added. Smith0124 (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes - but only with the proper context I agree with including this but only on strong conditions. As others mentioned, this is an indicator used by law enforcement agencies (but not necessarily evidence). It is irrelevant for the inclusion of this if Mr. Flynn managed to fake/lie or not. However, it is extremely relevant that the full context is included. This detail should not be presented separate from the context if that context is already present - and if not present then it should too be added along this. It is important, if included, to underline that this is just a piece of the puzzle (one among many evidence/indicators) that the FBI put together based on the principle of convergence of evidence. So, unless it is stated by a WP:RS that this was indeed a crucial piece of evidence, it should not be emphasized as such (thus the need for context).Cealicuca (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes' - it happened, it's real, it is cited to a RS, we include it. Atsme Talk 📧 22:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
He said he looked like he was lying. The man who killed Ahmaud Arbery said he instinctively knew that he was a bad person. This kind of crap does not belong in an encyclopedia, or anywhere -- unless it is added as evidence of seriously poor reasoning. O3000 (talk) 00:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
If anything, this just shows Michael Flynn is comfortable lying & lies with a straight face. So far, Flynn has lied to the FBI about national security issues, then pleaded guilty two times to lying to the FBI about national security issues, then pleaded to the court that he lied to the court with his two guilty pleas, then said his 1st lawyer's made him lie to the court, and then said the FBI made him lie to them. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes per Cealicuca. Springee (talk) 02:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • No I initially was okay with including this as some sort of compromise, but have come to recognize that it's wrong. FBI agents may not have "detected deception", but they're historically not good at detecting deception. Here is an FBI agent writing in Psychology Today about how we're no better at detecting deception than we would be if we flipped a coin and say "heads he's lying, tails he's telling the truth". And here's one on the FBI's website that also shows how difficult it is to detect deception. For instance: Twenty-three out of 24 peer-reviewed studies published in scientific journals reporting experiments on eye behavior as an indicator of lying have rejected this hypothesis. Flynn lied, and admitted it under oath in court. Whether or not the FBI agents who interviewed him "detected deception" is really a moot point, even though it is reliably sourced. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • No I don't think it belongs on Flynn's page. However, if we create a new page for U.S. v Flynn, it could be mentioned there, as it's discussed in some of the briefs and exhibits. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed split

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Law#Does_U.S._v._Flynn_merit_a_page. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 02:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I think now is the time to split it off. soibangla (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Appeals court orders judge to dismiss criminal case against Michael Flynn

Looks like the Appeals Court didn't approve of what Judge Sullivan was doing. They ordered him to grant the motion to dismiss the case against General Flynn. Flynn is effectively a free man. The 13th 4postle (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

We don't deal in effectively. This is a notable development in the case, but I don't think anyone is clear as to whether there are any other twists and turns to come, or if it really is over. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
The 13th 4postle - The first question is whether the case will be reheard en banc. Rules for en banc rehearing in CADC here: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/home.nsf/Content/VL%20-%20RPP%20-%20Handbook%202006%20Rev%202007/$FILE/Handbook20191201a.pdf To be honest, I'll be surprised if there is no request for an en banc rehearing, though I don't know whether the court would vote in favor. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that's even applicable in this case. 69.116.73.107 (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
69.116.73.107 If you read the document I linked to, you'll learn that the CADC can always choose to rehear en banc. Not sure why you think the court's rules are not applicable here. Personal beliefs are also moot w.r.t. Flynn's page. If we simply wait, we'll find out. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
It is not necessarily over. This was a three-judge panel decision that can be appealed to the full court, and even to SCOTUS. soibangla (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Who has standing to appeal this? Mr Ernie (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
That's for the courts to determine. If someone brings an appeal and they say the entity doesn't have standing, we'll know. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
The “courts” ordered the dismissal per the government’s request. Who has standing to appeal that? I don’t think your response makes any sense. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I'm confused about it too, because this whole process has been out of the ordinary. I think we just have to wait and see if anyone even thinks they have standing to appeal, or what other steps there may be. Obviously if the judge dismisses the case, then we would know it's dismissed. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
From what I'm reading, Sullivan could request a rehearing, or the full court could take it up and toss the three judge panel's decision.[14] – Muboshgu (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
In fact, the full court might choose to hear the case, regardless of any appeal. soibangla (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that is what I meant. The full court may look at this opinion and choose to toss it and rehear the case. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC: FBI agents spotted no deception in body language?

