Talk:US House of Representatives holds two Cabinet officers in criminal contempt of Congress

Layout

1) I'd suggest to move the "The House Oversight and Reform Committee had issued subpoenas for documents relating to the administrations decisions, attempting to discern the true reason for the addition of the citizenship question. Barr and Ross, however, refused to hand over the documents. Minutes before the Oversight Committee voted to refer them to the full House to be held in contempt, Trump formally asserted executive privilege over the documents. " paragraph closer to the top as it might seem more current than the second paragraph.

2) There is a mention of "Trump formally asserted executive privilege over the documents". Is this the reason why "the Trump administration's Department of Justice is not expected to prosecute Barr or Ross for their defiance of Congress" or there is another reason?

3) In the paragraph mentioned in (1), dates and times are missing. It would be nice to specify the date for each event (or just one date, if they occurred on the same day).

4) It is not clear how did the voting outcome become known to Wikinews. If a reporter from Wikinews has attended the Parliament, this should be specified. Or if the Parliament published the voting outcome, this should be specified instead, too. (Reporting "XYZ happened internally" without any reference to how Wikinews started knowing about it, can be terribly confusing. The reader ought to know this from the article, without reading the sources.)

5) I'd suggest to add more context, such as what "hold in contempt" means, towards the end of the story.

--Gryllida (talk) 00:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@Gryllida: done all (I think) --DannyS712 (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Headline

I personally find the headline "US House of Representatives holds Barr, Ross in contempt" a bit confusing. It is not clear why they're in contempt, or who they are. If a volunteer who is closely familiar with this topic wishes to remedy this without making the headline two times as long, this would be greatly appreciated. :)

--Gryllida (talk) 00:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what a better title would be, but if you or anyone else wants to move this I don't object --DannyS712 (talk) 01:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: How about: US House of Representatives holds Barr and puts Ross in criminal contempt --Don't call 911 (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

But they put both of them in contempt? --DannyS712 (talk) 01:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid I find that one confusing.

One might suffix to the current headline "for withholding documents", and leave for the article to explain who these two people are. --Pi zero (talk) 01:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: opss! Should hav read 1st. How about: US House of Representatives holds Barr and Ross in criminal contempt or Barr and Ross under contempt for withholding documents, US house voted or some variation --Don't call 911 (talk) 01:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Yikes! There once was a time when I'd know the names of top cabinet members. I don't know if it is because they change like a merry-go-round or if I am getting old, but perhaps we should refer to them in the title by their office. "Barr, Ross" sounds like a law firm. --SVTCobra 02:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I wondered about that too, but "Atourney General, Commerce Secretary" doesn't feel explanatory to me, either. There's always "two members of president's cabinet", but... at that point I thought maybe "Barr, Ross" would be enough information for the headline after all. --Pi zero (talk) 02:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, so, maybe put them in front. As in "AG and Commerce Secretary held in contempt by Congress" Or House if necessary.--SVTCobra 02:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

House; the Senate is a very different environment atm. Putting them in front requires passive voice, though that isn't disqualifying, merely less-than-ideal. -Pi zero (talk) 02:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps U.S. House holds two Cabinet secretaries in criminal contempt of Congress? —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 04:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the AG, though a cabinet member, is considered a cabinet secretary. --Pi zero (talk) 05:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps then U.S. House holds two Cabinet officers in criminal contempt of Congress —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 05:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Review of revision 4491129 [Not ready]

