Talk:Nunes memo/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

(Another) Trump tweet

I don't think we should include this in the article because it merely promotes a Trump's self-interests. Our readers deserve better.- MrX 🖋 20:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

If included, we’d have to include a response, and then his response to the response, etc. His accusations of bad faith and blame for future, predicted actions add nothing to our understanding. If people want to see a food fight, they can use Twitter. O3000 (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

That it "promotes...Trump's self-interests" isn't a compelling reason to exclude because the same could be said about all of Trump's tweets. The section is about the Trump administration's response, so it seems appropriate, especially for a relatively short section. If Trump's tweet was just a rehash of what the White House said, then I would agree that it's unnecessary. However, it adds some new things that offer clues for our readers about his personal objections to the rebuttal memo, writing that it is "very political and long". ^Falling_Gravity 21:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone believe these are his actual objections -- or that these would be acceptable objections for the POTUS to censor a memo written by another party? O3000 (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Does it matter for the article? PackMecEng (talk) 03:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Let's cover the facts (succinctly), not the tweets. Just like heavy reliance on direct quotes is often uncalled for (and article padding), verbatim quoting of the of the Tweeter in Chief is merely decorative. Trump tweets are trumped by formal letters. Something brief like "Trump declined to release the memo, citing risks to national security" is all that is probably needed. Remember that tweets are primary sources, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We shouldn't blindly follow the day-by-day style of news articles. To me, every addition should be a step or two above the daily slog to offer better long term perspective, but that takes determination and skill. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Trump's tweets are usually (unless they're written by a staffer) his own thoughts. It wasn't Trump himself who cited "national security risks", but his lawyer Don McGahn. The fact that he called the response memo "very political and long" should be noted, even if the entire tweet is not included. ^Falling_Gravity 22:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The article should mostly be based on third-party analysis and facts collected by reliable sources. Like Animalparty said, direct quotes, tweets, press releases, and propaganda do not make for good encyclopedia articles. Like Objective3000 said, Trump's ramblings add nothing to our (or our reader's) understanding of the main topic. The tweet is entirely predictable and shallow, as most of Trump's tweets are.- MrX 🖋 22:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

"third-party analysis and facts collected by reliable sources." Well, if that's what you want, here's a sampler: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] ^Falling_Gravity 22:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Are you proposing an edit that is based on these sources? If so, what is it?- MrX 🖋 22:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The sources are mostly to demonstrate that the tweet is a noteworthy response. If this were an article dedicated solely to the Schiff memo instead of the Nunes memo, then most of them could be included there. As for a proposed edit, I'll say it again: The fact that he called the response memo "very political and long" should be noted, even if the entire tweet is not included. ^Falling_Gravity 22:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, you would have to add this:[8]. O3000 (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe just adding something like Trump criticized the memo, calling it "very political and long." to the "Rebuttal memo" section. Maybe more details about the tweet could be added. ^Falling_Gravity 03:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources quoted the tweet. Objectively, Democrats voted against the release of the Nunes memo and for the release of the Schiff memo. Trump thought the opposite. Not really shocked they are at loggerheads but we should cover the reasons why each opposed and supported their respective positions. Are we going to redact all reasons the Democrats gave to vote against the Nunes memo simply because they contrarily voted for the Schiff memo? I don't see that happening or any reason to not report Trumps position. --DHeyward (talk) 05:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Nope. It's undue and yes, if we did include it then any significant responses need to be included as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: I agree with you that Trump's own response to the memo is significant, but I don't see how that makes it a bad thing to include in the article. ^Falling_Gravity 08:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

But this memo largely concerns Donald Trump and the responses to his campaign, responses by relevant parties should be included. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) Respect mobile users. 11:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

RFC on Russian Bot Support

1. Should the article describe the media campaign as supported by Russian Bots? 2. If yes to number 1, should the Russian bot support for the campaign be in the first defining sentence of the article? Casprings (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Survey

Support Both Multiple sources make this connection. See:

• Russia-linked Twitter accounts are working overtime to help Devin Nunes and WikiLeaks
• In fight over Russia memo, Republicans have unusual ally
• Russian Trolls Found Amplifying U.S. Republican Charge Against FBI

As such, this is foundational to the article. External support from a state actor is what makes this campaign notable.Casprings (talk) 03:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Pointlessly Vague an RFC without specific wording. This the Twitter version of Horton Hears a Who. All the Whoville bots are honking their donghonglers, but noting they are all honking is quite different than saying they are noisy and a significant source of noise. --DHeyward (talk) 04:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - Shouldn't we just follow what the sources are saying and attribute the Russian bots claim to the Alliance for Securing Democracy's Hamilton 68? This really shouldn't be that hard. ^Falling_Gravity 05:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
• There's nothing vague about this. It simply means that the original, neutral version - "ReleaseTheMemo is a social media campaign supported by Russian bots" - that was there before a bunch of IPs and DHeyward monkeyed up the text to misrepresent the sources, should be restored.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The proposal should be clear from the start. If you have to then explain what the RfC "means", then it probably is too vague. ^Falling_Gravity 18:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support inclusion but needed better sourcesing before going in the lead. Bill H Pike (talk, contribs) 06:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Casprings's RfC is typically vague and malformed, but what he means is "Should this article state that 'ReleaseTheMemo' is a Russian-sponsored social media campaign in the lead sentence and without attribution?" Given that the sources all attribute that claim to ASD's "Hamilton," there is no reason for Wikipedia to eschew similar attribution.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - Instead of saying "Russian Bots" let's talk about, for instance, a "Russian disinformation campaign on social media" or similar, if we have the sources. This isn't really WP:NPOV, more WP:The_World's_Turning_Too_Fast_And_We're_Making_Up_Words_For_Stuff. We can do better. -- Cheers, Alfie. (Say Hi!) 21:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• There are exactly 0 sources that say #ReleaseTheMemo is a "Russian disinformation campaign on social media." Even Democrats aren't saying that. --DHeyward (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support inclusion using the last stable version as mentioned above. "ReleaseTheMemo is a social media campaign supported by Russian bots" or "#ReleaseTheMemo is a Russian supported social media campaign" seems well-sourced, high profile enough to be in the lead given its prominence in the sources, and fairly uncontroversial. --Aquillion (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support 1; Oppose 2 per WP:DUEWEIGHT. Extensive coverage in Newsweek, Bloomberg, NBC News, The Washington Post, The Daily Beast, CNN, and so on. Now that the article is about the memo, this would not be a significant enough point to include in the lead sentence.- MrX 🖋 15:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose.

1. As TheTimesAreAChanging pointed out, the actual text that at least some people want to include is more specific than just saying that Russian bots are involved.
2. Although there are sources which say that Russian bots are involved, the sources don't say that Russian bots are a significant portion of why the campaign has spread. In fact, the sources are being literally accurate but misleading--they stress that the Russian bots are exerting a lot of effort, trying to imply that they contribute significantly, but they don't say so. As such, although it would technically be okay to use such sources, we would have to be careful not to imply more than those sources are literally saying, and I feel that the intent of this poll is not to be so careful. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes No for 1 and 2 respectively. Widely reported by RS. The topic is broader however. SPECIFICO talk 23:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, No Yes per reliable sources. And please stop trying to change and remove the text DURING an ongoing RfC - that's clearly disruptive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, Yes/no (meaning it should be in the lead, but not the first phrase). Appears in a number of RS on the subject. I am voting "Yes" for the point 2 because the claim about bots appears as something highly significant in the overall context of the "interference". How much should be said about it in the lead is another question (not a subject of this RfC). A couple of phrases would probably be enough. My very best wishes (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• Yes,No - Small mention of the controversy in the body. Not important enough for the lead. PackMecEng (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support version by JFG. I believe this revision is the most NPOV. You have both sides of the argument, including the Russian bots claim and Twitter's analysis. No news outlet has independently verified Hamilton 68's claim, so "reportedly" is appropriate. ^Falling_Gravity 01:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
• 1 Yes but balanced / 2 No – Didn't notice this RfC before my edit. Russian bot support was reported by Hamilton 68 and denied by Twitter, so we must mention both, with attribution, in the body. Keep it very brief in the lede, certainly not in the first sentence. — JFG ^talk 01:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, no. Highly significant, well-supported by sources. As for its treatment in the lead section: this should not be in the first sentence, but should be mentioned in the lead section. Neutrality^talk 02:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
• 1. Yes. 2. No. This RfC was started before the memo was released and the whole political world was in a tizzy about the release campaign. The memo has been released for a week now, and to the extent that folks are talking about the memo, they're talking about its contents much more than its release. The most significant and noteworthy verifiable aspects of the release were that it done as a political stunt (confirmed by reliable sources) and it was opposed by the intelligence community. The fact that it was supported by Russian bots is certainly significant, but not close to lead-worthy in my view. If there was evidence that the bot campaign significantly influenced House Republicans then that might be a whole different story. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
• 1: Yes. 2: No. There appears to be sufficient sourcing of Russian bot involvement, but in the overall picture it has not been a top defining aspect of this subject. Alsee (talk) 08:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• 1: No-ish, and 2: Definitely not. The portrayal is that the vast bulk of support is the Republican party and then Trump fans and trolls support, so having the Russian mention alone is definitely off, and even mention of it as if it was significant to events would be off. It might be put as a small side-remark and include the company admins saying it's not so, but I'm thinking that may be WP:UNDUE since my Google is saying 5M+ for Nunes memo -russian bots versus 71K +russian bots, down about 2% of the traffic. Seems not at all a big or growing part of the coverage in RS. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Based on votes above, I think there is clear consensus to include "bots" in the body of page and to mention this in the lead, but not in the first phrase. My very best wishes (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Does not belong in the lede

This text does not belong in the lede:

In April 2017, Nunes stepped aside from chairing the House Intelligence Committee's Russia investigation while the House Ethics Committee conducted an inquiry into possible ethics violation involving his secret coordination with the White House. He then began his own secret parallel investigation. The Ethics Committee investigation ended in December 2017, and Nunes later claimed he had never recused.

