Talk:Michael Flynn/Archive 1

Sources

Additional sources here [1]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Involvement with Bradley Manning incarceration

There has been a bit of press coverage over the last day or so regarding Bradley Manning's defense teams claim that it was Flynn that gave the orders that Manning was to be kept on POI status. I hereby suggest that this be added to the article. Snertking (talk) 04:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

well, it appears that the press messed that up. It was in fact Maj. General George Flynn, not Michael Flynn. 107.3.62.19 (talk) 05:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

no mention of his al Jazeera appearance?

he went on al Jazeera and said that the us support to isis was a "willful decision", surely that is something worth mentioning — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:80A9:DA20:4DAC:71DE:C4E8:E790 (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

news article

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nearly-the-entire-national-security-establishment-has-rejected-trumpexcept-for-this-man/2016/08/15/d5072d96-5e4b-11e6-8e45-477372e89d78_story.html Cantab1985 (talk) 03:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Undue weight

The Trump Campaign sub-section is top-heavy with undue weight that is negatively based. I'm proposing the negative content be pared down considerably. We need to add content in regard to his involvement in the campaign that is positive, as well. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

"undue weight" does not mean that an an article has more "negatively based" content than it has "positive" content. It means that an article has too much "minority viewpoint", regardless of whether that viewpoint's content is negative or positive. The appropriate weight, as per Wikipedia policy, is for the article's content to be accurate, representative, from widely held views or widely supported aspects. And very specifically: "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view." DocRuby (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Nearly 24K edits in, I'm well aware of what undue weight is, DocRuby. I'm also aware that WP:COMMONSENSE is a great non-rule in Wikipedia. Both are applicable in regard to the Trump Campaign subsection along with WP:POVPUSH. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Since you're well aware of what undue weight is, why are you asking for a change to the article because of undue weight that is not justified by the undue weight policy? Do you have a different argument for changing the content that is not because of undue weight? Can you justify your suggestion that the article currently has problems with "the undue presentation of minor or fringe ideas" as per WP:POVPUSH? DocRuby (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not interested in sparring with you. Especially since you are coming on so aggressively and in a manner that mimics a battleground mentality and approach. The subsection is all negative and needs to be balanced out so that the subject of it - "Trump campaign" - also reflects the non-negative side of reliably sourced, verifiable content appropriate for inclusion there. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not "sparring" with you. You proposed a change with a justification. I didn't think that the justification supported your requested change, and said so clearly and politely. You replied to I said without clarifying, so I asked you to clarify. You still haven't given a justification for adding content that's "non-negative" other than an assertion that you think it should have more content that's positive. I also notice that you just deleted some of the factual content in that section without discussion, even though all you've proposed was adding "non-negative" content not deleting negative content. Your justification of "undue weight" does not support your proposal, and you haven't given an alternate justification though my request for one was reasonable. Really your side of this discussion looks to me like a "battleground approach", very aggressive, sarcastic and falsely accusatory, and without taking my requests for a clear justification at simple face value. All I've done is ask you for clarification when your justifications didn't clearly support your proposal. Your proposal might have some merit, but your reasons for it don't support it, so I don't really understand what your purpose is in discussing it here. DocRuby (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The changes I've made to the subsection should speak for themselves in the way of "justification". Especially now that the section is balanced out and that which was POV and not in line with the attached references has been culled and/or reworded. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Where did you get the strange idea that the goal for a WP page is to present a perfect balance of positive and negative information? Your recent edits have simply eliminated relevant info that helps readers assess Flynn's activities in support of Trump's campaign. Who gains by preventing its inclusion? What is the need to exclude facts such as Flynn's encouragement of chants to lock up Trump's rival for office? Or that he says killing the families of terrorist suspects is a "political decision"? If that reflects negatively on Flynn, whose fault is that--Flynn, or those who documented his public statements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.137.233 (talk) 05:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The content you keep reading is not neutral in tone nor is it reflective of the sources attached to it. Please discontinue edit warring over this POV content taken out of context. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 12:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

You're the one who is edit warring. Rather than discuss the matter here and reaching consensus with other editors, you unilaterally keep deleting the fully documented factual information about and statements by Flynn. Deleting info you personally prefer to exclude is engaging in POV unless you can supply a cogent reason for deleting each thing. It is striking that (a) you talk about adding more positive info about Flynn but then engage in deleting info; (b) you added seemingly banal comments Flynn made in response to banal "USA" chants from Trump supporters, but repeatedly insist on excluding Flynn's response to some very provocative chants. How is such interference in this page not an expression of POV? ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.146.199 (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The content you keep adding is POV in nature, it's POV in presentation. It does not belong in the article. I guess AN3 is the next stop since you insist on edit warring. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted some of the latest edits. The wording is POV and the content seems to be undue. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Explain how it is POV to mention the controversy of Flynn's anti-semitic tweet with his explanation for it? Or to fully quote what the source says about his attitude toward killing the families of suspected terrorists? How is it POV to mention how Flynn responded to controversial chants during his campaign speech (especially given that WV thinks Flynn's response to banal chants merits inclusion)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.146.61 (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Not hostile to Russia?

The "Association With Russia" section should be deleted. It looks like a smear attempt to make him seem like some kind of Russian agent. The following people have regularly been on the RT channel, the "a Kremlin-aligned English-language news outlet": Stephen Hawking, Larry King, Ed Shultz, Nigel Farange, Bernie Sanders - none of them are hinted at being Putin agents on their page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.228.120 (talk) 12:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Controversial but factual and relevant behavior properly cited is not subject to deletion. If you have evidence you cite that explains Flynn's behavior to clarify what you are inferring from the article then you should include it. DocRuby (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

"Association with Russia" section is pure political agenda

The content of the "Association With Russia" section may be factual and uncontroversial, but that is not the only criteria for including information in a biographical article. It is entirely devoid of newsworthiness and is rife with a political agenda grounded in a vulgar xenophobia toward Russians. Can anyone can explain how this section lends any valuable insight about Flynn, and whether this insight deserves an entire section of the article plus a photo?

Let's examine the factual information provided by this section and whether it is reasonable to entitle it "Association With Russia":

• One newspaper article described Flynn as "not hostile toward Russia". Is "lack of hostility" a synonym for "association"? Is one's hostility toward Russia a common feature of Wikipedia biographies? Why just Russia? Is he hostile toward Cambodia?
• Regular appearances on RT. Do Wikipedia biographies usually mention whenever someone has appeared on RT but not other networks? Why is RT singled out when Flynn is regularly on US networks as well? Obama has been on Fox News a few times, so is he a Murdoch associate?
• RT is a media outlet funded by Russia. RT is also funded by advertisers. Why is RT treated differently than PBS or BBC, which are partially funded by US and UK governments (respectively) and by advertisers ("underwriters" as PBS calls them) just like RT is. World leaders are interviewed on PBS and BBC, but they are not characterized as having "associations" with US/UK because of such interviews.
• Dinner with Putin at RT Gala. Is Flynn also associated with the countries of the other guests seated at the table? How does his attendance of this gala help the reader understand Flynn's life? Why is it so important that it deserves to gobble bandwidth with a hilariously bad photo of an out of focus Flynn scratching his ear?