Should the article include a sentence about how the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn said they did not spot any physical signs of deception in Flynn's tone and body language?[15] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Survey

  • No. It lends credence to the pseudoscience of being able to spot deception from just looking at someone. It's nothing short of mind-reading. It adds nothing of value to the article, except misleads some uninformed readers that there is evidence that Flynn did not lie in his FBI interviews. To summarize, inclusion serves the purpose of propping up a pseudoscience and impairing readers' understanding of the topic. Also, could you imagine adding content to a BLP where we say that law enforcement judged a BLP to be deceptive through body language? Is that some kind of precedent that should be introduced? Of course not – it's absolute BS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes. (Here is the news article currently cited for this fact, by the way.) Body language of potential suspects is a standard piece of evidence used by law enforcement around the world, I believe - see Body language#Law enforcement, for example. I doubt it's ever enough to convict or acquit on its own, and I'm sure that it can be faked and misinterpreted, but still it's considered useful information. Clearly the FBI agents thought it was relevant, or they wouldn't have reported it in the first place. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Nope, it's straight-up pseudoscience (as is the case with all kinds of techniques that law enforcement use), as this[16] 2019 Annual Review of Psychology article makes clear. It's been so debunked that "lively debates about the merits of nonverbal lie detection no longer take place at the scientific conferences that we attend." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing the relevance of the YouTube videos, posted by the IP, as sources for this discussion. The first one is obviously meant to be humorous (not a reliable source and irrelevant). The second one does not discuss the usefulness or lack of usefulness of body language in discerning deception (irrelevant). And YouTube videos are not usually considered reliable sources anyway. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
That is WP:ORIGINAL research/ WP:SYNTH. Unless you have a reliable source that actually says Comey's testimony is based on pseudoscience then we can include his attributed testimony.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
WP:ORIGINAL and WP:SYNTH do not apply to talk pages/discussion threads, and reasons for not including something in an article don't need to be justified with reliable sources.

Firejuggler86 (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Translation: It isn't the point that I want to emphasize and therefore everyone should ignore it. Display name 99 (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
To Display name 99 - I voted on the survey question; I do not give you permission to strike my so do not ever strike my vote again. BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
BetsyRMadison, I could not care less whether you gave me permission to strike it or not. Your second vote was illegitimate. Hence, I did the right thing. I'd have no reason to strike a vote of yours at this time considering the fact that my strike caused you to remove your second vote. Display name 99 (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
To Display name 99 - I have made myself clear. Do not tamper with my vote ever again & do not tamper with my comments to my votes ever again. And do not personally attack me by telling other editors to "ignore" my comments just because you either do not like, or cannot understand my comment WP:CIVILITY "Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment." BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
BetsyRMadison, I will once again tamper with a vote that you make if that vote ever happens to be an illegitimate second vote like the one that you just made. Also, I did not tell anyone to ignore your comments. Rather, the simpler version of what you had written was to say that you felt people should ignore what the FBI agents said about Flynn because it did not reinforce the single piece of information which you wished to emphasize, that being his conviction. Display name 99 (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Do not put words into other editors' mouths. WP:CIV O3000 (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Well it's clearly what they meant. By the way, BetsyRMadison, I see you've voted twice in this RfC. No editor has the right to do that. It gives the impression to an editor who is not reading extremely carefully that there are more votes a certain way than there actually are. Therefore, I've decided to strike your second response. Display name 99 (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
To Display name 99 - I do not give you permission to strike my votes nor to strike my comments to my votes. If you see that I have accidentally voted more than once, then, you should assume good faith and tell me so that I can make the necessary corrections. BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Accidentally? How do you accidentally vote more than once? Anyhow, I did not assume that it was intentional, but I did strike it so that other editors would know not to count it. Display name 99 (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • No. Not enough coverage to establish noteworthy for something that would normally be considered essentially irrelevant. --Aquillion (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes-Standard evidence on potential criminal suspects should be included. Display name 99 (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • No. When a suspect acts guilty, that can be notable. When they don't, it's not notable. It's easy to train oneself to act this way. --A D Monroe III(talk) 01:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, as long as it's properly sourced I'm not sure if that statement is true, but if a trustworthy source says that that is true then it's fine to add. Otherwise it shouldn't be added. Smith0124 (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes - but only with the proper context I agree with including this but only on strong conditions. As others mentioned, this is an indicator used by law enforcement agencies (but not necessarily evidence). It is irrelevant for the inclusion of this if Mr. Flynn managed to fake/lie or not. However, it is extremely relevant that the full context is included. This detail should not be presented separate from the context if that context is already present - and if not present then it should too be added along this. It is important, if included, to underline that this is just a piece of the puzzle (one among many evidence/indicators) that the FBI put together based on the principle of convergence of evidence. So, unless it is stated by a WP:RS that this was indeed a crucial piece of evidence, it should not be emphasized as such (thus the need for context).Cealicuca (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes' - it happened, it's real, it is cited to a RS, we include it. Atsme Talk 📧 22:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
He said he looked like he was lying. The man who killed Ahmaud Arbery said he instinctively knew that he was a bad person. This kind of crap does not belong in an encyclopedia, or anywhere -- unless it is added as evidence of seriously poor reasoning. O3000 (talk) 00:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
If anything, this just shows Michael Flynn is comfortable lying & lies with a straight face. So far, Flynn has lied to the FBI about national security issues, then pleaded guilty two times to lying to the FBI about national security issues, then pleaded to the court that he lied to the court with his two guilty pleas, then said his 1st lawyer's made him lie to the court, and then said the FBI made him lie to them. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes per Cealicuca. Springee (talk) 02:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • No I initially was okay with including this as some sort of compromise, but have come to recognize that it's wrong. FBI agents may not have "detected deception", but they're historically not good at detecting deception. Here is an FBI agent writing in Psychology Today about how we're no better at detecting deception than we would be if we flipped a coin and say "heads he's lying, tails he's telling the truth". And here's one on the FBI's website that also shows how difficult it is to detect deception. For instance: Twenty-three out of 24 peer-reviewed studies published in scientific journals reporting experiments on eye behavior as an indicator of lying have rejected this hypothesis. Flynn lied, and admitted it under oath in court. Whether or not the FBI agents who interviewed him "detected deception" is really a moot point, even though it is reliably sourced. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • No I don't think it belongs on Flynn's page. However, if we create a new page for U.S. v Flynn, it could be mentioned there, as it's discussed in some of the briefs and exhibits. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed split