This article is about a Congressional Republican-authored memo which is only referred to as the "Nunes" memo. It's not a Nunes memo per se, as it has the backing of the Republican majority of the Congressional Committee which released this. Thus, since this article is not about Nunes himself and since this memo is not of his exclusive provenance, it's a WP:NPOV violation to include, in the lede, the information about Nunes having been involved in an ethics inquiry. Such language detracts from the proper use of this lede, which is to summarize/introduce an article about the memo. Comments? Xerton (talk) 02:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. It's good in the background section, but is not essential information to put in the lead. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Instead of presenting your personal opinion on an article talk page, you need to cite what the bulk of WP:RS references tell us. SPECIFICO talk 03:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Specifico; I'm not sure why you would characterize my analysis as my "personal opinion". And if that's what you actually intend, then what you are saying is that the "talk" page isn't for actual discussion, but it's only for un-discussed citations to various WP guidelines pages. But of course, if that were true, such a process would form a catch 22. Because if talk pages actually do disallow talking towards analysis & consensus, and they only allow dry bones citations to WP guidelines pages, then how would one discuss anything on a WP page talk page which needs improvement? Xerton (talk) 11:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

But that is what's being discussed, but background information relating to the effects of the memo are relevant to the memo itself, aren't they? --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) Respect mobile users. 11:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Nunes' recusal is important because it shows that he really didn't recuse at all; he conducted a side investigation to discredit the FBI during its investigation into the Trump campaign. Nunes was part of Trump's transition team and has a pretty glaring conflict of interest. This is according to most sources that have covered this subject in depth. It's a significant point and should remain in the lead.- MrX 🖋 12:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Norman L. Eisen gets it.[9] - MrX 🖋 12:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Minor distraction, not lead-worthy. — JFG ^talk 12:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Uh, no. Quite pertinent to the topic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Nunes' dishonesty and collaboration with the White House, beginning with his so-called stealth "midnight ride" before his un-recusal to get propaganda material from POTUS's staff, is the central background to this memo per RS. This lede text could be shortened and made more direct to point out its central significance, but the substance of the RS narrative can't be denied in the lede so as to support the White House/Fox News false narrative. RS do not describe the memo as a good faith governmental instrument. It is characterized in detail as part of of a now-failed disinformation strategy. SPECIFICO talk 14:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Even if this comment of yours was uniformly true "It is characterized in detail..." (and it's not - it's only true in the minds of those who can't admit that each salient assertion in this memo is 100% factual) it still doesn't justify shoehorning "ethics violation" into the lede. Mentioning Nunes's ethical shortcomings (if any) in the lede of this article is nothing more than editorial slight-of-hand; it's an attempt to impeach the memo by criticizing the chairman of the committee which released it. Xerton (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

All half-truths are true. That's why their called half-truths. But they are not the whole truth. That's why they are not the truth. Anyway, no. SPECIFICO talk 23:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The fact that Nunes has been in contact with Flynn (who's been convicted of lying to the FBI) should also be mentioned [10].Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Not in the lede and not in this article. Xerton (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe not in the lede, but surely in this article. What's the objection? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

(the above is in reference to Nunes' contacts with Flynn. The secret investigation Nunes has been running most certainly belongs in the lede).Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

A policy compliant article isn't necessarily a well-written one. I'm not here to WikiLawyer or split hairs, but from a basic style argument, the disputed text is out of place in the lead. It is the only text in the lead not directly concerning the memo/its release. The first paragraph rightfully defines the memo, then digresses and goes back in time to clumsily explain who Nunes is, yadda yadda yadda. The second paragraph discusses the memo and concerns over its release. The third paragaph summarizes #ReleaseTheMemo, and the fourth summarizes the release and aftermath. Now, I am not arguing that Nunes' stepping aside should be removed from the article, merely that its inclusion in the lead is logically and stylistically the most distant outlier, and I argue that its omission from the lead does not significantly hinder comprehension of the lead, nor the article. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Wrong factually -- it lacks source cites and seems the wording is distorting the cites I find. The label "secret" for the investigation seems WP:WEASEL improper, the portrayal of the ethics result as "ended" should say "cleared" him, and the December date followed by saying Nunes "claimed" he never recused is misleading about the timing as that came soon after the reports of recusal and is not "claimed" as it is not in doubt. While many in April did initially cover Nunes stepping away during the ethics probe as "recusal", that was also said only "stepping aside as head" to the committee investigation per Washington Post, and he remained the Chairman of the committee. The coverage corrections that he did not recuse was done at the start of June per Washington Examiner and relayed by MSNBC / Rachel Maddow, or by or LA Times. The parallel probe for FBI leaks/bias/partisan spinning was covered by September by CNN, and reported as starting in March 2017 The Atlantic. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

It does not lack sources (they're in text). The label "secret" is straight from the sources! If you're going to post comments to the talk page please at least get the basics right.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Quote calling Devin Nunes a "nut job"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Does this encyclopedia article about a memo really need to include a full quote calling Devin Nunes a "nut job"? While I agree we can include John Dean's commentary, his personal beef against Devin Nunes is irrelevant here. ^Falling_Gravity 22:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Probably not. Like the old expression goes "opinions are like assholes: everybody's got one, and they all stink." In 2 years+, verbatim quotes will not be as relevant as the facts themselves (again, we should not emulate daily news articles in form, structure, or level of detail), and sprinkling quotes throughout is too-often a lazy excuse for good, succinct paraphrasing. An encyclopedia entry is not a newspaper or magazine article, and should not be crammed with the words of every talking head. Wikipedia is not in the game of generating daily stories to keep or attract advertisers, nor beholden to update readers at every quote or development. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Quotes belong on Wikiquote anyhow with an interwiki link either left of the article or on the bottom unless a quote is directly relevant to the rest of the content. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) Respect mobile users. 11:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I think the John Dean quote should be removed in its entirety. It adds nothing of value, and John Dean is not uniquely qualified to comment; he is merely one out of the scores of people who have offered a public opinion about this. MelanieN alt (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually based on commentary here, I am going to remove it pending further discussion. MelanieN alt (talk) 13:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. John Dean is the former White House Counsel to Richard Nixon, was involved in Watergate and was a witness in a federal investigation. He is indeed *uniquely* qualified to comment. And we have a response section with other quotes - so why not this one? Because it's negative? That's not a valid reason, that's just WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

How does this experience qualify Dean to comment on the sanity of a Congressman? Xerton (talk) 03:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

