Talk:Roger Stone

Justice Department may release more of Mueller report material on Roger Stone

How did this happen? I though Trump is in Supreme Court to block it? Or it is only grand jury material? https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/justice-department-may-release-more-of-mueller-report-material-on-roger-stone/2020/06/12/9b2bd348-acca-11ea-9063-e69bd6520940_story.html 2A00:1FA0:8CE:7E0F:5440:FDFA:5BB3:84F3 (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Stone me! I'll have to mull over that one. Roger that?--Jack Upland (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I had to pop in to say, Jack, that was likely a contender for best pun of year. Kysier (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Roger Stone is a convicted felon

This dispute informally occurred in Archive 2 with no real resolution. I propose a, "support" or "oppose" referring to Roger Stone as a convicted felon in the lead as that is extremely relevant to who he is and why he is known. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 10:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support I'll start by saying I do support this on the grounds that all the arguments of not including it in the lead seem to be it's not relevant to his identity. This is blatantly untrue, it's core to his identity especially as of recent time. It would be difficult to find a media piece about Stone that does not mention his conviction. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 10:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support It's just a fact, commutation doesn't absolve a conviction, so it should obviously stand. Even needing to have a discussion about this is puerile and unconstructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100A:B023:2A71:0:50:80C7:F401 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support - Or criminal. His criminal record is one of the most notable things about him and the page uses the criminal infobox template, which reflects that. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Oh yes, I think Robert Mueller explained this very clearly: "The jury ultimately convicted Stone of obstruction of a congressional investigation, five counts of making false statements to Congress and tampering with a witness. Because his sentence has been commuted, he will not go to prison. But his conviction stands." [1]. As about the "pardon", Mitt Romney described it as 'unprecedented, historic corruption' [2], which needs also to be noted on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Whenever his obituary is written, this will be the lead story. He has not done and likely will never do anything to achieve the notoriety based on this case and subsequent conviction. The commutation only amplifies its significance. Trackinfo (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support Oppose He might be innocent, he has been pardoned, but he's still legally a felon unless the conviction is overturned. I'm nowhere near a modern lib, or a progressive.. but even I can admit that easily. How was this ever an issue?? That actually makes sense. It would fit better in the paragraph, perhaps including his pardon information. @Muboshgu: Kysier (talk) 04:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support, Oppose, Stone is a convicted felon but his sentence was commuted; both are relevant and should be in the lede sentence or paragraph. Philotimo (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Omit those two words from the first sentence, while keeping the detail on the conviction intact. There was a discussion about the "X is a convicted felon" construction of pages at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive307#Michael Avenatti that indicated opposition to this practice. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize Avenatti's precedent. I agree with @Muboshgu: on this, keep it but move it from lede sentence to paragraph. Philotimo (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Pinging those who supported before to see if you will reconsider in light of the discussion re: Michael Avenatti at BLPN you may not have been aware of... @GreenFrogsGoRibbit, Kudzu1, My very best wishes, Trackinfo, and Kysier: – Muboshgu (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

No, I still support inclusion. I don't find that convincing, and I don't think it should control this discussion per WP:OTHERSTUFF. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Robert Mueller was widely quoted saying that Stone "remains a convicted felon". In this case multiple sources present Stone as a felon. Binksternet (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose in the first sentence, but state that he is a convicted felon in the lede paragraph. We should deprecate ALL opening sentences of the form "John Doe is a _____, _____, and convicted felon." as being incompatible with WP:BLP. It's illustrative to look at articles for people outside the realm of politics who have felony convictions on their records. The article Martha Stewart covers the conviction in the second paragraph, but doesn't list her conviction in the first sentence. The article Amy Locane doesn't discuss her legal problems, which are significant and ongoing, in the lede at all. The article Charles Manson properly lists his claim to fame as crime ("...was an American criminal") but still doesn't tag him as a convicted felon in the first sentence. Ending the first sentence with "and convicted felon" has always read to me as an attempt to say "and a bad person". That's a judgement we get to make in our hearts, but not in our articles. Vadder (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment It seems to be 6-4 in favor of keeping it so far, which I am pretty happy with. The argument is favor of removing it seems to be a precedent argument which is, of course, a violation of WP:IGNOREPRECEDENT. Also, there is a precedent of referring to criminals as convicted felons in the lead on these pages such as Joe Ganim, Paul Manafort, and Shon Hopwood, but even my examples are useless because of WP:IGNOREPRECEDENT. In general, WP:IGNOREPRECEDENT could be overruled if the WP:CONS is against keeping it in the first sentence, which it currently isn't. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