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Law#Does_U.S._v._Flynn_merit_a_page. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 02:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I think now is the time to split it off. soibangla (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Appeals court orders judge to dismiss criminal case against Michael Flynn

Looks like the Appeals Court didn't approve of what Judge Sullivan was doing. They ordered him to grant the motion to dismiss the case against General Flynn. Flynn is effectively a free man. The 13th 4postle (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

We don't deal in effectively. This is a notable development in the case, but I don't think anyone is clear as to whether there are any other twists and turns to come, or if it really is over. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
The 13th 4postle - The first question is whether the case will be reheard en banc. Rules for en banc rehearing in CADC here: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/home.nsf/Content/VL%20-%20RPP%20-%20Handbook%202006%20Rev%202007/$FILE/Handbook20191201a.pdf To be honest, I'll be surprised if there is no request for an en banc rehearing, though I don't know whether the court would vote in favor. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that's even applicable in this case. 69.116.73.107 (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
69.116.73.107 If you read the document I linked to, you'll learn that the CADC can always choose to rehear en banc. Not sure why you think the court's rules are not applicable here. Personal beliefs are also moot w.r.t. Flynn's page. If we simply wait, we'll find out. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
It is not necessarily over. This was a three-judge panel decision that can be appealed to the full court, and even to SCOTUS. soibangla (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Who has standing to appeal this? Mr Ernie (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
That's for the courts to determine. If someone brings an appeal and they say the entity doesn't have standing, we'll know. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
The “courts” ordered the dismissal per the government’s request. Who has standing to appeal that? I don’t think your response makes any sense. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I'm confused about it too, because this whole process has been out of the ordinary. I think we just have to wait and see if anyone even thinks they have standing to appeal, or what other steps there may be. Obviously if the judge dismisses the case, then we would know it's dismissed. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
From what I'm reading, Sullivan could request a rehearing, or the full court could take it up and toss the three judge panel's decision.[21] – Muboshgu (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
In fact, the full court might choose to hear the case, regardless of any appeal. soibangla (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that is what I meant. The full court may look at this opinion and choose to toss it and rehear the case. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Paragraph five of the Lead and RECENTISM