It's just a figure of speech, a derogatory expression. Dean's experience uniquely qualifies him to recognize high-level deception and a cover-up in progress. He's a lawyer and was deeply involved in one. He sees what's happening and knows where this is going. Observe and learn from the expert. Disbelieving him is foolish. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Not true whatsoever. And it's OR to claim that Dean is "uniquely qualifie[d]... to recognize high-level deception". Also, if you are going to insert bold claims here, please at least take the time to substantiate the terms. There is no homogeneous phenomenon extant which commonly known as "high level deception" and for you to suggest Dean is an expert in detecting such is both totem-pole illogical and unfounded. He's not the Amazing Kreskin nor is he even proven to be as good of a deducer as a carnival weight guesser. In sum, there's nothing whatsoever in the public record which in any way reasonably holds Dean to be a bona fide expert at sniffing out deception, let alone "high level" deception; whatever that is. And your surmises to the contrary do not make it so. Xerton (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome to your opinion, but you don't appear to know the history of the Watergate scandal or John Dean's role in it. I was already an adult at the time and very much aware of Dean's role in the Watergate cover-up. That was all I watched and read. He is in the same place as Michael Cohen and some of Trump's other lawyers. They even have Congressmen like Nunes helping! Nixon didn't have that. The Nixon team did indeed engage in high-level deception. They were also busted for it, and Dean convicted. Study history. See SPECIFICO's comment below. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Now who's talking about advancing WP:OR ideas? What you and others think about the history of John Dean's role in The Committee to Re-Elect the President's "Plumbers" illegal nighttime entry into the Democratic National Committee's HQ at Watergate Hotel is irrelevant to this discussion; the only thing which matters in this discussion is whether or not the WP:RS which covered that scandal back in the day (or the history books written using those RS sources as references), show Dean to be an expert in the general subject matter of recognizing "high-level deception" (which is what you claim he is). It's one thing to betray your co-conspirators and testify against them so as to save your own skin, and to do that by drawing on the specific facts which you are already privy to. But it's another thing altogether to serve as an expert witness on the subject matter of "high level deception" itself. And that's something which Dean did not do back then and has not done since. And why is that? Because he's NOT AN EXPERT on any such subject which you are trying to call "high level deception" because THERE IS NO category of knowledge which is homogeneous enough that it can reasonably be referred to as "high level deception". So again, being a pundit does not make Dean a subject matter expert on a subject which he DOES NOT have subject matter expertise in. The topic of "high level deception" is not a field of study which is recognized as existing with standard rules, methods and training and there is no proof that Dean has been trained or is an expert in this non-existent category of knowledge. And you are offering him up as such based on nothing more than sheer speculative hero worship hype. And FYI: If Dean were the expert at "high level deception" you want to portray him as, he would not have gotten caught and been forced to cop a plea. Or, had he been, he could have deceived the Congressional Committees which he testified in front of and thereby lessened his personal peril. Unless of course he did do that, which of course would make him a liar (a commonly held belief of him both then and now) and therefore, being a liar makes one not a reliable source. However you slice it, Dean either isn't the expert you want him to be or he's not a reliable source (or both). Or lastly, you can try to hold him up as a paragon of virtue who, although he was evil, came to his senses, told "the truth" against Nixon people, continues to tell the truth (truth which he is on the outside of, unlike when he was on the inside with Nixon team), is an expert in all things regarding deception of any kind and by virtue of his past history, we are obliged to prominently tout every snort or utterance of his which makes Nunes/Trump look bad because, well 'Nunes/Trump are bad', apparently; is that what you are saying? Please clarify, because by no means should we miss anything about Dean's unique qualifications, expertise and fidelity to truth telling. In fact, since he's such an expert in armchair punditry about the "nuts" status of our leaders, perhaps we should beseech him to opine on all our elected officials - and we can add his thoughts to all our articles, with him being such an expert, yes? Xerton (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

In addition to being at the center of both the Watergate scandal and its trial, Dean has written a dozen books on subjects related to high level deception in government, including multiple bestsellers. If there is an expert on such, he’s it. O3000 (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an empirically distinct type of deception which is, by reliable sources, specifically known as "high level deception" and it's patent WP:OR to suggest there is. To cite Dean as an expert on that type of deception, you have to find reliable sources which define that type of deception specifically and then you have to find reliable sources which state that Dean is an expert in recognizing and identifying it. Being an author of a number of books does not self-verify Dean as a a subject matter expert in assessing the veracity or sanity of Congressmen (high level or otherwise), just because you claim he is. Xerton (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Xerton, this is the talk page, not the article. OR and personal opinions are allowed here, so bringing that up as some type of offense is just pointless. We're just discussing. I do not favor using his "nut job" wording here. That's it. Your wall of text is not at all convincing. I'll repeat: "Dean is uniquely quotable, but "nut job" isn't essential here." -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Dean's only claim to fame is he testified against Nixon in the 70's. Which is not a subject relevant to what he is being quoted for. The others can remain because they are relevant to the topic. Also WP:ILIKEIT it not a valid argument either. PackMecEng (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Dude, he was White House Counsel who was a mastermind of Nixon's crimes, who flipped and then was the focus of worldwide attention for months on end and who went to prison and who has been widely cited on these matters. Nunes is no mastermind but I wouldn't say Dean's commentary on the broader topic is UNDUE. SPECIFICO talk 16:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Don't you dude me! Rather rude don't ya know. But yes, over 40 years ago he was an important figure in the watergate stuff. This is not watergate, or even really related at this point. His commentary is no more important than any other political commentator on the matter. PackMecEng (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear? I thought dude was a friendly thing among the younger generation? Sorry, sir or madam. SPECIFICO talk 18:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Dean is cited by multiple reliable sources on the matter of Nunes and his memo. In addition to Newsweek and NPR which were already provided, Dean is also discussed here, here, here, here and here. To claim that he is unimportant is absurd.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Kind of making my point here. Look at the sources you use. First one a commentary talk show, second one a opinion piece, third a podcast, fourth university radio show, and fifth another news commentary show. None of which would be good enough as a RS on this subject. PackMecEng (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think Dean's comments need to be totally removed, just that it should be paraphrased to focus on the comments' substance. Just because a political commentator calls a politician a "nut job" doesn't mean we need to repeat that insult, even if we personally agree with that assessment. ^Falling_Gravity 17:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree "nut job" doesn't tell us anything encyclopedic. It's one of those American colloquialisms that even they don't know what it means, they just enjoy saying it. SPECIFICO talk 18:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Dean's comments are noteworthy, but the nut job comment is not encyclopedic.- MrX 🖋 18:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree. In Japan it would be onigiri. SPECIFICO talk 19:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Dean is uniquely quotable, but "nut job" isn't essential here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• I intuitively agree that the most elagant solution here is to start moving content to wikiquote, and I doubt there is any shortage of content to make a page there with. If I can remember when I get back on desktop I'll start the page over there if no one else has by that pojnt. GMG^talk 18:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Done in case anyone wants to contribute there. GMG^talk 14:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

raw intelligence

edit like a noob I accidentally created the article with this comment so now I guess I need to make a stub, but am requesting input on where to merge/redirect...

The rebutting Schiff memo uses this phrase:

"Christopher Steele's raw intelligence reporting did not inform the FBI's decision to initiate its counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016."

There is a definition for the term at https://www.fbi.gov/about/leadership-and-structure/intelligence-branch

Raw intelligence is often referred to as “the dots”—individual pieces of information disseminated individually.

Finished intelligence reports “connect the dots” by putting information in context and drawing conclusions about its implications.

I would like to know where this phrase should link. I don't know if it is worth an entire article on Wikipedia but am confused by Intelligence_(disambiguation)#Information,_including_its_acquisition and which article would be best deserving on a redirect, where to put a section for it.

Would this fit somewhere under espionage? ScratchMarshall (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

We don't necessarily need to link anywhere, per MOS:LINK and WP:OVERLINK, especially if it is unclear what article to link to. If you can understand a news article without requiring a dictionary, there is little need to link. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Move suggestion

I suggest that this article be moved to a title that includes both the Rep and Dem memos. It makes little sense to have two articles. O3000 (talk) 02:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I believe it's too soon yet for a move. What would the prospective title be? The Schiff memo is a direct response to the Nunez Memo (and ensuing discussions). Let's give it at least a day before even considering a move. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm patient:) Just want to avoid a new article and an AfD. O3000 (talk) 02:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

This might be a good idea for NPOV reasons.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I've created Schiff memo as a redirect to stymie topic splitting. I've also linked this article from Memogate, as a relatively small minority of commentators have dubbed the issue surrounding the memo(s) ([11][12][13]), although I certainly think it is premature to rename this into any "-gate" article at this point. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. An ounce of prevention…. And I’m gate-weary.:) O3000 (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the redirects, if only to stymie premature article creation. I oppose a rename of this. There is no collective name. "Nunes memo" is what it has been called, everywhere and for weeks, and the Dem response is not called "Democratic memo" or "Schiff memo" (well, occasionally) or anything like that - it's called "Democratic response to the Nunes memo." It was the "Nunes memo" that was the target of all the hype (including the phony #Releasethememo buildup, which the Republicans promoted as if urging some unknown censor to release it, even though it was in their power to release it all along). This is the Nunes memo, and the response/debunking should be right here in the same article. --MelanieN (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree. The redirect solves the problem. O3000 (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Shall we do a Democratic response memo section?