Revision 4491129 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: See below. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: See below. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: My preliminary check turned up several lengthy phrases too close to source. In an especially good example of... something, the phrase "to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census" occurs verbatim in no less that four of the eight cited sources. My interpretation of this is that it's a very undistinguished, straightforward way to say it and quite possibly lots of sources end up saying it that way not because they're all using a common wire service (though that's possible) but just because it's a really natural way of putting it. So I'm inclined to leave that passage well enough alone. There's also a passage in the first sentence of the lede, "to hold [...] contempt of congress", which differs from Politico only by, iirc, leaving out the word "criminal". It's desirable to break that up, though I realize with things like that one may have trouble avoiding the way one source does things without then colliding with the way another source does them. The last clause of the second paragraph (following the last comma) is verbatim from Politico except for adding the word "formally". Third paragraph, "to better [...] Act" (other than adding the year). Another one that may be understandable but would be good to break up: third paragraph, "to add the question to the census" (Washington Post). Fourth paragraph: first five words (NYT); and, another understandable-but-good-to-break-up, "referred [...] prosecution" (NYT, though the verb form changed). The final sentence of the lede is a neutrality problem. Saying its largely symbolic is an assessment, so we shouldn't assert it in our own voice, nor appear to; and in this case, although it's attributed (after being said, whereas one usually wants the attribution up-front so readers already know where it's from when they read it), the attribution is to another news site. We generally shouldn't be attributing assessments of reporters except, very rarely, when they become part of the story (as in the phone-hacking scandal a few years ago). That leaves two choices. Either pull back to some objective facts that can be juxtaposed in such a way that the reader is able to deduce for themselves (being careful not to turn it into a form of bias); or find someone other than a reporter to attribute it to. The first way is better because it sticks closer to objective reality. There's another similar problem at the end of the fourth paragraph. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4491129 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: See below. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: See below. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: My preliminary check turned up several lengthy phrases too close to source. In an especially good example of... something, the phrase "to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census" occurs verbatim in no less that four of the eight cited sources. My interpretation of this is that it's a very undistinguished, straightforward way to say it and quite possibly lots of sources end up saying it that way not because they're all using a common wire service (though that's possible) but just because it's a really natural way of putting it. So I'm inclined to leave that passage well enough alone. There's also a passage in the first sentence of the lede, "to hold [...] contempt of congress", which differs from Politico only by, iirc, leaving out the word "criminal". It's desirable to break that up, though I realize with things like that one may have trouble avoiding the way one source does things without then colliding with the way another source does them. The last clause of the second paragraph (following the last comma) is verbatim from Politico except for adding the word "formally". Third paragraph, "to better [...] Act" (other than adding the year). Another one that may be understandable but would be good to break up: third paragraph, "to add the question to the census" (Washington Post). Fourth paragraph: first five words (NYT); and, another understandable-but-good-to-break-up, "referred [...] prosecution" (NYT, though the verb form changed). The final sentence of the lede is a neutrality problem. Saying its largely symbolic is an assessment, so we shouldn't assert it in our own voice, nor appear to; and in this case, although it's attributed (after being said, whereas one usually wants the attribution up-front so readers already know where it's from when they read it), the attribution is to another news site. We generally shouldn't be attributing assessments of reporters except, very rarely, when they become part of the story (as in the phone-hacking scandal a few years ago). That leaves two choices. Either pull back to some objective facts that can be juxtaposed in such a way that the reader is able to deduce for themselves (being careful not to turn it into a form of bias); or find someone other than a reporter to attribute it to. The first way is better because it sticks closer to objective reality. There's another similar problem at the end of the fourth paragraph. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Preliminary thoughts on second submission

Don't know what may be possible in actual re-review, though I also have no idea whether I'll be able to re-review it this evening (my time; it's evening here now); but here are the two items I have my eye on atm.

• The expectation in the lede still wants to be either eliminated, or transmuted, or attributed. I'd expect to consult the sources closely on this point before proceeding.
• In the fourth paragraph, I'm dubious, but reserving judgment pending source-check, of the phrase "which so far has supported his actions."

--Pi zero (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Pi zero: do you think you'll get a chance to review this? I don't want it to go stale... thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm worried about pretty much everything on the queue atm. And can't possibly get to all of it. We'll see. --Pi zero (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Pi zero: (edit conflict) okay, well I addressed your points above. I have:

1. Made the phrasing more general, and added a direct source for it (and if a second source is desired, there is one in the html comment, but I didn't want to overload the citations)
2. Rephrased it to be that the administration has so far supported his actions, which is more directly addressed in the sources.

Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 19:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Census question quote

Per Special:Diff/4491877: sources to be added for it: New York Times, BBC. Not adding now because under review -> edit conflicts. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Review of revision 4491895 [Passed]

Revision 4491895 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I haven't seen the term "cabinet officer" much, but afaics it's at least valid, so, running with it. The wording in 1950 was different (finally found it in a side article referenced in one of the sources, NYT iirc). My difficulty over the final sentence was that since 1950 citizenship has still be included in the long form sent to about one in six households, which is too complicated for me, as reviewer, to add in full detail. I worried the use of the word "general" might be puzzling to readers, but at least it does suggest there's something there to watch out for. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4491895 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I haven't seen the term "cabinet officer" much, but afaics it's at least valid, so, running with it. The wording in 1950 was different (finally found it in a side article referenced in one of the sources, NYT iirc). My difficulty over the final sentence was that since 1950 citizenship has still be included in the long form sent to about one in six households, which is too complicated for me, as reviewer, to add in full detail. I worried the use of the word "general" might be puzzling to readers, but at least it does suggest there's something there to watch out for. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Title

Shouldn’t the title mention that this is over the citizenship question? It otherwise appears to be about the Russia issue. SelfieCity (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, we don't like to change headlines after publication without a really good reason (because it can create duplicate entries in some news feeds). Also, there's the matter of not changing the meaning more than 24 hours after publication. However, with all that said, it's in-bounds to discuss what the article should have been called, because we can apply lessons learned to future articles. It can be quite challenging to fit in enough to satisfy the style guide's dictum about headlines, "Tell the most important and unique thing." This headline is already not short. It's true a reference to the nature of the contempt would be useful. Have you a suggestion of how to fit it in? --Pi zero (talk) 23:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

That’s totally reasonable. I would say that we should stick to the current for now, for that reason. Just keep the idea in mind for the future, that’s my thought. SelfieCity (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay. It's a fair point. --Pi zero (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit request - PDF

{{edit protected}} Please tag the second external link (the lawsuit) as having medium = PDF. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Done. --Pi zero (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)