Keeping WP:NOTNEWSPAPER in mind, there is a problem with paragraph five in the lead. For one thing, it is the longest paragraph of the lead, and it shouldn't be. Flynn has had a forty-year career, and this pararaph deals with current events of the last six months; this is out of proportion and smacks of WP:RECENTISM. Some of the text is more appropriate to the body (but even there: NOTNEWS), and while I don't think the central theme of these events needs to be dropped from the lead entirely, it could be considerably shortened, and couched in such a way that future headlines don't require changes to the lead, every time something new happens. There should just be a brief summary of what's in the body of the article (which is what the guideline calls for), written in such a way that it is immune from the ebb and flow of news events. Here's one possible wording:

Flynn became involved in the Special Counsel investigation, and pled guilty to making false statements to the FBI, in return for his cooperation.[16] In 2020, he attempted to withdraw his plea, resulting in litigation and involvement by the Department of Justice and the Federal courts.

That's just a first attempt; but we should be able to find some wording that doesn't have to be updated daily. Anybody who wants more details can first go to the body of the article, and then to the newspapers. Mathglot (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

He did not attemt to, he did. It is nothing special to withdrew any documents like plea. Judge will have to sue to stop it. But here they already sued with use of mandamus. 2A00:1FA0:68A:E848:F01B:2BF1:AB87:8A87 (talk) 08:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
2A00:1FA0:68A:E848:F01B:2BF1:AB87:8A87 - Actually, after the government submitted the motion to dismiss, Flynn's lawyers moved to withdraw Flynn's motions pending before the court, including the motion to withdraw his guilty plea: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6234142/199/united-states-v-flynn/
Mathglot - I'll try to think later about how to shorten that paragraph. Your attempt needs editing, as Flynn was a subject of investigation (Crossfire Razor) before the Special Counsel was even appointed, and the DOJ and federal court were already involved prior to Flynn's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment, FactOrOpinion; I didn't know about Crossfire Razor; maybe you can improve it. Mathglot (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Mathglot - You're welcome. Crossfire Razor was an FBI case opened on Flynn, connected to the FBI Crossfire Hurricane counterintelligence investigation of whether the Trump campaign was coordinating with Russians on election interference. Trump had asked Comey "I hope you can let this go,” referring to the investigation of Flynn, contributing to the appt. of Mueller after Comey was fired. I saw your note on the WikiProject Law page about creating a Draft page. That's very helpful, thanks, and I'll eventually post a note there. I'm working on creating that page right now and learning about copying content during splitting, and I'm not ready to focus on the summary here. As those who are interested work on the split, we'll get a better sense on what should be highlighted on Flynn's page (including the intro summary) vs. the U.S. v Flynn case page. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
@FactOrOpinion: I do remember the comment to Comey, guess I just didn't know the operational codeword for that. If you're reading up on copying content from a split/merge, you've probably already discovered WP:CWW. The key takeaway from that page, is the attribution statement model that you'll find in tty font right in the middle of the first paragraph. As long as you stuff that statement into the edit summary with every edit involving copying (or closely adapting) text from the source article to the target, you're fine. That's really all you need to know; the rest is nice-to-know. No hurry on reworking the paragraph here; it'll just save future lead-whiplash once it's done. Mathglot (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC: FBI agents spotted no deception in body language?

Should the article include a sentence about how the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn said they did not spot any physical signs of deception in Flynn's tone and body language?[22] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Survey