I don't think that it should be a separate article, but it puts the Nunes memo in a new light. SPECIFICO talk 23:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree we need to cover it, and a section is probably about the right amount of coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

It has been released, and I added a link. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

It will deserve its own article, but, per WP:SPINOFF, we should have a section here that summarizes it (just use the lead from that article) and a "main" link to it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagree about having its own article. It is a reply to this memo, in some ways a mirror image of it; it will be best reported and understood as a part of this article. --MelanieN (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, let's see how it develops. If it becomes an undue weight problem, then we can spin it off. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I also disagree that the Schiff memo needs it's own article. The Recentism and oncoming glut of reports can distort the historic significance. Nunez releases memo, Schiff releases counter memo, pundits weigh in. Splitting into two articles would impede comprehensive context. Its possible that in the future both memos could become part of an article on a controversy itself, but for now a split isn't warranted, only skilled editorial attention. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Thus far, I'm OK with keeping it in this article. But, it must be prominent and as detailed as the Nunes memo. Actually, I think it would be far better to move this article to a title including both memos and that they should be given equal footing. O3000 (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with solutions provided by Volunteer Marek and Objective3000. Dem section should probably significantly expanded, or the Contents section of the Nunes memo should be decreased and the main discrepancies should be highlighted. Synthesize the two into one article. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 21:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The section on the rebuttal memo needs some serious expansion. Not sure right now if it needs to have its own article but DUEWEIGHT would suggest that it does indeed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

We have a detailed "contents" section spelling out the allegations in the memo. It seems to me that the Democratic response should be paired with that section. Either point-by-point as the issues are raised, or (probably better) in a section immediately below it, "Responses", organized in the same way and responding in the same order to the allegations. --MelanieN (talk) 01:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

If this were a scholarly study, the presentation might be intermixed. Allegation followed by response. Allegation followed by response. But, it isn’t and we will never be able to agree on how to do this. So, I think we will have to handle them separately. Then, the question becomes how to handle the lede. (OK Melanie, I give in and will start using the word lede.:)) O3000 (talk) 01:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory?

How exactly is this considered a conspiracy theory? Especially after the release of the Democrats (Schiff) memo which corroborates many of the facts in the original (Nunes) memo, even though it was supposed to rebut them. I can't remove the category because the article is locked but another Wikipedia user needs to remove the conspiracy theory category ASAP... PZP-003 (talk) 09:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I reverted the removal of this cat. But, it does deserve discussion. Certainly what could be considered conspiracy theories have swirled around the subject of this article. And, it can be easily argued that the memo itself proposed a conspiracy theory -- one that appears to have been roundly debunked. Is that enough for the categorization? O3000 (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Nothing has been "debunked", only corroborated by the democrats memo. Plus the only reliable sources that label this memorandum a "conspiracy theory" are known liberal anti-trump websites. PZP-003 (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

This is not a forum WP:NOTFORUM. If you have a reliable source, provide it. O3000 (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Are you looking for a source to prove a negative? What was the source that was used to justify that category? PackMecEng (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The editor has made a number of claims without any refs or rationale. I already asked a general question on if this fits the category. Responding something about known liberal anti-trump websites is not useful. O3000 (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

O3000 I agree that this is not a forum WP:NOTFORUM. If you have objective balanced neutral reliable sources that don't label something a conspiracy theory please provide them. PZP-003 (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the "conspiracy theory" category because there is nothing in the article to support it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: but there is... conspiracy is mentioned by 2 sources and 3 times in the article. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Links? I'm not looking for the word "conspiracy", which the memo does to some extent allege; I'm looking for "conspiracy theory". Schumer doesn't count. --MelanieN (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Why doesn't he count? And I'm not gonna copy paste links from the ref list containing the word conspiracy... but here are some other sources [14] [15] [16] EvergreenFir (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Schumer is a partisan source making a partisan point. If Trump calls something "fake news", do we put it in Category:Fake news? As for those sources, I was looking for links IN THE ARTICLE to justify the category. They aren't there. --MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

...Nunes had argued for months that the FBI and DOJ had taken part in a conspiracy. Nunes counts. That's Schiff, but at some point even Dems add up to someone.:) O3000 (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

We could, and should, easily create a whole section about this:

"The Nunes memo is designed to do just that by furthering a conspiracy theory that a cabal of senior officials within the FBI and the Justice Department were so tainted by bias against President Donald Trump that they irredeemably poisoned the investigation."[17]

-- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

That sounds just like Schiff and Schumer trying to discredit the memo and not an actual conspiracy theory. PackMecEng (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Right. And the sources provided by EvergreenFir seem to be characterizing Nunes as a conspiracy theorist, rather than describing the memo as a conspiracy theory. --MelanieN (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

What are they trying to discredit -- a conspiracy theory involving Clinton and the FBI? O3000 (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

WaPo, Newsweek, The Guardian, NYTimes, ChicagoTrib O3000 (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The more salient issue is whether "conspiracy theory" is a defining trait of the memo, per WP:CATDEF and WP:DEFINING, and also whether placing the article under "conspiracy theories" violates NPOV. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed and that's why I asked for a discussion. But, we are not putting this in the cat of conspiracy theorists, only conspiracy theories. I think there is probably adequate documentation in highly reliable sources (and even sources that like the theory). O3000 (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Bottom line: Read Conspiracy theory. It doesn’t just mean every time someone detects or describes a conspiracy. It’s a term with negative connotations and a very narrow definition: “an explanation of an event or situation that invokes an unwarranted conspiracy, generally one involving an illegal or harmful act carried out by government or other powerful actors. Conspiracy theories often produce hypotheses that contradict the prevailing understanding of history or simple facts. The term is often a derogatory one.” For example, the Russia investigation describes or alleges a conspiracy, but the Russia investigation is not a conspiracy theory. And while partisans may throw around the term “conspiracy theory” for the Nunes memo, it doesn’t match our definition of the term. --MelanieN (talk) 01:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

It actually does. See Schiff's description above, and then remember all the false accusations. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Appears to fit quite well. And, it is used by the cites I gave from RS above, which we don't normally call partisan. The Nunes memo claims a conspiracy by the FBI to harm the Trump campaign and subvert the election. O3000 (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

That may be what Nunes himself claims. But does the memo? It seems to limit itself to one FISA request (which could hardly have had any effect on the Trump campaign since the target was no longer part of the Trump campaign), just a month before the election. In fact the memo itself contradicts any claim that the FISA request caused the investigation. As most sources described it, it was more of a dud than a coherent conspiracy claim. --MelanieN (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

It's what Nunes says the Nunes memo documents. A distinction without a difference. Besides, I'm not relying on that. I'm using the five RS cites I provided. O3000 (talk) 01:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

At the least we can document that numerous RS have called it a conspiracy theory. Whether it is or not is immaterial. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The Nunes memo very closely matches the definition MelanieN provides above. I'm not proposing a move to Nunes memo (conspiracy theory), but the nature and purpose of the memo is to promote a false narrative of secret government malfeasance. SPECIFICO talk 01:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• WaPo : The fatal flaw of the Nunes memo conspiracy theories, in one exchange
• ChicagoTrib The Nunes memo is designed to do just that by furthering a conspiracy theory that a cabal of senior officials within the FBI and the Justice Department were so tainted by bias against President Donald Trump that they irredeemably poisoned the investigation.
• NYTimes Instead of evidence, the memo engages in the same dark and misleading conspiracy theories that have characterized other efforts by President Trump’s allies to discredit the Russia investigation.
• Newsweek Nunes memo reveals congressman’s penchant for conspiracy theories O3000 (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to document those sources. SPECIFICO talk 03:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure how a bunch of opinion columns make the point that the memo was related to conspiracy theories. The Washington Post "The Fix" op-ed one only mentions conspiracy theories in the first paragraph and quickly discounts it. Chicago Tribune makes the connection of furthering a existing theory, but again heavy opinion piece talking about the cabals out to deceive american and garbage like that. NY Times another op-ed that the whole thing is a conspiracy to discredit the investigation somehow. Finally Newsweek, talks about conspiracies related to Benghazi and Colin Powell. Not Nunes or the memo. So we have a bunch of stories that could not be used in the article, does not prove that the category should be used. PackMecEng (talk) 14:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The lead of our article says that the Nunes memo contains evidence that the Department of Justice and the FBI abused the FISA warrant process to sabotage the Donald Trump presidency. As conspiracy theories go, that ranks near the top. How many conspiracies theories involve top government officials attempting to sabotage the presidency, and have had such wide coverage? O3000 (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The memo actually "raises concerns" about potential abuses of the FISA process. There's also no mention of sabotaging Trump's presidency or candidacy, an assumption apparently borrowed from the deep state conspiracy theory. In fact, the memo actually helps to debunk some of the theories that conspiracy theorists thought the document would prove [18][19]. ^Falling_Gravity 03:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Democrats memo

Three pieces of crucial information that the newly released Democratic memo does not disprove:

It provides no information to disprove the Republican claim that the DOJ and the FBI relied heavily on the Steele “dossier” to obtain the first of four FISA search warrants against Carter Page.