My argument isn't from precedent. My argument is that we tend to say "X is ... and convicted felon" for people in politics and public affairs (including your three examples), and express a person's conviction status in other ways for people who are not in that sphere. That reads to me like we're trying to put a Scarlet Letter on them. That's not our job. It's also not very consistent with the spirit of WP:BLP. The precedential way to handle this is to keep doing what we're doing and mark this article subject as having the status of a convicted felon before the first period, as though that status alone is a large part of what makes him notable. (It is not. He would not be much less notable had he been acquitted.) Also, all but one of the supports were registered before Muboshgu and I made an issue of where in the lead to put it. The current !vote count is 10-0 in favor of mentioning felon status in the lead, but much less clear as to where in the lead. First-sentence placement was not explicitly stated in your question. Vadder (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I said I was continuing the "convicted felon" dispute from Archive 2, in which the argument was explicitly questioning whether to refer to him as a convicted felon in the first sentence. Also, Shon Hopwood is not a political figure, and the "public affairs" label doesn't work either as public affairs "generally refer to the building and development of relations between an organization and politicians, governments and other decision-makers" and that is not what he does. Accordingly, this common practice is not reserved for politicians, but any and all felons. I feel like your Scarlet Letter argument is defeated by WP:NOTCENSORED. It doesn't matter if it's viewed as offensive or mean, it's objectively true and we cannot censor reality because people might not like referring to someone as what they objectively are. Scarlet Letter isn't officially recognized policy on Wikipedia. I'm confused about your next argument. You seem to be claiming Stone is not notable as being a convicted felon by saying "...as having the status of a convicted felon before the first period, as though that status alone is a large part of what makes him notable. (It is not..." yet you concede "He would not be much less notable had he been acquitted." This seems to be contradictory. Your new argument doesn't render the old votes moot, because it's mainly a precedent argument. I don't think your argument that this page violates WP:BLP has a lot of merit as that policy cites WP:NEUTRAL which affirms referring to him a convicted felon. Finally, even if I was vague in where to include the felon status in the lead (which I don't agree I was) I still stated regardless "referring to Roger Stone as a convicted felon in the lead as that is extremely relevant to who he is and why he is known." which blatantly states at least one sentence in the lead should say "Roger Stone is a convicted felon". GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps my use of the term "public affairs" is not in the strictest keeping with the definition you looked up, but Shon Harwood is a lawyer and law professor involved in cases before the Supreme Court, which is "public affairs" in my book. It does matter very much if a fact is presented in a mean way, if there is a less-unkind but equally effective way to present the same information. I didn't offer the book Scarlet Letter as Wikipedia policy. I mentioned it as an example of a phenomenon that I feel is at work here; that many editors (I do not accuse you) want to mark with disapproval prominently and in the first sentence the biography of certain figures they consider bad in this specific way. In any case, there is more to consider in editing articles than basic policy. WP:NOTCENSORED is irrelevant here, as nobody has suggested censoring anything. I agree that the lead of this article should contain the fact that Roger Stone has been convicted of a felony. So does everyone else. The disagreement is and always was where in the lead. I would consider it a tremendous improvement if the disputed words were removed from the first sentence, but the last sentence in the first paragraph were to read, "The sentence was commuted by President Donald Trump on July 10, 2020, but Stone's status as a convicted felon was not changed." Vadder (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

For me, it's less about the precedent established, and more about what they discussed on it, which I broadly agree with and @Vadder: notes some of their rational for removing it (although perhaps argued on his own accord and not from their discussion) based on Avenatti. I think my new and present opinion on it is if they're a career criminal and that's what they're most known for (which I'd argue Stone isn't) then include it in their page's lede sentence, otherwise move it from the lede sentence to paragraph. This is probably a case of WP:What "no consensus" means right now, so let's just leave it be for now (unless something changes or more folks come in and move the needle). Philotimo (talk) 23:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

It most definitely does not matter if the info is presented in a way subjectively seen as mean. WP:NOTCENSORED is not only relevant but core to this argument because even if this was mean, censoring or making it seem softer would violate WP:CENSORED in its entirety. However, none of that is relevant to the fact that whether the first sentence is mean or not, is subjective. You see it as mean, I personally see it as objective. Roger Stone is a convicted felon and that's the end of it. If he is exonerated, then we can remove it. While I like your improvements, I feel the current version of the page is valid as is. The current vote remains 6-4 in keeping it as is, and as I said in my initial comment, I was restarting a dispute that occurred in an archive in which the controversy was to keep the convicted felon status in the first sentence of this article (which did not conclude officially but was 3-2 (one of the three have been blocked by Admins) in favor of removing it from the first sentence). Therefore, on the off-chance, people did not grasp that I was talking about the first sentence from the other points made in my initial comment, they should have got it from "This dispute informally occurred in Archive 2 with no real resolution." I apologize if I at any point come off as mean, rude, or disregarding of your feelings. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to note for the record that WP:Consensus isn't about raw votes it's about arguments. I personally think getting rid of it makes sense but understand the opposing position. I think 'no consensus' and leave it be makes sense here because there's decent arguments for and against it, with a split vote, which doesn't make sense to ram another decision through. Philotimo (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment That sounds strange, but by commuting Stone's sentence Donald Trump made his felonship even more prominent than it was. Roger Stone will be remembered forever as a felon who was commuted by the President because ... exactly as Romney said.My very best wishes (talk) 04:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Details of commutation.