  • No. It lends credence to the pseudoscience of being able to spot deception from just looking at someone. It's nothing short of mind-reading. It adds nothing of value to the article, except misleads some uninformed readers that there is evidence that Flynn did not lie in his FBI interviews. To summarize, inclusion serves the purpose of propping up a pseudoscience and impairing readers' understanding of the topic. Also, could you imagine adding content to a BLP where we say that law enforcement judged a BLP to be deceptive through body language? Is that some kind of precedent that should be introduced? Of course not – it's absolute BS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes. (Here is the news article currently cited for this fact, by the way.) Body language of potential suspects is a standard piece of evidence used by law enforcement around the world, I believe - see Body language#Law enforcement, for example. I doubt it's ever enough to convict or acquit on its own, and I'm sure that it can be faked and misinterpreted, but still it's considered useful information. Clearly the FBI agents thought it was relevant, or they wouldn't have reported it in the first place. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Nope, it's straight-up pseudoscience (as is the case with all kinds of techniques that law enforcement use), as this[23] 2019 Annual Review of Psychology article makes clear. It's been so debunked that "lively debates about the merits of nonverbal lie detection no longer take place at the scientific conferences that we attend." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing the relevance of the YouTube videos, posted by the IP, as sources for this discussion. The first one is obviously meant to be humorous (not a reliable source and irrelevant). The second one does not discuss the usefulness or lack of usefulness of body language in discerning deception (irrelevant). And YouTube videos are not usually considered reliable sources anyway. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
That is WP:ORIGINAL research/ WP:SYNTH. Unless you have a reliable source that actually says Comey's testimony is based on pseudoscience then we can include his attributed testimony.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
WP:ORIGINAL and WP:SYNTH do not apply to talk pages/discussion threads, and reasons for not including something in an article don't need to be justified with reliable sources.

Firejuggler86 (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Translation: It isn't the point that I want to emphasize and therefore everyone should ignore it. Display name 99 (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
To Display name 99 - I voted on the survey question; I do not give you permission to strike my so do not ever strike my vote again. BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
BetsyRMadison, I could not care less whether you gave me permission to strike it or not. Your second vote was illegitimate. Hence, I did the right thing. I'd have no reason to strike a vote of yours at this time considering the fact that my strike caused you to remove your second vote. Display name 99 (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
To Display name 99 - I have made myself clear. Do not tamper with my vote ever again & do not tamper with my comments to my votes ever again. And do not personally attack me by telling other editors to "ignore" my comments just because you either do not like, or cannot understand my comment WP:CIVILITY "Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment." BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
BetsyRMadison, I will once again tamper with a vote that you make if that vote ever happens to be an illegitimate second vote like the one that you just made. Also, I did not tell anyone to ignore your comments. Rather, the simpler version of what you had written was to say that you felt people should ignore what the FBI agents said about Flynn because it did not reinforce the single piece of information which you wished to emphasize, that being his conviction. Display name 99 (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Do not put words into other editors' mouths. WP:CIV O3000 (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Well it's clearly what they meant. By the way, BetsyRMadison, I see you've voted twice in this RfC. No editor has the right to do that. It gives the impression to an editor who is not reading extremely carefully that there are more votes a certain way than there actually are. Therefore, I've decided to strike your second response. Display name 99 (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
To Display name 99 - I do not give you permission to strike my votes nor to strike my comments to my votes. If you see that I have accidentally voted more than once, then, you should assume good faith and tell me so that I can make the necessary corrections. BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Accidentally? How do you accidentally vote more than once? Anyhow, I did not assume that it was intentional, but I did strike it so that other editors would know not to count it. Display name 99 (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • No. Not enough coverage to establish noteworthy for something that would normally be considered essentially irrelevant. --Aquillion (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes-Standard evidence on potential criminal suspects should be included. Display name 99 (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • No. When a suspect acts guilty, that can be notable. When they don't, it's not notable. It's easy to train oneself to act this way. --A D Monroe III(talk) 01:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, as long as it's properly sourced I'm not sure if that statement is true, but if a trustworthy source says that that is true then it's fine to add. Otherwise it shouldn't be added. Smith0124 (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes - but only with the proper context I agree with including this but only on strong conditions. As others mentioned, this is an indicator used by law enforcement agencies (but not necessarily evidence). It is irrelevant for the inclusion of this if Mr. Flynn managed to fake/lie or not. However, it is extremely relevant that the full context is included. This detail should not be presented separate from the context if that context is already present - and if not present then it should too be added along this. It is important, if included, to underline that this is just a piece of the puzzle (one among many evidence/indicators) that the FBI put together based on the principle of convergence of evidence. So, unless it is stated by a WP:RS that this was indeed a crucial piece of evidence, it should not be emphasized as such (thus the need for context).Cealicuca (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes' - it happened, it's real, it is cited to a RS, we include it. Atsme Talk 📧 22:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
He said he looked like he was lying. The man who killed Ahmaud Arbery said he instinctively knew that he was a bad person. This kind of crap does not belong in an encyclopedia, or anywhere -- unless it is added as evidence of seriously poor reasoning. O3000 (talk) 00:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
If anything, this just shows Michael Flynn is comfortable lying & lies with a straight face. So far, Flynn has lied to the FBI about national security issues, then pleaded guilty two times to lying to the FBI about national security issues, then pleaded to the court that he lied to the court with his two guilty pleas, then said his 1st lawyer's made him lie to the court, and then said the FBI made him lie to them. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes per Cealicuca. Springee (talk) 02:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • No I initially was okay with including this as some sort of compromise, but have come to recognize that it's wrong. FBI agents may not have "detected deception", but they're historically not good at detecting deception. Here is an FBI agent writing in Psychology Today about how we're no better at detecting deception than we would be if we flipped a coin and say "heads he's lying, tails he's telling the truth". And here's one on the FBI's website that also shows how difficult it is to detect deception. For instance: Twenty-three out of 24 peer-reviewed studies published in scientific journals reporting experiments on eye behavior as an indicator of lying have rejected this hypothesis. Flynn lied, and admitted it under oath in court. Whether or not the FBI agents who interviewed him "detected deception" is really a moot point, even though it is reliably sourced. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • No I don't think it belongs on Flynn's page. However, if we create a new page for U.S. v Flynn, it could be mentioned there, as it's discussed in some of the briefs and exhibits. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