It fails to establish that DOJ and the FBI properly informed the FISA court that the Steele dossier had been commissioned and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign (a vague footnote doesn't count).

It fails to counter the GOP claim that FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe admitted to the House Intelligence committee during his closed-door testimony on December 19, 2017 that without the dossier, the government never could have obtained a FISA court warrant to spy on U.S. citizen Carter Page.

Someone should update the article with this relevant information.

PZP-003 (talk) 10:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM, and that's false on all counts.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Everything is factual, why do you say it's "false on all counts"? PZP-003 (talk) 13:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

You are going to need reliable sources (WP:IRS) for these. And, you won't find them. O3000 (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

For one thing, you'd need to include a reliable source. In addition, we'd have to see an analysis based on the un-redacted version of the memo (and the underlying intelligence) to say definitively that it "does not disprove". ^Falling_Gravity 03:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

It's easy to say that it doesn't refute anything when a lot of the relevant information is heavily redacted...Persistent Corvid 01:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PersistantCorvid (talk • contribs)

For instance, the 3 reasons presented for the warrant renewal requests, other than the "dosser", are almost completely redacted, meaning it is only privileged information that only cleared officials can see.Persistent Corvid (talk) 03:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Others section bias

All of the responses in the "Others" section are critical of the memo. Even worse many of the people quoted are known critics of Nunes and Trump. There should be some responses in this section that support the findings of the memo. Otherwise the section should be re-named to something else like "Criticism". PZP-003 (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand the point. We report according to what is in RS. We don't try to create a WP:FALSEBALANCE. O3000 (talk) 01:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

You have RS that "support" the memo? I just see various friends of POTUS waving the memo in the air and making stern or snarly faces. SPECIFICO talk 01:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry no "friend" of POTUS, actually disagree with Trump on most issues. The problem is that this article (along with several others related to the FISA abuse issue) are heavily biased and not NPOV. Anyone who can read should be able to see how biased this article is even if you are a progressive or center-left person like myself. PZP-003 (talk) 02:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Please do not edit war. Not only is it against guidelines, it may result in this article coming under discretionary sanctions -- which will make it more difficult to edit. O3000 (talk) 02:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

PZP-003, you complain about some article(s) that you see as "heavily biased and not NPOV". Do you realize that NPOV DOES NOT require content or sources (and thus articles) to be unbiased or neutral? It DOES require editors to remain neutral in how they edit and deal with biased content. For more on this, please read my essay: WP:NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

BullRangifer you are incorrect, that is not true, that's just your opinion. I read your essay and at the top of the page it says: This page is an essay... It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not one of Wikipedia policies or guidelines. PZP-003 (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Did I say it was other than an essay? No, but it does explain some important aspects of the NPOV policy which are often misunderstood by editors like you, and it quotes the policy on those matters. That's not my opinion. Content and sources do not have to be neutral. Period: "While Wikipedia is required to present a neutral point of view, sources on the other hand are not expected to be neutral."

Content should reflect those sources, and any evident bias must be from them, not from editors. That's why you are seeing some bias in some articles. It's supposed to be that way because that is the bias in most RS. The only way to create (false) balance in that situation would be by using unreliable and fringe sources, the type which support Trump, and we are not allowed to do that.

You are a newbie here and should learn from more experienced editors. I've been here since 2003 and my fingerprints are still in some of our most important policies. I remember when those policies were wearing diapers and riding with training wheels. You are edit warring against several other editors, and you should listen to them. Their warnings are intended to keep you from getting blocked. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

You are edit warring on two articles. Please read WP:BRD. Yes it is an essay. A good one. WP is about consensus. O3000 (talk) 12:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

If I am edit warring you are edit warring too, so please stop and don't throw out accusations. PZP-003 (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I think you should try addressing the concerns raised by other editors. Bullrangifer noted that your edits twice mention that Marc Elias represented the Clinton campaign, and your response was "please stop altering my edits", which doesn't say anything since your edits also alter other people's edits (see also: WP:OWN). ^Falling_Gravity 21:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Disinformation in memo should be labeled "allegations"

Disinformation in the memo should be labeled "allegations". When we have more accurate information, we need to use that word.

Currently we have this:

• "First it states that the Steele dossier "formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application." The memo asserted that Christopher Steele was paid $160,000 by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign, and that this information was not disclosed in the initial October 2016 FISA application or subsequent renewals."

That isn't entirely accurate, so should we correct it?

1. It should say "alleges", rather than "states".  Done
2. The amount is wrong, so the correct amount should be included after the quote. It was $168,000.
3. It alleges that Steele received payment from the DNC and Clinton campaign. No, he didn't. Fusion GPS received payment, and then paid Orbis (Steele). Steele did not know the actual clients nor directly receive payment from them. Fusion GPS was his client, not the DNC or the Clinton campaign. They were the clients of Fusion GPS.

• In total, Perkins Coie paid Fusion GPS $1.02 million in fees and expenses, $168,000 of which was paid to Orbis and used by them to produce the dossier. (From: Trump–Russia dossier)

How should we improve this?

Criticism sections are normally discouraged, and having all rebuttals in the Response section is't good. The rebuttals should be connected to the claims and allegations. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Purpose of the "Purpose" section.

The purpose section is weird (and weirdly placed.) It seems to date back to an older version of the article before the memo was released. However, now that we have a section on the "contents", what exactly is the purpose section for? Should the two be merged? Is the purpose section supposed to summarize the argument the memo was trying to make, or is it about what it was trying to accomplish politically? Right now it seems like we're summarizing the memo's argument twice. --Aquillion (talk) 08:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Good points. It would probably be best to merge it with the contents section and then delete it. That should eliminate duplication. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Revert re. primary / secondary sources, other concerns.

I made this revert because I generally didn't think these edits were an improvement; as I said in my edit summary, it felt like it was trying to shift from secondary coverage (which provided context and interpretation) to perform WP:OR on primary sources. There were also a lot of removals with very little in the way of explanation. Some of the added sources were also questionable (a Youtube video?), while many of the ones that were removed served important purposes - secondary sources reporting on CNN's coverage both illustrate its importance and provide us with a broader range of interpretation to draw on. I was particularly bothered by the removal of two key, well-sourced pieces of relevant context - Prior to release of the memo, news media reported that Trump told his associates that release of the memo would discredit the investigation, and Allies of Trump tried to move focus away from the Trump presidential campaign's alleged role in the Russian election interference by attempting to use the Nunes memo to portray the Special Counsel investigation as the real scandal. The edits also added a bunch of quotes in a way that I don't feel improved the article - generally speaking, summaries cited to reliable secondary sources that provide interpretation and analysis are preferable to direct quotes. --Aquillion (talk) 06:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Use of primary sources is generally discouraged, except in certain situations. That's how we avoid original research. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Indirect citations & Updates

Ah, talk! Cool. Hello!

I reverted the changes to what I called 'secondary sources' but what I should have really called 'indirect citations'. IMHO, the citation should link to the article making the assertion instead of an article pointing to the article making the citation. Please examine the citations I added back to see what I mean. If you agree we shouldn't have indirect citations, please remove them. Or, make them direct citations by attaching them to content/analysis which is added to the WP article.

I didn't simply remove,

 -- 'Prior to release of the memo, news media reported that Trump told his associates that release of the memo would discredit the investigation'. 

I replaced it with,

 ++ 'On February 2nd, CNN reported, "In recent phone calls, Trump has told friends he believes the memo would expose bias within the FBI's top ranks and make it easier for him to argue the Russia investigations are prejudiced against him, according to two sources." [12]' 

Why? Because we said 'news media' said associates said Trump said.. what? It wasn't even quoted. Not compelling. So let's dig the actual text out of the citations. Looking at the first citation we see it says 'according to CNN'. So let's remove that indirect citation. The second citation is the CNN report. Great! Why not quote the CNN article directly so it's clear exactly what the source of the information is. Basically CNN is asking us to trust them and their sources and their summary of a sentiment. That's fine, but IMHO it should be a quote attributed to CNN.

Is adding a YouTube video against WP policy? IMHO, that's the great thing about WP as opposed to a book. We can link to actual interviews instead of their transcripts. Seeing their body language adds a lot IMHO. That's what I did in this case:

  "Are you likely to fire Rosenstein? Do you still have confidence in him after reading the memo?" Trump replied, "You figure that one out." 

Speaking of which, I didn't simply remove,

 -- 'Allies of Trump tried to move focus away from the Trump presidential campaign's alleged role in the Russian election interference by attempting to use the Nune's memo to portray the Special Counsel investigation as the real scandal' 

I replaced it with,

 ++ 'Prior to the memo's release, Trump was asked, "Are you likely to fire Rosenstein? Do you still have confidence in him after reading the memo?" Trump replied, "You figure that one out."[13] When asked to comment on Trump's answer, White House Deputy Press Secretary [Raj Shah] said, "No changes are going to be made at the Department Of Justice. We fully expect Rod Rosenstein to continue on as the Deputy Attorney General"[14].'

