Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:36, 2 March 2018

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nunes memo article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 15 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Nunes memo. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Nunes memo at the Reference desk.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: SNOW keep, 2 February 2018, see discussion. speedy keep, 29 January 2018, see discussion.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Computer Security: Computing This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer SecurityWikipedia:WikiProject Computer SecurityTemplate:WikiProject Computer SecurityComputer Security ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing. Things you can help WikiProject Computer Security with: Article alerts will be generated shortly by AAlertBot. Please allow some days for processing. More information... Review importance and quality of existing articles Identify categories related to Computer Security Tag related articles Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests) Identify articles for improvement Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc. Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here. Template:WikiProject Donald Trump Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Espionage Nunes memo is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Internet This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Military history: Intelligence This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. Associated task forces: /  Intelligence task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics: American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Russia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Presidential elections / Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

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. _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. Misplaced Pages 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... 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. _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 18:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Done in case anyone wants to contribute there. GMG 14:56, 17 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)

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) (), 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 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."

-- 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 . _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". _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 Misplaced Pages contributors. This page is not one of Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines. PZP-003 (talk) 12:30, 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)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Computer Security articles
• Unknown-importance Computer Security articles
• Start-Class Computer Security articles of Unknown-importance
• Start-Class Computing articles
• Unknown-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Computer Security articles
• Start-Class Espionage articles
• Unknown-importance Espionage articles
• Start-Class Internet articles
• Unknown-importance Internet articles
• WikiProject Internet articles
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class intelligence articles
• Intelligence task force articles
• Start-Class politics articles
• Unknown-importance politics articles
• Start-Class American politics articles
• High-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Start-Class Russia articles
• Mid-importance Russia articles
• Mid-importance Start-Class Russia articles
• WikiProject Russia articles with no associated task force
• WikiProject Russia articles
• Start-Class United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• Start-Class United States articles of Unknown-importance
• Start-Class United States presidential elections articles
• Unknown-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• Start-Class United States Government articles
• Unknown-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English