This Talk Section is RE-LITIGATING Why Appellate Court Ordered the District Court to Dismiss the Flynn Case

I thought an article is suppose to be about the TRUTH. Is this about protecting a Democrat Administration that was behind the most corrupt actions in our lifetime? The same FBI Agent that stated he did not believe that Flynn was being untruthful, also stated this in a now revealed email, "And because I am so awesome CRS piece on the Logan Act from 2015. All the legislative history they cite does not involve incoming administrations."(ref needed) I will leave it up to YOU to find a SUPPOSED reliable source that is not sitting on this statement from Strzok because it is embarrassing to them because of their FALSE RELIABLE SOURCE agenda they have been pushing for 3 years. I do not hold out hope that things will be improved on this article because of the political bias of the majority of editors here.67.10.206.161 (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

No, the WP:ONUS is on YOU for any changes you want made. Which likely won't happen, since you seem hellbent to push whatever the "Obamagate" conspiracy theory is. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
No, that's not what the agents said. They said they did not detect physical signals he was lying, as they read back to him his exact words to Kislyak multiple times, making clear they had tapes of the call, handing him on a silver platter the opportunity to walk-back his lies to avoid committing a felony, but Flynn inexplicably didn't accept their generous offer, so when the agents walked out of his office he had committed a felony. Did he fear a Logan Act charge? Was he full of hubris? Who knows, but they tried to talk him out of lying and he declined. soibangla (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
67.10.206.161 - If you read above, you'll see that there's been discussion of splitting the U.S. v Flynn case from this page. There's now consensus for that. The detail you're discussing doesn't belong on Flynn's personal page. Here's a reference for your quote: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6234142/198/9/united-states-v-flynn/ - that kind of primary court doc is a WP:RS on a legal case page but doesn't belong on a WP:BLP page. Splitting a section off from an existing page is a bit complicated, so the U.S. v Flynn page will start as a draft. I'll announce here when I have a draft page up (hopefully soon), and you can add text there as long as it abides by WP's rules. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
It turns out you're actually correct in one respect: the agents "had the impression at that time that the defendant was not lying or did not think he was lying," but their superiors evidently disagreed: "Those misimpressions do not change the fact — as the defendant has admitted in sworn testimony to this district court — that he was indeed lying and knowingly made false statements to FBI agents in a national security investigation." And it's kinda odd the agents didn't think Flynn was lying, as he flatly denied what the intercepts clearly showed he'd said. And this tends to deflate the narrative that Strzok had it in for Trump: if Strzok was unscrupulous and really wanted to screw Trump, wouldn't he have said he thought Flynn was lying? soibangla (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Should a new page be created for United States v. Flynn and most of the contents about this case moved to that page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to create a draft page for United States v. Flynn. Additional discussion of splitting can occur in another section here and on the Talk page for that draft. Also see WP:CWW and Wikipedia:Splitting FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