In the first place, the original text is editorializing by ascribed a motive to action. There is a _debate_ as to the motive. Did Trump want the memo released to discredit the SC and fire him? Trump certainly fueled that suspicion by replying, "You figure that out". So I included it. But later, his spokeperson said the AG would stay on. So I included that too. If there were other quotes or events that support one suspected motive or another, let's include 'em. If there is compelling analyses for one motive or another then let include that, but in quotes with a citation. Otherwise, let's present facts and quotes and leave it to the reader draw conclusions.

All that said, I've learned my lesson that edits that modify or remove should be kept separate from those that simply add content and should be justified in the talk section. I certainly appreciated the time you're taking to discuss the edits here and will pay it forward. Kingces95 23:36, 11 May 2018‎ (UTC)

Response

Those assertions are not editorializing; they are summaries of the conclusions reached by those sources (which you also removed.) The appropriate way of covering a complex and controversial subject is not to drop a bunch of quotes on the user; this raises WP:SYNTH issues (how did you choose what quotes to focus on and why?) What we're supposed to do is take the coverage from reliable sources, not perform our own original research using things like youtube videoes. A YouTube video in particular doesn't pass WP:RS on its own, since it lacks the editorial controls and fact-checking used by eg. the news sources cited in the original version. If you feel we're not covering the sources correctly, you can bring them up one at a time and we'll go over them, but your edits effectively replaced them with your own conclusions; but since CNN passes WP:RS (and since numerous other reliable sources reported it as fact), we're required to cover it as fact unless we have sources saying otherwise. 'Prior to release of the memo, news media reported that Trump told his associates that release of the memo would discredit the investigation'. is an accurate, complete, and factual summary of events according to the sources cited for it; as far as I know, no sources dispute that characterization. The quote you attempted to replace it with is entirely unsatisfactory and completely fails to capture the context that numerous reliable sources highlighted a vital to the timeline. Similarly, Allies of Trump tried to move focus away from the Trump presidential campaign's alleged role in the Russian election interference by attempting to use the Nune's memo to portray the Special Counsel investigation as the real scandal is a factual summary of events cited to reliable sources, and replacing it with a random Trump quote lost that vital bit of context. Your reordering of the paragraph on Kessler had a similar problem - you pushed down the conclusion of the source in favor of dropping a quote in; but our job as an encyclopedia is to summarize the sources, not to encourage the reader to second-guess them. Piecing together a collection of "facts and quotes" in order to guide the reader to a conclusion is absolutely not how a Wikipedia article works - that is original research. Our job is to write an article that reflects the conclusion of the reliable sources, boiling down their coverage of the topic into a general summary of what someone would get by reading all of them. When multiple mainstream news outlets report something as fact, we're required to reflect it as fact here, rather than trying to turn it into a he-said, she-said game of quotes; we can represent when something is controversal or disputed, but only when we have sources of similar reliability and weight directly disputing it, which (at the moment) isn't the case here. Also, we should probably stop edit-warring over this; for now, please respect WP:BRD and give other people a chance to weigh in (or for us to try and work out a compromise) before trying to implement these changes again (we can run an WP:RFC if we really can't reach a consensus on them here on our own - admittedly sometimes hard when there are only a few users discussing something.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Reply

In response to

   A YouTube video in particular doesn't pass WP:RS on its own, since it lacks the editorial controls and fact-checking used by eg. the news sources cited in the original version.

This YouTube video contained an interview. Why do readers need to have it subject to 'editorial controls' when they can just watch it themselves? They might believe their own lying eyes? Specifically, this is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ldy8eBR5xtM&feature=youtu.be&t=18 What is so wrong about watching this?

You removed the quote Glenn Kessler analyzed in his fact checker blog so we are left with this:

  Glenn Kessler, a fact checker for The Washington Post, analyzed an accusation made by Devin Nunes in a February 7, 2018, interview on the Hugh Hewitt Show.

What rational do you offer for not appending the quote he analyzed?

 "The truth is that they [Democrats] are covering up that Hillary Clinton colluded with the Russians to get dirt on Trump to feed it to the FBI to open up an investigation into the other campaign."

Kessler may have awarded Four Pinocchios but he also stipulated to a number of facts which I will have included. Re-order/join the following quotes as you wish but I will see them included:

  Kessler stipulated the following, "the Clinton campaign, via a law firm, did seek 'dirt' on Trump and Russia" and that "the FBI did use Steele’s reports to help obtain a court order allowing surveillance of a Trump associate" and that "Steele gave to the FBI material written by Clinton associates" and goes on to say, "for some, that may seem like a lot of smoke" yet maintains that it remains "a huge leap to say Clinton colluded with Russians" due to the multiple intermediaries between the Clinton campaign and Steele's Russian sources, namely "(a) the campaign hired (b) a research firm that hired (c) a researcher who spoke (d) to Russian sources."

Reply

No, not all of those are "facts", but lies and misrepresentation which he debunked. Do you really want to profile them? Is that what you're trying to do? If so, due weight requires that the debunking is more prominent than the lies. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Youtube videos are normally discouraged here, unless hosted by a RS, such as the CNN channel, or such like. We never allow other Youtube videos, even if they are exactly the same as the ones on an official channel. Copyright violations are taken very seriously here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Reply

Ah, no YouTube due to copy right. Makes sense. But we can link to CNN.com directly if we'd like to reference a quote made during an interview.

First, if we include a citation which asserts a statement made during an interview, what justification exists for not quoting the statement in question?

Second, what justification exists for not including the rational of the fact checker for arriving at the conclusion the statement is a lie?

Specifically, let's look at Kesslers article and separate (1) facts to which he stipulates from (2) those he asserts are not true. I'd suggest we with just one so we focus the discussion. How about:

  The Clinton campaign, via a law firm, did seek “dirt” on Trump and Russia. 

When he wrote that, is he stating what he considers a fact or not?

Discussion of assert Nunes' statement is false before establishing Nunes' claim is false

Is it not a logical fallacy to assert Nune's statement is false before establishing Nune's statement is false? Wouldn't that be begging "Begging the Claim"? Aka "Begging the Question". Kingces95 (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Errm, no. Because this isn't a textbook of logic, for one thing. For another, it is perfectly valid to assert that a thing is false, and to demonstrate it later in the article. What would be logically vallid would be inserting the word "allegedly" for something that is, later in the article, shown to be actually false William M. Connolley (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Well said. I agree with William. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Reply

We should strive to avoid logical fallacies in Wikipedia's presentation of facts. Do you disagree?

The paragraph under edit contains two fallacies.

 Glenn Kessler, a fact checker for The Washington Post, analyzed an accusation made by Devin Nunes in a February 7, 2018, interview on the Hugh Hewitt Show. During the interview Nunes leveled this false accusation, "The truth is that they [Democrats] are covering up that Hillary Clinton colluded with the Russians to get dirt on Trump to feed it to the FBI to open up an investigation into the other campaign." Kessler's "Pinocchio Test" rating was: "There is no evidence that Clinton was involved in Steele's reports or worked with Russian entities to feed information to Steele. That's where Nunes' claim goes off the rails—and why he earns Four Pinocchios." According to Kessler "Four Pinocchios" equals a "Whopper" (the equivalent of an outright lie).

1. Begging the question; Assumes the claim (Nunes lied) before establishing the claim (Nunes' lied).
2. Argument from authority; The justification of the claim that Nunes' lied is that Kessler says so

Adding the word allegedly before false resolves the first issue. Assuming we can agree on that edit then we can move on to addressing the second.

I'd suggest resolving the second fallacy by one or the other or both of the following:

1. including pertinent selections outlining the argument Glenn makes
2. or including authorities with an alternate position and let the reader decide. After all, if the evidence we provide that supports our claim that Nunes' is only an appeal to authority (Glenn) then why wouldn't it be justified to include references to another authority (see WSJ below)?

The paragraph to harvest from Glenn which describes his logic is this one:

 The Clinton campaign, via a law firm, did seek “dirt” on Trump and Russia. Steele did rely on Russian sources, supposedly contacts mined from his years as a spy. Steele did actively seek to draw attention to what he had found, though virtually no reporters wrote about his allegations before the election because they could not confirm them. And the FBI did use Steele’s reports to help obtain a court order allowing surveillance of a Trump associate — but that was after Page had quit the campaign.

 For some, that may seem like a lot of smoke. But it’s a huge leap to say Clinton colluded with Russians to do this. Instead, you have (a) the campaign hiring (b) a research firm that hired (c) a researcher who spoke (d) to Russian sources.