Those are all of the facts in the entire section entitled "Association with Russia." While "association" is a nice open-ended weasel-word that is perfect for injecting subtext and promoting agendas, it isn't completely meaningless and its use here is flat out counterfactual. The top two definitions Google provides are representative:

Association: 1.) a group of people organized for a joint purpose. 2.) a connection or cooperative link between people or organizations

The definitions and the facts speak for themselves. If Flynn and Russia share a joint purpose, cite it. If the facts provided are covered by definition 2, absurdity results. Everyone on TV and everyone at dinner parties is associated with everyone else. A truthful title for the section would expose exactly how newsworthy the facts are: "Once Ate Dinner with Putin" or "Appeared on RT Programs". The bottom line is that implication has no place in any encyclopedia, period. Implications made due to carelessness make the article less valuable; implications made to promote a political agenda damage the credibility of the entire encyclopedia. I'm changing the title of the section to something that is not counterfactual, although I think deleting it makes more sense because it's a bizarre tangent in the article for anyone unaware of the Clinton campaign's attempts to link Trump to Russia (and the implicit xenophobic corollary that Russians are bad per se). Any defense of this section, must explicitly state why trivial connections with Russia matter more than trivial connections with other countries.BTercero (talk) 07:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Source of "fiery" quote

Flynn delivered a speech at the 2016 Republican Conventioned that was described as "fiery" by a newspaper. But which? In one place in the article, the quote is attributed to the New York Times but in another it's attributed to the Los Angeles Times. The LA Times reference is footnoted so it appears to be the valid source. The attribution to the NY Times should be changed to the LA Times. Any comments before I change it? ROsattin (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Why the inflammatory partial quotes?

Please put these quotes in context with the full quote and surrounding context, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.80.28.250 (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2016

From line 4 'Retirement' it currentl"y reads: According to the New York Times, Flynn exhibited a loose relationship with facts, leading his subordinates to refer to Flynn's repeated dubious assertions as "Flynn facts".[31]" It is a direct quote from an opinion (not news) piece and should be properly marked as such. DDBRIGHT (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Done -- Dane2007 ^talk 04:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2016

In the 2016 U.S. presidential election section of the article, the quote "calling for her to withdraw from the raace." has a misspelling of "race". 2A02:C7D:2A30:EA00:2D61:8A60:FD03:DA53 (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Done KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 02:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Content removed by IP numbers claiming "bias" and "no source"

Putting this content here so that I don't forget about it. It's impossible to edit this page until the protection level is increased:

Flynn sat in on classified national security briefings with then-candidate Trump at the same time that Flynn was working for foreign clients, which raises ethical concerns and conflicts of interest.

According to the New York Times, Flynn has a loose relationship with facts, and often makes statements that "have... crossed the line into outright Islamophobia." According to CNN, Flynn "regularly shares conspiracy theories, expletive-filled posts, and racially insensitive sentiments on Twitter and Facebook."

Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Someone just removed nearly his entire post-retirement career. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Another IP editor has since restored that section. - Regarding the CNN quote, it's actually about Flynn's son Michael G. Flynn, not himself. In general, I agree that blanket deletions of content that is based on citations of reliable sources need better justifications than unspecified claims of bias. Regards, HaeB (talk) 13:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I honestly don´t understand how you can have such low standards as to the sources of sources: the NY Times comes up with "Flynn Facts" and provides no source whatsoever, same for most of the narrative they´re crafting - and you won´t find a word about it in any other news outlet not quoting the NY Times. How is that reputable? But it´s in here anyway and does its job as denounciation. That´s ridiculous. --2A02:8108:85C0:803:5C29:4C5D:6E9C:3625 (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Politico too analysed his tweets, with source - resulting in 16 "dubious factoids". 83.101.67.8 (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Cite for investigation into communications with Russia

I just realized that I have removed the cite for this a second time. I don't mean to be contrary. If you feel this citation is really needed go ahead and put it back, but please don't create a duplicate, just re-use the one we already have. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Poor wording about "25th NSA under Donald Trump"

I don't think the wording is quite right on the first sentence:

"...and is the 25th and current National Security Advisor to President Donald Trump."

He's not Trump's 25th NSA. How about one of the following:

...and is the 25th and current National Security advisor, and first under President Donald Trump."

...and is the current National Security Advisor under President Donald Trump."

...and was appointed by President Donald trump to be the country's 25th National Security Advisor."

Nicegilles (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The meaning is probably clear, but I agree it could be better. I favor your second alternative, which seems the simplest. The infobox says 25th, but per WP:LEAD this should also be in the "National Security Advisor" section. If we do that I don't think we need "25th" in the opening sentence too. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2017

Section 3.2 paragraph 2 refers to 'Secretary of State James Mattis'. Should be 'Secretary of Defense James Mattis'. Vito.dinovi (talk) 06:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you! Neutrality^talk 06:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

NOT ANYMORE

MIKE FLYNN HAS RESIGNED AS NATINAL SECDURITY ADVISAR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.106.157 (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

"covert" contacts.

Is this a proper characterization and based on what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.39.68 (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2017

Remove "covert" in first paragraph. 74.179.39.68 (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The word "covert" does not appear in any of the cited sources I checked (I can't check WSJ) or in the article as required by WP:LEAD. So I have removed it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated claim of fake news spreading

Please show what fake news he was spreading about CLinton campaign. Provide reference material. Otherwise this looks like it's spreading fake news about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.255.240.135 (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be well-sourced. The CNN source says, "Retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who has been asked to serve as Donald Trump's National Security Adviser, has, on his verified Twitter account, interacted with far right and anti-Semitic figures, maligned the Muslim faith, and shared unfounded news stories." It talks about the Clinton campaign. And the headline uses the word "fake." Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

At end of paragraph "On February 13, 2017, Flynn resigned as National Security Advisor,..." please insert:

Journalist Glenn Greenwald argued that the disclosure of Flynn's phone calls had to come from illegal leaks inside the Trump administration. Greenwald praised the leakers, saying that the leaks were serious yet wholly justified felonies.

Glenn Greenwald (February 14, 2017). "The Leakers Who Exposed Gen. Flynn's Lie Committed Serious — and Wholly Justified — Felonies". The Intercept.

Or the like. I think this angle is relevant and should be mentioned. Greenwald is one of the guys who covered the Snowden disclosures, in case anyone doesn't know. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 05:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Done  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  16:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2017

Include in article header that Flynn previously served as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency under President Barak Obama and the term of service. Imthedude101 (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  16:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The information is correctly listed in the infobox. I believe the request was to include it in the lede. I agree, though, the request should spell out the specific change requested. KMJKWhite (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

It's already mentioned in the lede, in the first sentence. And there is a subsection that goes into more detail. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

was this article written by a biased entity?

"That’s why the President decided to ask for his resignation, and he got it. The irony of this entire situation is that the President has been incredibly tough on Russia. He continues to raise the issue of Crimea, which the previous administration had allowed to be seized by Russia. <...>″[72]" -- Could you be riding Donald Trumps dick any harder? 76.93.129.39 (talk) 08:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC) a concerned reader

At least that sentence was written by a "biased entity", and clearly marked as such. Look at the article again and you will find that the sentence is a White House quote. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Ribbon bar format?

What is up with this change: [2]? Is there anyone who thinks this is actually an improvement? I tried to undo it but there are too many intermediate changes. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The list of his awards was incomplete and the order was completely random. When I chose to correct the list in both content and precedence, I chose the ribbon bar format. This bar format is commonplace in many articles and significantly reduces unused white space on the page. What exactly is your issue against it? KMJKWhite (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

You must be using a different browser or something. I've got way more whitespace than I did before the change. On my screen I was just get a giant graphic (more than a screenfull) with no list of decorations. Someone fixed this and now I'm getting the list, but the giant graphic is still there. The top list does not have ribbons next to the names, but the bottom list "Other U.S. Agency Decorations" does. It's broken in both firefox and chrome. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I've tried firefox, chrome and MSIE and it appears in the correct format in all three. As for the new ribbon bar creating more white space than before, that is true. However, I have since completed the list to show all his military awards. When you can condense 18 rows of individual decorations into five rows, you save page space. The list someone added doesn't use any of the accepted formats. I will add the accepted table format when I have time to work with it.KMJKWhite (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I just looked at the ribbon bar in Chrome, Firefox, and MSIE on my personal computer. It looks good to me in all three. I looked at it today at work in MSIE and Firefox. It looked good to me then too. I looked at it more than once because I created the list of awards, which someone else turned into columns. I also switched the order of precedence in the ribbon bar to put the DDSM first and the DSSM second, and added or corrected some ribbon devices. I looked at the page more than once because I wanted to check my work.

Billmckern (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

What is the ribbon bar supposed to look like? Can you point me to some other articles that use it? Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Ribbon bars can be seen on these pages: Service summary of Douglas MacArthur; George E. Leach; Butler B. Miltonberger.

What you should see are the individual's award ribbons and devices, as well as his or her badges, in order of precedence. Flynn's starts with his parachutist badge. Under that are the rows of ribbons with appropriate devices -- stars, oak leaves, or numerals. They go: Defense Distinguished Service Medal and Defense Superior Service Medal (top row, centered); Legion of Merit, Bronze Star Medal, Meritorious Service Medal and Joint Service Commendation Medal (second row); Army Commendation Medal, Army Achievement Medal, National Defense Service Medal, and Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (third row); Afghanistan Campaign Medal, Iraq Campaign Medal, Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, and Global War on Terrorism Service Medal (fourth row); Humanitarian Service Medal, Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon, and NATO Medal (fifth row).

Below the ribbon bar, Flynn's Joint Chiefs of Staff ID Badge and Ranger tab are displayed.

Billmckern (talk) 12:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd love to know what I'm doing wrong, but if I'm the only one seeing this then it's not worth fixing. Thanks for your help. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd love to know why you're having the issue, or at least to know that no others are having the same problem.

I just moved the list created by Billmckern into the table format that typically accompanies ribbon bars. My regrets for not adding it in the first time. Cheers to him for updating the list.

KMJKWhite (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Greenwald analysis

Becky Sayles kindly added a citation to Glenn Greenwald on my behalf ([3]; see further up the page). Spartan7W has reverted it[4] with the edit comment

Inclusion of Greenwald is unnecessary. The political opinion of a reporter is A) outside the scope of a reporter's job description and B) is politically charged, unacceptable in an encyclopedic setting

I'd like to request reinstatement of the Greenwald mention (of course the wording can probably be improved), because:

1. I don't think it's up to us editors to decide what someone else's job description is, unless we're their employer. Greenwald is one of the founders of The Intercept so he gets to decide his own job description.
2. Calling Greenwald a "reporter" understates his stature in this area by quite a lot. He's a very notable author on topics related to privacy, surveillance, whistleblower protection, etc. The article No Place to Hide (Greenwald book) describes one of his books (mostly about the Snowden disclosures) in this area. So I think his take on the situation is encyclopedically significant.
3. Gathering up and citing a representative sample of published political opinions (including charged ones) on the topic at hand is in fact our duty under the neutral point of view, rather than something we should avoid. NPOV means we neutrally summarize what the sources say, not that the sources themselves are required to be neutral.
4. The issue Greenwald brings up (leaks of the Flynn conversations from the national security establishment) fits into other stuff appearing in the press lately about conflicts between Pres. Trump and the intelligence community.[5] The edit should probably have said the leaks came from the "inside the government" (Greenwald's phrasing) rather than "Trump administration" (bad wording on my part, my mistake). (Edited.)

Comments? Thanks.

50.0.136.56 (talk) 03:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Note: The Intercept has a new article up[6] that might also be worth quoting. I've only glanced at it so far. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 04:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that Spartan7W's reasons don't hold water. I'm on the fence as to whether this is important enough to include, as it's a bit peripheral to the subject of this article. Kendall-K1 (talk) 04:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree it's not that biographically important about Flynn, but the larger political reaction to his departure seems worth documenting. Maybe we can spin out a separate article about Trump's relationship with the IC and move the Greenwald mention there. Hopefully such an article would not become too much of a drama fest. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 05:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose: Greenwald stated the leaks were illegal and came from inside the administration. This is true, confirmed by Trump himself. So, why not reference a less politically motivated news article to state this point? The statement, "Greenwald praised the leakers, saying that the leaks were serious yet wholly justified felonies," is more about Greenwald using Flynn's experience to push his "expose tyrannical government actions" agenda, rather than an encyclopedia worthy fact about Flynn himself. As such, it has no place here. However, it might be worthy of adding to Greenwald's article. KMJKWhite (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

lack of clarity in opening paragraph

"... was the 18th Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Advisor to President Donald Trump."

In my opinion this suggests that he served in both positions under President Trump. This is of course not the case. He as DIA director under President Obama. I suggest something such as:

"...was 18th Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, under President Barrack Obama. In 2017 President Donald Trump appoined him as the 25th National Security Advisor." — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnMalarkey (talk • contribs) 02:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Trump/Obama ‘Leak War’

... "a Dec. 29 phone call between incoming National Security Adviser Michael Flynn (who was on vacation in the Dominican Republic at the time) and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kisylak (based in Washington) was revealed although not its precise contents. Though there is nothing wrong or unusual about incoming officials talking with foreign emissaries during a presidential transition, Obama holdovers in the Justice Department cited the archaic and never-prosecuted Logan Act of 1799 (barring private citizens from conducting foreign policy) to justify Flynn’s interrogation by FBI agents who had access to the NSA transcript and thus caught Flynn on his failure to recall some details of the conversation. ... Former Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, commented: “General Flynn has admitted misleading the Vice President but I think we need to look at this a little bit deeper. A phone call from the incoming national security director was intercepted and the contents given to the media. At the core of this is an effort by some in the intelligence community to upend a positive relationship between the U.S. and Russia. There are people trying to separate the U.S. and Russia so that the military industrial and intelligence axis can cash in. The American people need to know that there’s a game going on inside the intelligence community there are those who want to reignite the cold war. That’s what’s at the bottom of all this …Wake Up America!” - https://consortiumnews.com/2017/03/17/the-trumpobama-leak-war/ --87.156.224.236 (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

RT classification

Because of WP:NPOV, RT cannot be called "propaganda" in body text, only in attributed quotes.

RT does not describe itself as "Russian propaganda" or "Kremlin run" (it only admits to being Kremlin funded)

References to RT should use quotes attributed to a named source, eg:

A 2017 report by the United States Intelligence Community characterized RT as "The Kremlin’s principal international propaganda outlet" and said that RT America is set up as an autonomous nonprofit organization "to avoid the Foreign Agents Registration Act".

• "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections" (PDF). United States Intelligence Community. 6 Jan 2017.

-- Callinus (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the offer to testify in exchange for immunity reports

Edits regarding immunity for Flynn. The letter from his lawyer makes no mention of immunity, only that he doesn't want to, by his lawyer's words, "submit to questioning in such a highly politicized, witch hunt environment without assurances against unfair prosecution." I would like to switch back the caption to match the exact phrasing rather than parsing words from news outlets that likely didn't read the letter correctly. There's also contradicting reports from ABC on it http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/lawyer-michael-flynn-talks-congress-immunity-46479793. Also there's conflicting edits coming from Jasonanaggie despite the obvious words in said letter. Regarding the citation from WSJ, http://archive.is/nNC5V, that article is also referring to the letter, which as stated previously, does not state the word "immunity" in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Razgriz301 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

We rely on reliable secondary sources to interpret and analyze primary sources; in this case, we have extensive discussion from reliable secondary sources that Flynn is seeking immunity from prosecution. However, you're correct that the particular text of the letter in question reads differently, and we should avoid trying to parse these arguments in the caption of an image. I've shortened it to just "Offer of Testimony"; readers seeking more detail will find it in the article body text. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it's fine to say "immunity" in the image caption as both images and their captions summarize and illustrate article content.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

delaying anti-ISIS plan on behalf of Turkey

Is this in the article? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2017

Reference 45 does not serve up a usable page anymore. Davidsdurions (talk) 04:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Done Added {{Dead link}} to the reference. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 06:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Report about intercepted communications

I have removed material that is not supported by cited source and gives undue weight to the lead. @PerfectlyIrrational: you added this material:

• "part of operations to compromise Donald Trump"
• "close ally and friend" of Moscow and Vladimir Putin
• The intercepted communications allegedly claimed that the goal of interference in the election was a White House that was pro-Kremlin and anti-European Union

Could you provide citations from the source that support the material? Politrukki (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 17 May 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: all moved. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 00:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

---

• Michael T. Flynn → Michael Flynn
• Michael Flynn → Michael Flynn (disambiguation)

– Never heard a single person refer to him with his middle initial: only on Wikipedia. Majority of sources omit the "T." as well. Unreal7 (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• Leaning oppose. There are many other people by this name. It is not clear that this person is the primary topic over all others. No objection to a move to a disambiguated title like Michael Flynn (general). bd2412 T 20:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support none of the others are even close to his level of notability and will not be for the near distant future. --JumpLike23 (talk) 06:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support. There are only a handful of Michael Flynns on Wikipedia (that aren't Mikes), and this one gets the most pageviews and is by far the most notable. Even if there's no consensus for a primary topic move, the initial should definitely be dropped; it's not a recognizable title for the article, nor is it his common name. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I can't imagine who else has a claim to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support – he is clearly the primary topic here. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 12:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose – "Michael T. Flynn" makes him unique by WP:SMALLDETAILS. If we want to abbreviate and look at sources, the most-often form of his name would be "Mike Flynn", and then we would have to disambiguate from various sportsmen and writers by using "Mike Flynn (general)". All in all, keeping the status quo is simpler. — JFG ^talk 02:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support – Yep -- there is no other Michael Flynn that is tyo our interest. The "T" is very unnecessary; he hasn't been using his middle name like FDR or others. Archway (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.LM2000 (talk) 05:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support – WP:PRIMARYTOPIC certainly applies here. Rockhead126 (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
• Soft Support Just because the T. is a bit clunky. Not a huge priority, but it looks like most people are in favor of it. pluma♫ ♯ 17:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Michael Flynn. 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/20170308234613/http://www.bigstory.ap.org/article/former-trump-security-adviser-flynn-admits-turkey-lobbying to http://bigstory.ap.org/article/former-trump-security-adviser-flynn-admits-turkey-lobbying

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) 17:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion regarding separate disambiguation pages for Michael Flynn and Mike Flynn

Per standard Wikipedia practice regarding given names such as Elizabeth/Elisabeth, John/Johnny, Charles/Charlie, Robert/Bob or Alan/Allan/Allen, all subjects of Wiki articles named Michael Flynn and Mike Flynn had been listed within the Michael Flynn disambiguation page since July 23, 2012. When, on May 27, 2017 [see above], General Flynn became the primary topic of the Michael Flynn dab page, the dab pages were separated. Since General Flynn is frequently referenced as either "Mike Flynn" or "Michael Flynn", there is [as of this writing] a discussion at Talk:Mike Flynn#Requested move 13 June 2017 to restore the 2012–17 form of combining all the Michael/Mike names under main header "Michael Flynn", which has now become Michael Flynn (disambiguation).

Another suggestion, mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Separate disambiguation pages for Michael Flynn/Michael Flynn (disambiguation) and Mike Flynn, would be to combine all the Michael/Mike names under the main header Mike Flynn, with Michael Flynn (disambiguation) redirecting to Mike Flynn, thus eliminating the need for the qualifier "(disambiguation)". Those typing Michael Flynn would still directly access the general and, since there are more Mikes than Michaels, those typing Mike Flynn, would still see the general's name under section header "Public officials". The largest number of entries appears to fall under section header "Sportspeople", "Sports competitors" or "Sports personalities", rather than "Athletes", which is usually meant for track and field, rather than for basketball, football or hockey players. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 15:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Flynn Intel Group

Well I've made a mess. FLYNN INTEL GROUP INC was created by User:Wikipietime, and I de-shouted it to Flynn Intel Group Inc, but forgot my WP:NCCORP, so when I go to move it to Flynn Intel Group, lo and behold it already redirects here. Opinions on what should be done here? I don't watch this article, but it looks like the previous redirect was boldly done by User:Johnpacklambert without reference to a particular consensus. Maybe there is a previous consensus hiding in the talk page archive or elsewhere. TimothyJosephWood 15:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I certainly would not have created if I would of found it; but a search yielded nothing and I took the invite to create. In a somewhat relate vein, I have had Kamil Ekim Alptekin which I also created marked for deletion due to non noteworthiness. It is not my subjective conjecture that anything or body, touching Michael Flynn at this time in the threat to our, the United States of America, Democracy is worthy of note. --Wikipietime (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Well Wikipietime, I'm a big fan of democracy and all, but "defending democracy" isn't really the purpose of an encyclopedia, and it doesn't exempt a subject from needing to meet our notability standards. If they have received sustained in-depth coverage in reliable sources, then we can and should make an article for them. If they're comparatively a blip on the radar, and only as they relate to Flynn, then they probably should be incorporated into this article, rather than have one that stands alone. It's not just about whether the subjects are "important", but also about whether a well sourced and verifiable article can even in principle be written. That requires sources, and sources that are more than today's top headlines, but actually ones that examine the subject in-depth. TimothyJosephWood 17:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Point well made and respectfully taken. The reason or motivation upon ones self to take an action is indeed complex. I seek to correct deficiencies and when looking to wikipedia for reliable, sourced and informative information and find it lacking, I am motivated to improve for the betterment of all. Time will tell what is "early stage" of "middle stage" or "historically" notable; not me. The sources I cite are solid. It is simply laughable that Flynn Intel Group Inc did not exist.

--Wikipietime (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that if this org is independently notable, and if it there is sufficient sources to write an article that would expand beyond the coverage in this article, then it needs to be at Flynn Intel Group, and not Flynn Intel Group Inc, per our naming conventions, and maybe histmerged if anything from the previous article is to be kept.

I'm going to go ahead and ping some editors I know are active in US politics off the top of my head: @Neutrality:, @Volunteer Marek:, @SPECIFICO:. Any strong opinions on whether this group is independently notable? There's definitely sources, but strong arguments can probably be made either way whether it meets WP:SUSTAINED, and even if both these are true, it's not clear that the content shouldn't reside in this article, until needing to be spun off. TimothyJosephWood 12:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Well Wikipietime, looks like it was deleted by Ritchie333 anyway. Whether being founded by Flynn constitutes a claim of significance could probably be debated, but if you want to try to put together a substantial article it's probably a good idea to do work on it a bit as a draft first, and it should definitely go at Flynn Intel Group and not Flynn Intel Group Inc. TimothyJosephWood 00:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I've restored it - in general if somebody can talk up a good and convincing argument why a deletion is incorrect, I'll put it back. Actually, I think all admins should do this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

That brings it back, but the original problem is still unsolved. Gonna ping the nominator Mean as custard to see what they think. We really just need... any substantive discussion whatsoever. I'm tempted to nominate it for AfD just to generate that very discussion. TimothyJosephWood

Oh well...strange.

See my talk page for further discussion leading to deletion. Wikipietime (talk) 05:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I suppose it's possible that they just didn't recognize the name (you know, the whole world edits here, not just the US). The WP:G11 is a bit puzzling though. I suppose you could always take it to WP:DRV if the deleting admin doesn't respond in a day or so. But honestly, if you're committed to the topic, it's probably a better use of time overall to try to put together a substantial draft that's at least a few solid paragraphs.

I'm particularly surprised that no one seems to be rabidly watching this talk page given the controversial nature of the subject. But I do suspect that the topic would have more than a snowball's chance of surviving an AfD if it ever ended up there. But there would need to be a substantial enough article already in place that people wouldn't !vote to just redirect again to this article. TimothyJosephWood 10:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Flynn. 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/20160710141805/http://statewidemls.com/NewsAndEvents/RealtorPassings.asp to http://statewidemls.com/NewsAndEvents/RealtorPassings.asp

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) 21:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Should he be labeled as a Scotch-Irish American?

The article says his family is from Ulster. Pc Retro (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

12.238.156.250 (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC) there are actual Irish from Ulster. Even if the English tried to run them off. Northern Ireland is 45% Catholic.

Unlikely he has any Scottish heritage as the vast majority of Scots in that province have never interbred with the Irish. And given he's a thoroughly discredited individual, who now admits he lied to the FBI (and ominously has said he would cooperate fully with the committee set up to determine the level of interference from Russia to influence the result of the presidential election last year in Trump's favour -- and I suspect he's going to vindictively incriminate Trump because the latter sacked him) it would not be to Scotland's credit that she played any part in forming this character's DNA.

wikiquote incorrect link

hi there, his wikiquote link is to Michael F Flynn, who is a science fiction writer. It is not good practice for this to be in place, but I can't fix it as unregistered.

Correction has been made, changed to "Wikiquote|Michael T. Flynn" PvOberstein (talk) 13:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Now He Has Plead Guilty

Please include this.207.225.131.141 (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done GMG^talk 17:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Yates

Sally Yates was Acting Attorney General at the time she spoke with McGahn, not Acting Deputy A.G. 98.10.165.90 (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done GMG^talk 17:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Picture change

Flynn's picture in military uniform behind the flag is a disgrace to the honor of the armed services. His picture should be replaced with this:

http://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/2122545/former-donald-trump-security-adviser-michael-flynn

The image used is an official work of the US Federal Government, and is therefore in the public domain and free to use. The image you link to does not appear to be a usable image on Wikipedia. GMG^talk 20:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I would be in complete agreement if the photo you proposed was a free licensed one, but it looks like it is Copyright Reuters. Do you perhaps have another possible free licensed one? When we get a mug shot or a prison photo I agree we should replace it as the one that should be the cover image. Jasonanaggie (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Move to Michael T. Flynn to protect Michael G. Flynn (his son)

Should this article be moved to "Michael T. Flynn" from just "Michael Flynn" as his son is "Michael G. Flynn" and since the father is now a felon, we don't want to get the two confused. Any one else feel this is a good idea? Jasonanaggie (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

No. We just had a move discussion about this half a year ago. The father is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Michael Flynn". – Muboshgu (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Muboshgu. This subject is the primary topic of the name. bd2412 T 21:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Suggest additions of reported "firings" by Obama & Trump

Header: sentence: "He was appointed by President Barack Obama as the eighteenth director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, serving from July 2012 to his retirement from the military in August 2014.[4]"

Suggest changing to "He was appointed by President Barack Obama as the eighteenth director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, serving from July 2012 >>>until his dismissal by President Obama for subsequently reported insubordination, mismanagement, and temperament problems.* He retired<<< from the military in August 2014. [4]"

Sources for *: Associated Press https://apnews.com/ce90066b4e20483da79adf21910da0c7 The Oregonian http://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2017/02/michael_flynn_fired_once_by_a.html NBC News https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/obama-warned-trump-against-hiring-mike-flynn-say-officials-n756316

Reason: it is official news, widely reported, never disputed. Flynn himself said he was "pushed out". I think "until his dismissal by President Obama." is a conservatively fair way to state it. It's also historically important to say this in the header since he was also "fired" by the next President Trump.

Header: sentence: "Flynn's tenure of just 24 days was the shortest in the history of the office.[10][11]"

Suggest changing to "Flynn's tenure of just 24 days was the shortest in the history of the office.[10][11] As a result, Flynn was forced to resign from two high-profile positions by two politically opposite presidents in less than three years.**<<<

Reason: adds historical context.

Source: no source needed, just count the years between.

Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Familyhandyman (talk • contribs) 21:39, December 1, 2017 (UTC)

Makes a good point. I would agree with it. Jasonanaggie (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Saying that Obama and Trump are "two politically opposite presidents" is true, but WP:OR/WP:SYNTH and appears to be an attempt to insinuate negatively about the subject. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I don’t understand the proposal because it is not stated clearly. It starts out by saying “Header: sentence: ‘He was appointed by President Barack Obama as the eighteenth director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, serving from July 2012 to his retirement from the military in August 2014.[4]’” What does “Header: sentence” mean? The rest of the proposal is similarly difficult to parse. I suggest you make the change and then revert it. That way you can show us a diff. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

He is charged

He is charged for false statements to FBI - [7]. Regards. 46.70.10.185 (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and it appears that the content has been incorporated into the article. GMG^talk 15:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

There are conflicting reports about whether he has already plead guilty, or is merely expected to do so imminently. Either way, once confirmed, the guilty plea should also be worked into the article, as (so far as I understand) the acceptance of this plea effects a criminal conviction. bd2412 T 16:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... well as of 42 minutes ago, the NYT was under the impression that he had not yet plead guilty to anything yet, and I'm comfortable going on their assessment of the situation. GMG^talk 16:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

And now the New York Times says he has plead guilty.[[8]207.225.131.141 (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a wording issue, he agreed to a plea bargain so he plead guilty. Due to his agreement we don't have a charging document, we have a information document and a plea document, we also do not have an indictment. So many ways these things can be said... Jasonanaggie (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

"retired United States Army Lieutenant General felon" . . . what kind of writing is this" There's no such thing as an "Army Lieutenant General felon." How about "retired United States Army Lieutenant General and convicted felon"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:579:9220:100:5D4E:7B1B:CC59:B0AB (talk) 09:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2017

Add as a news source The Scope Weekly NFarkas (talk) 07:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: Where do you want the source to be added in the article? Terra ^(talk) 10:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I was suggesting it at the bottom of the article, as a news source --NFarkas (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Flynn was not convicted of anything last December

Hi, your first paragraph says that Flynn was "convicted" last December. For a conviction there has to be a trial and verdict so I think that might be typo. He was definitely investigated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.192.239.231 (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

He WAS convicted, in that he pled guilty. That ends the "trial" with a verdict of guilty. See the references in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

And it says December 2017, not December 2016. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment on Picture Change request

Regarding the request for a picture change above ([[9]]). I respectfully disagree, and recommend very strongly against such a change. Mr. Flynn has not been stripped of his rank nor any of his medals. Until such an event has taken place, his picture ought to remain where it is, reflecting the rank and honors that he did indeed earn in a prior phase of his life.

I refer you to how Wikipedia handled the case of Russell Williams (criminal). He is the multiply convicted murderer and former Canadian Forces Colonel. The Talk section seems to indicate (Talk:Russell_Williams_(criminal)#Photo_change.3F) that a photo of Mr. Williams in military uniform was removed from the article as a result of his being stripped of his rank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.172.47.181 (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, I will say that the aim of an encyclopedia article is to provide a comprehensive overview of the subject, which for a biography means a person's entire life. A photograph should therefore be most relevant to their life as a whole, and not just what's currently on the news. It should also be as neutral as possible, and I suspect that the suggested photo above probably fails both criteria.

That's all of course above and beyond the fact that we cannot substitute even an uncontroversially better non free photo for a free one, even if we had one. So I suspect that at this point the matter is pretty open and shut. GMG^talk 16:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit needed - incorrect date re: Op-ed for The Hill

The following line:

"On November 8, 2017, Flynn authored an op-ed for the Hill, entitled 'Our ally Turkey is in crisis and needs our support'"

References an incorrect date. It is actually November 8, 2016. You can verify by following the link to the article. Please update! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.234.253.9 (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Corrected. PvOberstein (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Cohen-Watnick

Someone came into the IRC help channel and disputed that Flynn met Ezra Cohen-Watnick at the DIA, as the "Defense Intelligence Agency" section currently reports. They provided The Atlantic which gives three different accounts of Cohen-Watnick first meeting Flynn, including the "at the DIA" one. It's somewhat newer than the two sources currently cited in the article, Newsweek and Politico. Given the murkiness of the information about Cohen-Watnick and the low relevance of when they first met to Flynn, I'll remove that statement. Huon (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Adding "convicted felon" to the introductory sentence

The recommended change follows:

EXISTING (as of 3 Dec 2017, 1420 UTC) "Michael Thomas Flynn (born December 1958) is a retired United States Army Lieutenant General who served in the U.S. Army for 33 years, from 1981 until 2014." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.172.47.181 (talk • contribs)

RECOMMENDED "Michael Thomas Flynn (born December 1958) is a retired United States Army Lieutenant General and convicted felon, who served in the U.S. Army for 33 years, from 1981 until 2014."

• Oppose We already say that in the third sentence of the lede paragraph. It would be totally UNDUE to put it into the lede sentence itself. --MelanieN (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Agree with MelanieN that it is not proper form to call someone a "convicted felon" in the first line of their biography. The current construction, where it appears in the first line but the third sentence, strikes the appropriate tone. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add new Category

Semi-protected edit request:

Please add Mike to Category:Trump campaign or Trump administration officials who have been indicted or convicted of federal crimes

That’s a horrible category. Please don’t lump together people who have been convicted with people who are innocent or presumed innocent. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok. That’s an argument for excluding those who have been indicted but not convicted from the category (i.e. Manafort, Gates). Would you support a category for the convcts only (Flynn, Pap, Arpaio, etc)?? Caregory is bound to grow since Manafort, Gates, Trump Jr. Kushner are all but certain to convicted. Once they flip the list will keep growing. 2600:1017:B411:47F1:450F:22B:A2F7:AF6A (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

No, I think we already have enough categories and subcategories at Category:Criminals. And two of the categories in this BLP already say he’s committed a crime. That’s plenty for now. We can revisit this if your fortune-telling proves accurate. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Such a category should only be started after there are a significant number of members, and Arpaio doesn't even qualify. I suspect that it could end up with well over 30 members, but time will tell. Give it some time and then revisit the subject. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Arpaio does qualify. The pardon erases his punishment, not his conviction. Discloser of Truth (talk) 03:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

In what way was he a "Trump campaign or Trump administration official"? -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I recall him as being a part of the campaign, but perhaps you are correct that he did not have an official role. Discloser of Truth (talk) 03:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Categorization as "People convicted of making false statements"

On my user talk page, User:Politrukki has objected to this categorization on the grounds that it is a BLP violation. I find that argument to be entirely unfounded - it is a matter of public record and extensive reliably-sourced reporting that Flynn entered a guilty plea in federal court to the crime, admitting his responsibility and his criminality. An accepted guilty plea is a conviction, and the fact that Flynn has not been sentenced is of no consequence. Flynn has been convicted of the crime in question, and if we are going to have that category (which is a question for somewhere else to answer), he ought to be placed in it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

See WP:BLPCAT: "the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources" – the article text or cited sources don't say that Flynn has been convicted and you're making a synthesis. Our article of convict says this: A convict is "a person found guilty of a crime and sentenced by a court" or "a person serving a sentence in prison".

References

As I understand it, because Flynn has not been sentenced, the court or Flynn can still withdraw the guilty plea. I also believe that both scenarios are very unlikely and would require something like procedural error, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I reviewed more than fifty news articles to get this right. That is, either say in article text that Flynn has been convicted or remove unsourced categories. There's very little support to say that Flynn has been convicted as of yet.

Let's assume that "convicted" is verifiable. Just because something is verifiable does not make it a defining characteristic and we should not use the categories unless reliable sources consistently define the subject as a convicted criminal. Politrukki (talk) 09:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

This is a true statement, as the Enron prosecutions showed when the former CEO died before sentencing, though I am not sure it matters for the case of categories. More problematic is the categorization of being "of making false statements." This is a rather nebulous term that lacks specificity. The specifics I believe is that the false statements were given to the FBI with the criminal part attached to the FBI rather than just false. This isn't a perjury case. --DHeyward (talk) 10:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The nebulousness would be helped by limiting it to felonies. Category:People convicted of making false statements to the FBI or Congress might work. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not only a felony to lie to the FBI and Congress, though. It is a federal felony to make false statements in any matter within the jurisdiction of the federal government - whether you lie to the FBI or to the BLM, the penalties are the same. See 18 USC 1001. Maybe Category:People convicted of making false statements to the federal government. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Bullshiat. There is a jurisdictional element. There's a reason why "lying to the FBI" (or more broadly, lying to a federal criminal investigator) is cited. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing and is why we use sources. Here's more info, still a primary source, that scopes the jurisdictional element that limits the charges brought. --DHeyward (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

guilty plea is a conviction, just as much a guilty finding by a jury is a conviction. Those who don’t know this are out of their element. Obviously Flynn belongs to this category and it is not a “BLP violation.” Editors making suggestions seem to think “anything negative, even if proven, is a BLp violation!!!!!” Wrong. If you think it is even mildly controversial that Flynn was convicted of a charge he pleaded guilty to, please stop editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B411:47F1:450F:22B:A2F7:AF6A (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Not bullshit, as you indelicately put it. By "any matter under the jurisdiction of the federal government," I mean just that - if you lie in any federal proceeding or to any federal employee in a manner that materially affects the government, you commit a felony. If you lie to a BLM employee taking information for a land use permit, it's a felony just as much as a lie to an FBI agent is. That is the plain language meaning of the statute. The cite you provided helpfully explains that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Birthplace

I noticed that under the personal details section, it says he was born in Fort Meade, Maryland, whereas under the Early Life section, it says he was born in Middletown, Rhode Island. I have no idea where he was actually born, so someone should fix it. ScriptorHistoriae (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2018

The word "adviser" is misspelled in many places on this page. This is one of the most commonly misspelled words in the English language, with even entire websites (i.e. TripAdvisor.com) based on incorrect spelling. Bcmarshall (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Both adviser and advisor are acceptable English spellings. GMG^talk 16:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Flynn, Kushner, and Kislyak

Hey, just made an edit to delete Eli Blake's claim that Kushner was the one that directed Flynn to contact Kislyak. I do think that there is better sourcing for this claim than just the Blake article and the Examiner article that cites him (IIRC, there was some reporting from the Wall Street Journal on the subject, but I couldn't find the specific article), and if someone reverted that edit with better sourcing I wouldn't complain. However, Kushner directing Flynn to make that contact has some legal implications regarding the Logan Act, and so we should be especially careful to provide verifiable sourcing and multiple sources that don't rely on eachother BEFORE we put that kind of claim up as per WP:BLP. Rejewskifan (talk) 10:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Do appreciate the new sourcing, though the ABC source also relies on Eli Blake's reporting. It looks like almost all the claims regarding the direction for /Kislyak's/ call were based on Blake's reporting, but you can find multiple articles like this Wall Street Journal article for the Israeli calls. I would still want to delete the Eli Blake claim unless it can be backed up by other reports that don't rely on his, but will refrain from doing so because this isn't worth the edit war. Hopefully we aren't violating WP:BLPGOSSIP by including it.Rejewskifan (talk) 11:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Has Flynn's sentencing been postponed?

Is it true below?

- FBI form FD302 - falsification of forms and remarks used in indictment - called into question - his charges may be dropped? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.77.59 (talk) 06:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Unless you have an actual source which supports this claim, this thread will be hatted. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a RS for that? It looks like something from the right-wing echo chamber, maybe Hannity, Breitbart, Limbaugh, or Trump. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

wapo says something about the investigators wanting to delay sentencing. It’s common for sentencing hearings to be delayed until the government believes a person has fully cooperated. nothing about dropping charges, though Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is noteworthy, and it seems to only apply to his sentencing. I take it that Flynn's lawyers are saying this matter is not ready for sentencing for some reason (perhaps the giglio vs the Untited States case)- according to this on line pdf which shows the court filing (hope linking here is ok?): https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4364040/1-31-18-Flynn-Status-Report.pdf -- 75.169.18.236 (talk) 06:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

It's a joint statement signed by both Flynn's lawyers and Special Counsel Mueller; this is fairly typical in plea bargain cases involving ongoing investigations, as Galobtter notes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Contreras was recused or recused himself. A Strzok-Page communication mentioned Strzok trying to meet with Contreras discreetly at a party. Judge Emmet Sullivan ordered the prosecution to turn over any exculpatory evidence. FBI agents who interviewed Flynn did not think he lied.Phmoreno (talk) 12:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The sentencing delay request(s) from the witch hunter should be mentioned — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.178.75 (talk) 03:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Michael Flynn Democrat?

It was pointed out to me that the article lists Flynn's political affiliation as Democrat. The article supporting this points to a CNN article that says: I "grew up as a Democrat in a very strong Democratic family, but I will tell you that Democratic party that exists in this country is not the Democratic Party that I grew up around in my upbringing," he said. "I vote for leaders."

This seems like thin evidence to label him a Democrat. I mean, after all, he did endorse Donald Trump at the National Republican Convention in which he called to imprison Hillary Clinton. Occam's After Shave (talk) 00:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd suggest we simply remove "political party" from the infobox. It's not essential information for someone who spent most of his life in the military and in non-political jobs. And as you say, it's murky. He may have grown up a Democrat, but I'm not aware of any recent evidence that he still considers himself one. His recent actions would suggest otherwise. --MelanieN (talk) 21:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to remove "political party" from the infobox. I don't think political affiliation is usually listed in the infobox of military officers. Discussion can continue here, if anyone wants to restore it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the infobox is for non-controversial/clear information anyhow. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The news articles from 2016/17 dealing with his party affiliation definitely called him a registered Democrat (not from the past but as a current information) and that being asked if he still was a Democrat, he "did not specify whether he has changed his party affiliation since backing Donald Trump" but simply answered with the quotes from above. Given that he is considered a registered Democrat in any source I could find and gave a diplomatic, polite answer about the contrast between the past and current Democratic Party, this does not look like a party withdrawal but like criticising its current state, in fact it's a clear source for his party affiliation as long as there is no source contradicting it. Running with a Republican president does not. From that point of view the answer "I vote for leaders." rather says that any party, including his Democratic, has a chance as long as they have, well, leaders.

Also, Flynn has not been the first lifelong/nominal Democrat to speak on an RNC or join Trump, just see Zell Miller or Jared Kushner, as well as List of United States political appointments across party lines. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 05:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

After waiting for almost half a year, I'll reinstate the party. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 14:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The consensus was clearly to leave it off. The info box is meant for non-controversial information. Including it is likely politically motivated. -- 98.121.16.37 (talk) 06:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Flynn Birthday?

This article has his birthday listed as December 5, but his sister tweeted that his birthday is actually December 24. Can we confirm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.229.70 (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Altered evidence used against Flynn?

There are ongoing investigations as to whether evidence used against Flynn was altered, specifically the 302 forms FBI agents file whenever they interview witnesses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phmoreno (talk • contribs)

This is not ready for the article. Most of these sources are partisan. CNN doesn't even mention the issue. The Hill reports these allegations sourced to Mark Meadows, who is not a neutral or reliable source, and even he is just saying "might have been", "could have been". -- MelanieN (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• So this is all just worthless and and irrelevant. There is no actual "ongoing investigation", certainly not by any competent or credible party, and these links are dead or months old. -- Jibal (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on December 23, 2018

The opening sentence says that Flynn is "is a retired United States Army Lieutenant General and, briefly, former National Security Advisor to President Donald Trump." He is not, and was not, briefly a former National Security Advisor; he is still a former National Security Advisor, and probably will be the rest of his life. Please change to "is a retired United States Army Lieutenant General who was briefly a National Security Advisor to President Donald Trump." 2001:BB6:4708:9258:44D9:64E0:E96B:6F09 (talk) 13:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I made this requested edit. Attic Salt (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Edit request 2: Please change "Sentencing of Flynn has been deferred several times, the last time on July 10, 2018" to "Sentencing of Flynn has been deferred several times, the latest time on December 18, 2018" (ref) [edited to add emphasis 13:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)]. It should not say "the last time" until after he has finally been sentenced. 2001:BB6:4708:9258:44D9:64E0:E96B:6F09 (talk) 14:20, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I made this requested edit. Attic Salt (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Attic Salt. You changed "the last time" to "most recently", but you did not change the date. The most recent deferment was December 18, 2018. I provided a ref for that date. 2001:BB6:4708:9258:F843:3B8B:EBE6:6DDD (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I made the changes. Thank you. Attic Salt (talk) 13:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2019

In the third paragraph of § National Security Advisor, please change the abbreviation for the Freedom Party of Austria from "FPA" to the official "FPÖ". Siegrief (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2019

General Flynn was not convicted in any court. 2605:A601:A004:788:4D5:7E2E:BDD2:C562 (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• He plead guilty in court of lying to an FBI. That's a conviction. GMG^talk 17:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oy gevalt. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2019

Please change

"Michael Thomas Flynn (born December 24, 1958) is a retired United States Army Lieutenant General and convicted felon[1] and he was, briefly, National Security Advisor to President Donald Trump."

to

"Michael Thomas Flynn (born December 24, 1958) is a retired United States Army Lieutenant General and was briefly, National Security Advisor to President Donald Trump. He pleaded guilty to making false statements and omissions and is awaiting sentence."

REF: https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2018-12-18/former-trump-adviser-michael-flynn-faces-sentencing https://www.npr.org/2018/12/18/677558000/federal-judge-delays-michael-flynn-sentencing-in-case-of-lying-to-feds KonaJoe61 (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. MrClog (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)