It seems that most of the disagreements here have to do with the legal case, U.S. v. Flynn. Information about that case seems likely to increase: there are increasing numbers of briefs filed in this case, including from amici, both in Judge Sullivan's court and in the DC Circuit re: the writ of mandamus, new legal issues are being raised, and it seems likely that coming rulings will be appealed (e.g., the 3-judge appellate decision to an en banc hearing or the Supreme Court). There are questions of whether "there is clear evidence of a gross abuse of prosecutorial power" (quoting Gleeson amicus), discussion of which involves A.G. Barr. Does it make sense to create a page for the legal case and move most of the material about the case to that page? FactOrOpinion (talk) 11:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this is a good idea. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Yep, it will be here tomorrow at 9:30 ET. Live stream. https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/home.nsf/Content/VL+-+RPP+-+Information+Regarding+Live+Audio+Streaming+of+Arguments 2A00:1FA0:46B5:2FBB:3891:9F9B:486D:28A5 (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't see any benefit in moving the content to another article. The article is only 57 kB. The article should be trimmed at some point though. - MrX 🖋 19:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Fot me, it takes a lot in terms of size to justify a fork. I do not see serious size constraints in this article. 19:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
@MrX and Snooganssnoogans:, it's not just a matter of size. Some of the details I've seen added to this page, like court motions being filed, are really not biographically significant for Flynn. But this court proceeding may have become notable on its own. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: I would say that if there are details that are not biographically significant for Flynn, they should be removed. I don't think that level of detail would be noteworthy in a separate article though. - MrX 🖋 19:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
@MrX: I'm a relatively inexperienced editor, and some of the details I added about the case likely don't belong, as they're not biographically relevant. But they *are* important in the case. The case is already quite unusual legally: the fact that the DOJ submitted a motion to withdraw, the appointment of Gleeson as an amicus, Flynn's lawyer applying for a writ of mandamus, a fairly large number of groups submitting amicus briefs to both Sullivan's court re: the Motion to Withdraw and the DC Circuit re: the Writ, the fact that the Solicitor General is one of the lawyers who filed for the DOJ in the appellate case (indicating that they'll appeal to SCOTUS if they lose), ... Your comment about the difference between the case and the page as a biography only reinforces my sense that a page should be created for the case, and either way, the non-biographical aspects of the text on this page about the case should likely be trimmed. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
If Flynn is sent to prison, this is going to become a very famous and much-discussed case in American law. I think the notability of the legal event in that event would far outweigh the notability of Flynn, and that a separate article will eventually be written. SPECIFICO talk 20:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea. Especially, if the details of the legal case with the amicus briefs detract from the article. I think this is a notable turn of events and should be covered in its own article. Please proceed forthwith. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
The recording is here. https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/recordings2019.nsf/FB1BF1063411B091852585850056852D/$file/20-5143.mp3 it is better quality than on youtube, obviously. Listening to it right now; we have new revelations about Supreme court about Gleeson who prohibited him to appoint amicus and also that Mueller already tried to threten some people into guilty pleas, like Arthur Anderson. 2A00:1FA0:42FC:D9F4:2515:7F52:AA4E:5CC2 (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Admin note: The above IP is blocked, part of a series of blocks and rangeblocks on Russian IPs for abuse, trolling and block evasion. Acroterion (talk) 03:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@MrX and Snooganssnoogans: I recognize that consensus doesn't have to be unanimity, but I wanted to check back with the two of you about your disinclination to split the "Investigations after leaving the Trump administration" section and create a U.S. v Flynn page, moving the bulk of the content about the legal case there. The reason for the split isn't the length, but the content: many people are interested in U.S. v Flynn, that case has become more legally complex, and many of the legal details don't belong in Flynn's biography. Creating a page for the case would allow us to address those details without contradicting WP:BLP, and then we could trim the non-BLP material from Flynn's page. For example, the BLP page says "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person"; however, court records are appropriate for discussing the legal case. FWIW, I also asked this question on the WikiProject Law talk page (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Law#Does_U.S._v._Flynn_merit_a_page), and the two editors who responded gave a strong "yes." FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to stop the creation of a separate article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
@FactOrOpinion: My main concern is that this article should have a sufficient summary to explain to readers why Flynn was convicted, including the major milestones in the case. The legal details could certainly go into another article. - MrX 🖋 11:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
@MrX: that makes sense to me. I haven't ever worked on splitting a section out before, and I'm still learning about that. When I'm closer to creating the other page and moving text, I could start a discussion here re: what content from that section people want to keep on this page. @Snooganssnoogans: thanks for your response. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Flynn/Archive_6&oldid=1131533563"