Glenn argues there are sufficient intermediaries between Clinton and the Russians to assert a claim she colluded is a lie. Others may look at that chain and draw a different conclusion. And, indeed, the WSJ did make the leap.:

 The Washington Post revealed Tuesday that the Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee jointly paid for that infamous “dossier” full of Russian disinformation against Donald Trump. They filtered the payments through a U.S. law firm (Perkins Coie), which hired the opposition-research hit men at Fusion GPS. Fusion in turn tapped a former British spook, Christopher Steele, to compile the allegations, which are based largely on anonymous, Kremlin-connected sources.

 Strip out the middlemen, and it appears that Democrats paid for Russians to compile wild allegations about a U.S. presidential candidate. Did someone say “collusion”?

Neither authority makes a definitive claim on the question of Hillary's collusion with Russia: One called it a "leap". The other asks if anyone else said "collusion". Given that, are we prepared to assert the statement true or false definitively when we have two fact checkers, who take opposite sides, who themselves are not definitive on this point? I argue not, and we should either expand on Glenn's argument or include an alternate appeal to authority.

Kingces95 (talk) 07:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Assuming we can agree on that... You already know we don't, so why make that false assumption? For someone so keen on logic, you seem remarkably poor at it William M. Connolley (talk) 06:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Recent updates

Concerning the recent updates and edits to this article, I'm going by MOS:INTRO: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." This is why I think the lede should briefly touch on the recently released FISA documents, but go more in depth in the article (I put it under the IC responses because the DOJ chose to release the redacted docs). ^Falling_Gravity 02:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Soibangla: The recent FISA docs aren't part of the "Contents" of the Nunes memo. Don't they fit better under the section dedicated to the responses of the Intelligence Community? ^Falling_Gravity 02:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Original research?

@FallingGravity: Please would you identify your specific OR concerns?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunes_memo#Release_of_Carter_Page_FISA_warrant_applications soibangla (talk) 01:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

There's no in-line references (except for the sentence you copy-pasted from the lede), and the content appears to rely on primary sources (the Nunes memo, the FISA docs, the Steele dossier, etc.) ^Falling_Gravity 01:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Did you read the NYT article? soibangla (talk) 01:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The content in the article clearly summarizes the NYTimes article. I've put it, and some other references, into the section. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, without the references it looked like original research. ^Falling_Gravity 14:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Four FISA judges appointed by Republicans

I have removed the section about "The application also showed that all four of the FISA court judges who approved the applications had been appointed by Republican presidents." as undue trivia but it was reinstated by Soibangla twice with the edit summary ""13 Angry Democrats" are behind all this!". What the heck does that even mean? But besides that, the fact that anonymous judges are appointed by a former Republican president makes no difference and is undue trivia. PackMecEng (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

"What the heck does that even mean?" — HAHAHA! whatever soibangla (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• The New York Times clearly feels that it's relevant (since it was highlighted in their article on the subject), so I think that that's enough to devote a sentence to it here. --Aquillion (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Not everything printed in the New York Times belongs in this article. I don't see what this has to do with the Nunes memo; it's more relevant to the article on Carter Page. ^Falling_Gravity 18:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The New York Times "news analysis" also highlights a lot of things that are not in the article. They are not in the article because they do not matter, kind of like this. PackMecEng (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC):

Hmm... That doesn't seem quite right. Secondary sources are supposed to provide some analysis. But this fact is also noted in NPR, New York Magazine, and other places too besides. That clearly points to a widely covered fact, that is due based on breadth of coverage. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I've added another source, here, and used it to elaborate on the relevance. It says: The applications also weaken their claims of partisan bias, since the documents confirm that all four judges who signed off on the Page warrants were not only appointed by Republican presidents, but named to the FISA court by the GOP-nominated chief justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts. In context the 'Trump allies' in that paragraph unambiguously refer to Nunes and the claims he made relative to the memo. We could perhaps fiddle with the wording a bit, but I felt it was worth including since a few people here weren't certain of the relevance, and that source seems to state it unambiguously. --Aquillion (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Our article does not mention partisan lines or any allegations of such. So again why would that be relevant? PackMecEng (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree with the wording "undermining Nunes' claims of partisan bias". Nunes doesn't seem to have claimed that the judges were biased, but rather that the FBI was biased. I also have general concerns about the suitability of New York Magazine for analysis. Still, enough solid reporting has crystallized this as an important fact and talking point, so it's important to include it for the sake of factual completeness for the record. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

PacMecEng, because RS and Trump and Co. do. Spurious attacks on the legitimacy of the warrants are a big thing, and RS make a point of debunking those attacks by making it clear it was Republicans who okayed all the warrants, and because there are legitimate concerns that Page was, wittingly or unwittingly, working for Russian interests. That thou doth protest too much is noted. It's time to drop the POV battle axe and bow to RS.-- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Please cut it out with the WP:ASPERSIONS before you end up at AE again. PackMecEng (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Every story I've seen about the FISA warrants has mentioned that the four judges were all appointed by Republican presidents. IMO we shouldn't add any interpretation ("see, this isn't a Democratic plot after all") but we should include that fact. Reliable Sources clearly do not regard it as trivia. --MelanieN (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

What does it add for our reader? We do not mention the partisan attacks or the like, so adding at the end of a list oh btw 4 of the judges were appointed by a previous Republican president. No mention of what alignment of the judges themselves, since that is irrelevant, as is who appointed them. We do not say in other articles blocked by Democrat appointed judges for the same reason, it really does not matter. PackMecEng (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The reasons have been described by several editors above, so I don't understand why you're still not hearing them. How many have to do it before you'll get the point? RS mention this, unlike fringe sources.

We should also mention the "partisan attacks" by 'Trump allies' like Nunes, and Aquillion provided a nice example which combines mention of the partisan attacks and the relevant statement: The applications also weaken their claims of partisan bias, since the documents confirm that all four judges who signed off on the Page warrants were not only appointed by Republican presidents, but named to the FISA court by the GOP-nominated chief justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts. As Aquillion stated: "that source seems to state it unambiguously."

Again, editors should bow to RS. Even editors who don't use RS, but get their Trump "alternative facts" (falsehoods) from Fox News and Breitbart are familiar with these "partisan attacks". In fact, that's the only side of the story they get, and sadly they believe them. That's the tragic part. The part about "all four judges...." is conveniently ignored on fringe sources, the ones approved by Trump.

Here at Wikipedia we provide both sides of the story, and we give the most weight to mainstream sources (which mention the four judges) by mentioning them, and we give less weight to the partisan attacks. It's still good to give the context for why the judges must be mentioned: the lies and alternative facts are mentioned, and the truths which debunk them are made clear.

The facts always get more weight here, and yet you want to leave out exactly that part. That's odd. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Appointment history of the FISA judges is off-topic. Sure, we follow sources, but we are not forced to reprint everything a source writes. Editorial judgment is necessary to create encyclopedic content, not merely become a news aggregator. — JFG ^talk 22:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have explained it several times now. As mentioned by myself and another above, just because a source mentions it in passing does not make it due. Especially since we do not talk about that subject in the article, it becomes a WP:COATRACK situation. Hopefully you will understand policy in time. PackMecEng (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Mutliple high-quality sources have deemed it on-topic. So it's on-topic. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sławomir Biały: Then add the required background to the article. As is, it is floating there with no support, background, or purpose. PackMecEng (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems fine where it is. This is a relevant fact to assessing the general claim of bias, which noted in several sources after the release of the warrant application. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

We do not mention the partisan attacks or the like Are you kidding me? This entire article is about a partisan attack. An attack document created entirely by a few of the Republicans on the committee, and spurned/debunked by the Democrats. All of the rhetoric has been partisan. That's why so many sources think it worth a mention that the judges are not likely to have anti-Republican leanings. --MelanieN (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Still not kidding, no need to be dismissive. Great it has attacks by both sides, still has nothing to do with the section it is in. Also has nothing related directly to anything else in the article. Finally yes all the WP:RECENT articles give a one sentence passing mention to that fact. So what? It has no impact on anything besides a partisan view of things. Try and keep it neutral here. PackMecEng (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

This article might be relevant here. Nunes essentially argues that the judges were "misled" because he believes not enough details about the dossier's origins were disclosed. ^Falling_Gravity 16:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

This discussion has gotten lengthy and rather repetitive. So let’s see where we stand. After several inserts and reversions, the sentence is currently in the article with multiple sources.

• People that want the sentence included: Soibangla, Slawomir Bialy, Aquillion, BullRangifer, MelanieN
• People that don’t want it included: Falling Gravity, PackMecEng, JFG

This isn’t an overwhelming consensus either way but definitely leaning toward inclusion. --MelanieN (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not totally against it being included, I just think the text has to make clear the connections to the Nunes memo, rather than just throwing out stuff from the FISA warrant (the current text). ^Falling_Gravity 04:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Timeline issue

There is something wrong with the timing here:

• "On January 29, the majority of the House Intelligence Committee disregarded the DOJ's warnings and voted to approve the memo's release.[95] In response, Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee drafted a ten-page rebuttal memo on January 24."