From §Commutation: "On July 10, 2020, President Trump commuted Stone's sentence just days before he was to report to prison."

Commutation is a lessening of the sentence, not necessarily the removal of the entire sentence. Do we have any sources yet which give the details of this commutation? -- ToE 13:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

A few, I'll go find them later. Jist is his entire sentence was commuted, so he wont serve time. That said, legally, he's still a felon unless the court overturns his conviction. The president can't wipe the slate clean, just prevent punishment. Kysier (talk) 01:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Actual Statement from White House

Would someone please add this link to the actual statement from the White House regarding the commutation? https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-press-secretary-regarding-executive-grant-clemency-roger-stone-jr/ (I just signed up as a user & cannot edit this semi-protected article.) Fangaloka (talk) 05:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeh, it tells "Roger Stone is a victim of the Russia Hoax", even though he was in fact convicted for something different. My very best wishes (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course this should be included. Whether or not the reason is valid this is the official Whitehouse Statement of what happened. Definitely a reliable source and very relevant. Anyone refusing to add this is doing so based on their personal opinion of the case. Typical leftypedia bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:3087:9F01:3521:2664:6891:DB1D (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure, it should be included - in the proper context of "Unprecedented, historic corruption: an American president commutes the sentence of a person convicted by a jury of lying to shield that very president" as Romney said [3], and he is not a "leftist". This is not about left. Hiding the taxes - is it all about "left". None of the previous presidents including Republicans did that. Personally, I have no idea what is in his taxes. Maybe nothing. Maybe billions paid by foreign states. My very best wishes (talk) 16:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Lack of detail on the seven charges

Currently the article describes the seven charges as: "one count of obstruction of an official proceeding, five counts of false statements, and one count of witness tampering." Can we include a numbered list that includes the details of each of these charges? People want to know specifically what he said/did that resulted in these charges. JettaMann (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I support this 100%. Can never go wrong with more detail. I'm having trouble finding sources though. @JettaMann: Kysier (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

You mean to include what exactly he lied to the Congress? Well, he was found guilty on all counts noted in his indictment provided here: "He was convicted of all counts on Nov. 15 and faces up to 50 years in prison". Up to 50 years! This is all there. See seven counts on pages 21-23. But this is a primary source. To make this meaningful, one should explain who were "persons 1,2 and organization 1". Assange and Wikilieaks? We can't really go beyond secondary sources in explaining this thing. My very best wishes (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Roger Stone article

The following statement exists in this article: "Nearly three-dozen search warrants were unsealed in April 2020 which revealed a web of contacts between Stone, Assange, and other key 2016 Russian interference figures,"

Deliberate bias. "Nearly three-dozen search warrants" How about a specific number? What is the significance of the number of search warrants there were? One search warrant can get the job done. Multiple subsequent warrants may be evidence that the earlier warrants failed to reveal useful information.

"...which revealed a web of contacts between Stone, Assange, and other key 2016 Russian interference figures,""

A web of contacts between a group of people can be a totally harmless thing. Why use such a dark, value-loaded phrase as "web of contacts" here unless deliberately casting a negative light.

And how can you condone using such loaded phrase as "...key 2016 Russian interference figures" unless deliberately perpetuating a false narrative? The Mueller team investigated charges of "Russian collusion" for two years. Had they actually found any "Russian interference" the next move would have been to file charges against President Trump. No Russian collusion was found and no charges were filed against President Trump and yet here we are with Wikipedia making references to "key 2016 Russian interference figures" without even naming a single one. Vague assertions are not a basis for a factual article.

Finally, this article badly needs a description of the Gestapo-like raid on the Stone home to arrest him. Despite Stone being elderly and having no history of violent behavior, The DA chose to execute a no-knock warrant at 4 o'clock in the morning complete with a large contingent of SWAT police, a fleet of police vehicle and helicopter with searchlight glaring. And somehow, members of the press seemed to have gotten a heads up about the made-for-TV arrest of a basically harmless old man.

They could have gotten the job done quietly, at 8 AM, with just Cagney and Lacey and nobody in the neighborhood would have been disturbed. 24.218.74.205 (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Make InfoWars mention a link

Someone with permission to edit the article change "former Infowars host" in the first sentence to "former Infowars host" please 73.161.63.150 (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Did it for ya buddy GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)