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 07:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

It is written a little weird but the vote to release the Nunes memo was on January 18.[20] The actual release of the memo was January 29.[21] To preempt them the Democrats put out their own memo January 24.[22] PackMecEng (talk) 13:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Relevance of Nunes statement

Nunes stated on March 28, 2019, “the FBI-DOJ falsely claimed this investigation did not begin until late July. We now know for certain that is not true.”

I see this as relevant because it appears to contradict a flat assertion without qualification (eg, "according to the FBI") in the Nunes memo: "The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok." soibangla (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Is this article "unbalanced toward certain viewpoints?"

This article has a "bias" cleanup tag. Does the article need to be revised in order to correct this bias? Jarble (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

This is a "klunky" article

This article is in really bad shape. Reading through it is a real slog. It is rife with repetition. If you want to simply know what the Nunes memo actually SAYS, you are confronted with a wall of text that mostly consists of point by point refutations rather than the actual content. The criticisms should be limited to the criticisms section, etc. The lede attempts to recap the entire article. There is not even a pretense of avoiding political bias. I would be happy to spend a little time rehabilitating the article. Warren Platts (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

OK, I rewrote the Nunes memo contents section in a "just the facts ma'am" format that simply lays out what the memo actually said. I respectfully request that the section not be immediately reverted, as the new section is objectively superior for the following reasons: The way it was before, every single item was followed by a refutation. Such refutations belong in the 5 or 6 following sections that attempt to refute the Nunes memo. This way someone who has never heard of the Nunes memo can click to the contents section, read it, and come away with a good grasp of what the actual claims of the memo are. I took great pains to qualify everything with "according to the memo", or "the memo asserted" etc. in order to make clear that the truth-value of all sentences within the Nunes memo are open questions. The "Content" section as it is written now will also make the following "Criticism" sections much easier to understand because it unmuddles what the Nunes memo actually said from subsequent Republican exegesis. Warren Platts (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Michael Horowitz’s Crossfire Hurricane report

Horowitz’s report into the Crossfire Hurricane investigation shows that mistakes were made in the applications for FISA warrants to wiretap Carter Page, so is there anything in Horowitz’s report that can be used in this article? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree. This article is badly out of date given IG report that confirms all the main points of the Nunes memo while finding many discrepancies in the Schiff rebuttal. Warren Platts (talk) 02:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I see a handful of the usual suspects like Hannity, Ingraham, WSJ editorial board, Strassel, Hemingway, Nunes and Patel breathlessly saying what you said; maybe you did too. Hannity asserted, "everything we said, everything we reported, everything we told you was dead-on center accurate," which I'm kinda skeptical of. I'm still waiting for reliable sources to check in. soibangla (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Based on what’s being reported about Horowitz’s review of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, it sounds like the Nunes memo was wrong about the initial FISA warrant, but was right WRT aspects of the subsequent renewals of the warrant. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:13, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

What exactly are you talking about? The Nunes memo said that the Steele dossier was "essential" for the initial FISA application. The Horowitz IG report used the exact same languange: that the Steele dossier was "essential" for the initial FISA application: as in no Steele dossier, no FISA warrant. Also, why did you delete the Rolling Stone secondary source? Rolling Stone, according to https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/rolling-stone/ Rolling Stone has a High rating for factual reporting, as well as being strongly left leaning. By deleting that source, it LOOKS like you are trying to spin any arguments that the IG report backs up the Nunes memo as mere right wing conspiracy theories. Not saying that's what you are trying to do, but that is the appearance.Warren Platts (talk) 12:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

My understanding (which may be right or wrong) is that the Steele dossier was used for renewals of the warrant, but not the initial warrant. Also, I didn’t delete a Rolling Stone article in this article. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

While I'm not in a position to challenge the IG's choice of words, I do find this phrasing from p. vi to be oddly contradictory:

We determined that the Crossfire Hurricane team's receipt of Steele's election reporting on September 19, 2016 played a central and essential role in the FBI's and Department's decision to seek the FISA order. As noted above, when the team first sought to pursue a FISA order for Page in August 2016

So the first sentence says the dossier was essential to "seek" the order, but the second sentence says they sought to pursue the order before they had the dossier. What happened was that their superiors did not agree that their August request reached probable cause, but receipt of the dossier provided that probable cause, when it supplemented the other material. So "decision to seek the FISA order" might be more accurately described as "acquired approval for the FISA order." soibangla (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Right. In August, a FISA application was discussed, but they decided they did not have adequate probable cause. Then the Steele info came along, and they decided that was adequate probable cause. As the Nunes memo itself says, however, McCabe testified that "no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information." @Blaylock: sorry, I confused you with the actual editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarrenPlatts (talk • contribs) 20:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

The Nunes Memo asserts McCabe testified that "no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information" and others have echoed that as fact, though McCabe and Swalwell say it's not true. The HPSCI authorized the release of McCabe's testimony transcript some weeks ago, but I haven't seen it yet. they decided they did not have adequate probable cause The investigators thought they had probable cause, but their superiors disagreed until the dossier came in. soibangla (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

There should be some mention if IG report in the lede. Why do you guys keep deleting it? If you think it should be reworded to reflect some qualifications, that is one thing. But to repeatedly delete all mention of the IG report in the lede reflects an obvious political bias that has no place in an encyclopedia.Warren Platts (talk) 12:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@WarrenPlatts:@Soibangla: I’m fine w/including it in the lede & it should definitely be included in the body of the article. I created this discussion to figure out what we want to put in the article. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Linking it here for reference: https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf 06:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notanipokay (talk • contribs)

False information

“On July 21, 2018, the Justice Department released heavily redacted versions of four FISA warrant applications for Carter Page which showed that key assertions made in the Nunes memo were false or misleading, corroborating the rebuttal made by Democrats.” This is false, Democrats claimed to refute Nunes assertions without factual basis. IG report subsequently confirmed Nunes’ findings. Levinpl (talk) 04:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Sources please. Volunteer Marek 05:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

There are several sources out there--many of them surprisingly coming from left of center writers. We need to flesh out the new Horowitz section. I will TRY to work on that some maybe tonight and tomorrow. As for false information supposedly put out by Democrats, I am afraid that in this polarized era of "alternative facts," the only thing to do is put out both sides of the story and let the readers decide for themselves. It is not our job as Wikipedians to settle this controversy! :-) Warren Platts (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

24 hours to present some RS references for this garbage. It would help if you'd read the talk pages and the cited sources of this article and related articles. These issues have been dealt with over and over, so additional discussion would need to address points not previously considered and resolved. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 02:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Please show how the IG Report specifically addresses the three bullets in the section, which does not assert the Nunes Memo was completely false. soibangla (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

There's a lot of usable information in this WaPo story link. The article concludes that Horowitz's report validates much of the Nunes memo, contrary to many of the media (and Democrat) reports. The Democrat's rebuttals section in that article should be a bigger deal, given how much was incorrect. This article honestly needs a re-write from the ground up. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

It is obvious to anyone who has been through a GA review, or works at NPP and AfC that the article needs to be updated and the lead rewritten. It is too long, UNDUE in much of its detail, and inaccurate because it is based on older biased reporting, some of which we now know were born of lies from involved parties trying to cover their illegal actions. The ongoing criminal investigation by Durham will more than likely seal the deal; his report will basically provide further details in the indictments. Other concerns include the discrediting of RS that happen to favor the Nunes POV, including the WSJ editorial board. The proof is in the pudding and Mr Ernie is correct in many aspects and so are the other two editors who challenged the lead, WarrenPlatts and Blaylockjam10 and now me, so that makes 4 editors challenging similar aspects of the article. The WaPo article states, But how much is the Nunes memo itself vindicated? A fair amount, it turns out — at least in Horowitz’s estimation. We also have the scathing response from Judge Rosemary Collyer, the presiding FISA court judge along with corroborating articles in secondary sources such as the NYTimes and AP News. But this is rather typical of how RECENTISM plays out with biased reporting that is originally published to cause political harm to an opponent and then later debunked. One side of the political isle does not have the advantage over the other in that regard - they both do it. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Twitter Files Update

This article needs a major overhaul, given the new information from the Twitter Files. https://www.aa.com.tr/en/world/leaks-show-twitter-found-no-evidence-of-russian-involvement-in-2018-hashtag-campaign/2786498 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katzmann83 (talk • contribs) 11:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Breaking Down the #Memo

Breaking Down the #Memo is an excellent analysis and take down of the Nunes memo by a subject matter expert from Lane Powell PC. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC)