Jump to content

Talk:Devin Nunes/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Devin Nunes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Russia Investigation

With a sentence like "Nunes is leading the lower chamber's cover up of ties between Donald Trump and the Russian government" this is not exactly unbiased — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.143.218 (talk) 08:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Untitled

Portuguese are NOT Hispanic; Portugal has an origin completely separate of that from Spain, and the Portuguese language is distinctively different than Spanish. Sincerely - "Married to a Freitas"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.114.58.46 (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh? The Roman word "Hispania" meant the ENTIRE Iberian Peninsula, on which, today, we find Portugal, Spain, Andorra, and Gibraltar. Portugal and Spain, and their languages, are less different than Brittany and France or Welsh and English. By the operation of political accidents, Portugal and Spain are separate countries, but, if chance had played out differently, might just as well have become united (as did Leon, Castile, Navarre, Aragon, etc.) and almost did at least once. There is more difference between official Spanish (which began as the Castilian Spanish) and Catalan than there is between Spanish and Portuguese. Spanish and Portuguese belong to a language-family that does not include Catalan. Not only that, if you look at the variations in non-Catalan non-Basque dialects in Spain and compare them to Portugal, you find that the MIDDLE of Spain is always between Portugal and the EAST of Spain. In other words, the variation is SOLELY a matter of the way language drifts with distance, which would not be true if Portuguese and Spanish were in fact entirely separate languages. Portugal follows the rule in linguistics that "a language is a dialect with an army behind it". If Portugal were part of the same political entity as Spain, then we would speak of the "Portuguese DIALECT of Spanish", or the "Castilian DIALECT of Portuguese" just as today we might speak of the "Asturian DIALECT of Spanish". It is ONLY because Portugal is a separate country that anyone deems "Portuguese" to be a separate LANGUAGE from Spanish instead of both being DIALECTS of the same language. I'll bet that the distribution of any kind of genetic material in Portugal and non-Basque Spaniards aligns many times more closely than the genetic material of Basque Spaniards and non-Basque Spaniards. The only thing that makes Spain and Portugal different, or makes Spanish and Portuguese different, is where someone drew a border on a map. The difference is entirely an illusion created by a treaty that said "these are two separate countries". while, as a counter-example, there really ARE things about Cornwall and the rest of England that are very different, including language and possibly gene-distribution, even though they ARE part of the same sovereign political entity, and that's true many times over for England and Wales, and England and Scotland.2604:2000:C682:2D00:9DA7:6FC8:4E3D:C6DD (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Campaign donations and Russians?

I cannot see any legitimate reason - apart from obvious political motivations - why the campaign/501c4 donor rules paragraph includes a sentence on the Russia hacking claims. I certainly understand the intent of whoever inserted that sentence - to fearmonger conspiracies based on absolutely nothing -- ooh Russians hacked AND did they contribute to campaigns or 501c4's??? AND...ooh Manchurian candidate??? I don't edit articles and don't envy any wiki editor of political pages who is more interested in knowledge than in conspiratorial agitprop - just pointing this out just in case some non-agenda driven wiki editor looks at this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.72.16 (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2017

Remove "unopposed" in the last sentence of the first paragraph. Nunes beat his Democratic opponent with 68.2% of the vote: http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/california-house-district-22-nunes-campos Xtrajw (talk) 03:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Done —MRD2014 📞 contribs 14:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Koch brothers and Citizens United

This article has a number of issues, I think due to political opinions about Nunes running high right now. But one I'd like to bring up is the section "Koch brothers and Citizens United". First, I think this should be a subsection of "U.S. Congress". Next, this section starts by stating that Nunes voted for the Preventing IRS Abuse and Protecting Free Speech Act, and the rest of the section appears to describe the context and relevance of this vote. So unless the content of this section is changed (e.g. to describe connections between Nunes and the Koch brothers and provide Nunes's stance on the Citizens United decision), the title should be changed to reflect the actual content of the section. But the context currently provided is problematic as well. The last sentence describes the conclusion by the intelligence community that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, by hacking and disseminating information obtained by hacking. Unless the connection between this and Nunes's vote is elaborated, I think this last sentence should be removed.72.48.98.113 (talk) 00:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree with you 100%.
I was just about to delete the whole section. This is one big WP:COATRACK. @Tomwsulcer: did you read all sources before reverting and if you did, please explain for example how it is possible that a Washington Post article from 2013 supports this content: "bill lessened the ability of the IRS to know the names of donors to so-called 'social welfare' nonprofit groups"? H.R. 5053 was introduced on April 26, 2016 and, as far as I know, did not pass Senate!
The only source I could find that is not a primary source mentions both Nunes and this bill is this local story. If there are no more sources, everything in this is WP:UNDUE. Politrukki (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC); edited 13:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree the ordering of the paragraph is a little off -- maybe needs a copyedit -- but the pieces seem to me to be relevant to Nunes, since (1) Nunes is in charge of the House committee on intelligence (2) Nunes voted for a bill that would make it harder for the IRS to spot foreign "donors" to nonprofit groups -- thereby making it easier for a foreign power (such as Russia) to influence US elections by "donating" through nonprofit groups. This is a HUGE issue at present -- highly important -- and once again it seems like Nunes is doing Trump's dirty work here, obfuscating the flows of money, working against transparency.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
With respect, I don't think that you understand the problem at all. WP:OR and WP:NPOV violations can't be fixed with minor copyedits. Let me repeat in different words what I said on WP:BLPN#Devin Nunes:
  1. A single-purpose account wrote a bunch of content that appears sourced, but does not pass close examination.
  2. Some content was cleaned by multiple editors, but remnants of this section remain.
  3. Because this page is under discretionary sanctions and there is 1RR/consensus required restriction, and because of your revert, it is impossible for me to remove all this content without possibly violating discretionary sanctions unless I get help from you or somebody else.
Let's break this paragraph in pieces:
  1. In April 2016, Nunes voted for the Preventing IRS Abuse and Protecting Free Speech Act – okay but how is this noteworthy when Nunes deserves only a passing mention in local news story?
  2. a bill promoted by the Koch Brothers – well, partly true because, according to the source, Kochs supported similar effort
  3. The bill lessened the ability of the IRS to know the names of donors to so-called "social welfare" nonprofit groups – we know that this is fabrication since the bill never passed Senate and cited sources are from 2013 and 2012
  4. which increased after the Citizens United decision – this is at least partially supported by one of cited sources, which is from 2012 and is not directly related to Nunes, or the bill, Kochs, or Citizens United (they are not mentioned in the source)
  5. The information on donors assists the IRS with ensuring that foreign funds do not covertly enter U.S. election politics – okay if attributed properly: "Critics of the bill say..."
  6. Since that vote, the U.S. intelligence community has officially concluded that the Russian government interfered in the U.S. election (emphasis added) – Nunes is mentioned in one cited source, which has nothing to with the bill, Kochs, or Citizens United. Three other cited sources are even less relevant. No source even implies that campaign contributions are used as a weapon in election interference. This is pure synthesis.
So what have we left? One local news piece that mentions the failed bill, Kochs, and Nunes – but not Citizens United. I'm sorry but one source does not establish due weight. Also, the placement of the sections gives undue weight to the section like the IP editor said above. Let's just delete this poor content and turn our focus on something more important. Politrukki (talk) 13:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Well let's compromise here. I agree there is probably some WP:SYNTH involved, and some WP:UNDUE, in that this issue is not a primary one for Nunes -- he's more involved in intelligence work as committee chairman etc; so I agree it doesn't deserve its own section. But I think it deserves a mention lower down, and I've shrunk the sentences from a paragraph to one or two. Nunes did vote against transparency, he's a powerful Republican, the issue will be coming again before Congress, it's important in a democracy to watch where the money is coming from (and this measure works against it), so I think some mention needs to stay in this article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced that a single vote is that significant but thanks! We should probably say that the bill didn't become law, but I don't know what kind of wording to use since I can't find what killed it in the Senate. Overcitation should be fixed eventually. I'd say only [1], [2], and [3] are worth keeping. Politrukki (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

With regard to "ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES"...

Approximately 80 percent of the edits to the article were made in the last three months -- more than 300 edits.

There is a note at the top of this article, that says contributors may face sanctions if they add material that had previously been deleted, without first getting a consensus, on the talk page. But:

  1. It doesn't say which version is the benchmark version, that contributors have to be careful not to deviate from...
  2. It doesn't say when the administrator applied the warning... So, how can anyone know how long it should remain in force, or when it can be removed?
  3. The administrator who applied the warning didn't leave their name, in case there were question...
  4. My biggest concern, however, is that this talk page is very sparse. There is no way anyone should be expected to step through 300 edits, to see if they are adding content about an aspect of this topic that had previously been removed.

I suggest that, either the warning should be removed, of further explanation be applied, clarifying when these sanctions might apply.

Further, if this article is so controversial, I think those making edits should make a greater effort to document the changes they made, which have achieved consensus. Geo Swan (talk) 01:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Nunes cancellation of hearings

I came here because I came across a reference that said Nunes "abruptly" cancelled the hearing where Former acting Attorney General Sally Yates was to testify about Russian subversion of the election. I don't think there is any question coverage of this cancellation belongs in the article.

As I noted above, over three hundred edits have been made to this article, in the last three months, with practically no effort put into discussing them. So I bucked the trend with this explanation.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

this article's references...

Many of this article's references were contributed inadequately. Sadly, some have already gone 404, without giving any clues to anyone who might want to search for an alternative, because they lack a title, publisher, date, author, or a quote -- the information needed to search for alternate references.

Please, if you are going to include a reference, learn how. Do not just put an inadequate bare-url. Geo Swan (talk) 03:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Devin Nunes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Periphrasis

Re/Trump–Russia investigation Section... The issue of a legality is not mentioned anywhere in the cited quotes or rather loose pariphrasis substituted for quotation in the paragraph. An earlier cite.tag I posted was apparently ignored and removed without addressing underlying concern.Rather than revert, I once again checked refs. and finding no further substantiation I removed unreferenced material.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjhodge8 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bjhodge8: Well, your removal was justified per WP:V, but it has been widely reported that Nunes said the communications were collected legally under FISA warrant. I added that the "communications had been obtained legally", citing ABC News. Does that seem right? Politrukki (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I checked your rewording and new ref., and don't think the new ref. meets the WP standard. Given that the issue of legality is not yet officially decided, and the issue being highly contentious, using CNN's unnamed sources by proxy is not really a qualified ref. by WP sourcing rules, especially with the status of the article's editing requirements, per:

"WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES" "The article Devin Nunes, along with other highly visible articles relating to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, is currently subject to discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies (see WP:ARBAPDS). The current restrictions are: Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit. Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period). This article and its editors are subject to Wikipedia's general sanctions: All edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, are placed under discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning. An administrator has applied the restriction above to this article. This is pursuant to an arbitration decision which authorized discretionary sanctions for pages relating to all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. If you breach the restriction on this page, you may be blocked or otherwise sanctioned. Please edit carefully." Bjhodge8 (talk) 02:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... I cited ABC News, not CNN. The relevant part is this: Nunes says that the surveillance was unrelated to Russia but notes it was legal due to a FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) warrant. A Fox News piece is directly quoting Nunes: Nunes said the surveillance collection was "legally collected foreign intelligence under FISA incidental collection."[4] Those are Nunes's words and it is really easy to find dozens of sources that Cite Nunes saying this. Nunes has emphasized that the surveillance appeared to be legal, but unmasking of U.S. citizens may have been improper. Politrukki (talk) 05:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Please don't delete other people's comments or modify your own post that someone has replied. You may use <s>...</s> and <ins>...</ins> if you wish to retract your comments. I have restored my comment and the comment I was responding per talk page guidelines since it is unclear to me whether we still have a disagreement. Politrukki (talk) 08:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Devin Nunes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Devin Nunes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The Lede and criticism of his handling of unmasking info

IMHO the lede needs a rework. In re the final paragraph, Nunes was cleared of wrongdoing via an eight month formal inquiry, and since this is a BLP it seems inappropriate to have criticisms that were later determined to be unfounded in the lede. This material should have its own section created, be updated to reflect that it is all in the past now, and perhaps include a statement from Nunes himself. The already-referenced Hill article has a quote from him "the allegations against me were obviously frivolous and were rooted in politically motivated complaints filed against me by left-wing activist groups. I respect the ethics process, but I remain dismayed that it took an unbelievable eight months for the Committee to dismiss this matter." All or some portion of that would be appropriate - again, most preferably in a new section outside of the lede. 98.184.198.24 (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. The charges against him are well-sourced and relevant; removing them would look like a POV whitewash.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I said "move them" not "remove them".98.184.198.24 (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
The idea of the lede paragraph is to summarize the important points of the article as per WP:MOS, and those are important, well-referenced points.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Your point proves mine. The lede should summarize the article. Here, we have a five sentence treatment of the topic in the lede that likely needs expansion to keep it more neutral, and only one sentence on the topic in the article itself. That's backwards. 98.184.198.24 (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Then let's trim the lede paragraph and expand the body, but the lede should still reflect what's important: Nunes is a GOP congressperson, powerful committee chairman, identify the district geographically, a Trump supporter abandoning political integrity to keep the guy in office. That is, summarize, like you said.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Agreed to trim the lede. Best to reference the claims lightly there, then it should be easy to maintain neutral POV by fully citing claims against him in the body, balanced with opposing viewpoints on the matter, including his statement and references to both left and right of center fact-based media sources. A good source for finding least biased and highly factual sources is https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ (where they call out both Fox News and CNN as "Mixed" on "Factual Reporting", whereas something like the Seattle Post-Intelligencer or Boston Herald would be "High"). As an aside, "political integrity" is my vote for the oxymoron of the year!98.184.198.24 (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Lead - "sounding alarm"

Hi - I don't really think the "sounding the alarm" is very neutral sounding. While I'm not a big Nunes fan (ok, big is an understatement), we need to ensure neutrality and not create anything that sounds super dramatic - it's an encyclopedia. I suggest we remove mentions of "sounding the alarm" and so forth and keep it boring - perhaps just a simple, his activities surrounding the Russia investigation have caused concern among Trump critics and the media, or something like that. Missvain (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the change. If anyone has a problem with that, please bring it up here. Missvain (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I have a huge problem with that. Wikipedia is meant to be objective, not your personal sounding off, posturing board for "the resistance." If you can't be objective - don't edit. Jakobees (talk) 07:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

"Russophile" in bio sidebar under Occupation

I'm not making the edit myself--just created this account, figured it would look sketchy--but there is no source for that, it's not even an occupation, and it seems likely to be a politically slanted smear.

I came to this page to learn something about a guy that is in the news a lot right now, and this page comes across as heavily biased, to me. And I'm a liberal living in NYC... Fastfood15 (talk) 13:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Mass shootings section

Is this that notable and is it really a Political position per say? After the 2017 Orlando shooting, alot of folks tweeted blaming this as a terrorist attack ect before the real facts were known. They were wrong, got it. How should this be worked into the article, if at all, and written from a NPOV non OR type of way? An editor has added this "material" to dozens of political bios under Political positions relating to guns or mass shootings. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Mass shootings is a political issue. Nunes' position is to blame ISIS and not advocate gun control. It's well-referenced, notable, belongs in the article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Criticized rather than excoriated

In the last paragraph of Controversies, “criticized” would be better than “excoriated”. 2605:6000:F343:F300:147E:D928:3CCF:A5F8 (talk) 10:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Why? - MrX 🖋 12:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not the IP above, but I agree. "Excoriated" is a more loaded and subjective word, implying a harsher or more scathing level of criticism.[5][6][7]. Loaded language should be avoided per MOS:PUFF. "Excoriate" also has a second meaning of "to abrade the skin off". "Criticized" is more straightforward, makes fewer assumptions of severity, and adequately conveys the material in the reference. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Bannon

@Soibangla: I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to reinstate challenged text without obtaining consensus on talk, as you did here. I don't think Steve Bannon's opinion of Nunes is worthy of being in the lede. The body, sure. But Bannon's opinion of Nunes isn't one of the most notable features of his biography. If you want to better summarize the Russia stuff in the lede, moving more of it to the body instead, I'd likely support that. Marquardtika (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Alpha Omega Winery lawsuit

A Winery partially owned by Nunes was sued after a fundraiser event [8] should this be added to the article ? 100.40.125.198 (talk) 04:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Andrew McCabe

The last paragraph of Devin Nunes#Role in Trump–Russia investigation includes this:

In January 2018, The Atlantic cited three congressional sources describing that the Ethics Committee was never able to obtain the classified information that it was investigating regarding Nunes's case.[1] Nonetheless, deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe resigned due in part to the Nunes memo, for which Donald Trump said he felt "vindicated".[2][3][4]

References

  1. ^ Bertrand, Natasha. "The Circumscribed Ethics Investigation Into Devin Nunes". The Atlantic. Retrieved 5 February 2018.
  2. ^ "President Trump Says Nunes Memo 'Totally Vindicates' Him in Russia Investigation". Time. Retrieved 17 February 2018.
  3. ^ "Trump claims Nunes memo 'totally' vindicates him as FBI says 'talk is cheap'". The Guardian. Retrieved 17 February 2018.
  4. ^ "President Trump tweets Nunes memo 'totally vindicates' him in Russia collusion probe". New York Daily News. Retrieved 17 February 2018.

Which sources support the highlighted part? What is "Nonetheless" referring to? I don't see how Ethics Committee investigation and Andrew McCabe are connected to each other. In fact, I can't even find where McCabe is mentioned in the sources (except for The Guardian, where Nunes memo is embedded, but that is not enough). Politrukki (talk) 21:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea. It should be removed.- MrX 🖋 21:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, you must have had some reason to add it? Politrukki (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
OK, you convinced me. Let's leave it in.- MrX 🖋 19:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm confused by what is going on here. Someone get me up to speed? Marquardtika (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
It would appear that MrX is playing some kind of game here. I've been trying to query what was wrong with this edit (and other edits of mine, as can be seen from my opening posts on this talk page) that MrX has twice labeled as "not improvement". If I have done something wrong, I would like to know it and learn from my mistake, but if there is no mistake, MrX is just filibustering. In their edit summary MrX asked me to seek consensus for my edits and without talk page consensus, because of page restrictions, my hands are tied. Politrukki (talk) 05:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Well the sourcing for the McCabe content, as you pointed out above, doesn't look strong enough, so I would support taking it out. Marquardtika (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Contrary to the official conclusions of the U.S. intelligence community

Marquardtika made this edit to the lead, adding "contrary to the official consensus of the U.S. intelligence community", which falsely implies that the US intelligence community concluded that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. Two IP editors and I have removed the falsehood, but other users have restored the erroneous information without reading the source or have failed to understand what it says.

The source mentions two main claims stated in the Republicans' report:

  1. that there was no collusion between Russia and Trump campaign
  2. that Russia was not seeking to elect Trump

The source does say "contrary to the official consensus of the American intelligence community", but that refers to #2. The intelligence community has never made a joint statement about whether there was or was not collusion.

User MrX added "and that Russia had not sought Trump's election" and Wukai's edit that moved content once again further muddied the water. Currently the lead says:

In March 2018, the U.S. House intelligence committee finished its investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, concluding that, contrary to the official conclusions of the U.S. intelligence community, there had not been collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government and Russia had not sought Trump's election. None of the committee's Democrats endorsed this conclusion.

It is unclear whether "contrary to the official conclusions of the U.S. intelligence community" incorrectly refers to claim #1 or – still incorrectly – both #1 and #2. From MrX's revision it is possible to read that the contradiction only refers to #2 (correct) or both (incorrect). Moreover, the last sentence ("None of the...") implies that #1 and #2 are parts of the same conclusion.

We cannot mislead our readers. Unless someone can come up with a good rewrite immediately, "contrary to the official conclusions of the U.S. intelligence community" should be removed from the lead and moved to body where we can be more verbose. The lead should be succinct and exact. Politrukki (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

It should be changed back to

"In March 2018, the U.S. House intelligence committee finished its investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, concluding that there had not been collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, and that Russia had not sought Trump's election, contrary to the official conclusions of the U.S. intelligence community."

which accurate reflects the source. The commas separate the ideas so make clear that "contrary to the official conclusions" refers to "Russia had not sought Trump's election". Wukai please read the source and correct your edit accordingly, and please use edit summaries. Thanks.- MrX 🖋 21:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
No, commas do not make it clear. One has to read the sentence very carefully to receive the message. If several editors here already have had major difficulties in understanding the content, what makes you think that your proposal magically solves everything? Politrukki (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm seeing how my original edit was not clear. Politrukki, did you have a suggestion for how to present this information in a clearer and more grammatically straightforward way? Marquardtika (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
This might work:

In March 2018, the U.S. House intelligence committee finished its investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, concluding that there had not been collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, and – contrary to the official conclusions of the U.S. intelligence community – that Russia had not sought Trump's election.

But the problem with this proposal is that this is close paraphrasing as it follows the original sentence structure very closely, even more closely than what we see in other proposals. Politrukki (talk) 05:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
How about this: "In March 2018, the U.S. House intelligence committee finished its investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, concluding that there had not been collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. The committee also concluded that Russia had not sought Trump's election, which was contrary to the official conclusions of the U.S. intelligence community." Marquardtika (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Either of these are fine with me, but Marquardtika's seems to do a better job of avoiding the potential plagiarism issue. - MrX 🖋 17:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Not perfect, but  Done – Thanks. Politrukki (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

None of the Democrats

This is related to discussion #Contrary to the official conclusions of the U.S. intelligence community above

The lead currently says "None of the committee's Democrats endorsed this conclusion." This is fails verification. The closest thing in the source is this: "When the committee met in late March to discuss releasing the Republicans' incomplete report on Russia, not one Democrat on the committee voted to do so."

The source does not enumerate Democrats' objections. I addressed the defect in this edit, which was reverted without explanation.

Can someone explain which parts in the source directly support the content? If nobody can answer that simple, please somebody tell me whether my edit was an improvement or make a new proposal. Politrukki (talk) 17:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I think that sentence can be taken out.- MrX 🖋 21:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 Done Politrukki (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Claims that the Obama administration acted illegally

The article says:

Republican and Democratic parties said that the original documents Nunes cited did not support his claims that the Obama administration acted illegally or unusually.[1]

References

  1. ^ CNN, Jim Sciutto, Manu Raju and Eric Bradner,. "Classified docs contradict Nunes surveillance claims, GOP and Dem sources say". {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Where does the source say that it was Nunes's allegation that Obama administration did something illegal? The source appears to say it was Trump's claim. Politrukki (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

It should be changed to

Republican and Democratic parties said that the original documents Nunes cited did not support Trump's claims that the Obama administration acted illegally or unusually.

- MrX 🖋 10:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Trump's name kind of comes out of nowhere, but okay. Politrukki (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 Done Politrukki (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
By the way, I don't know if you noticed, but you forgot to answer the question "Where does the source say that..." Politrukki (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Given the opening statement and questions of Rep. US Rep. Devin Nunez today in the House hearing I propose adding a Wikilink to the page for Rep. US Rep. Devin Nunez https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devin_Nunes. Let's talk. Chip.berlet (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

If there is no discussion or objection shall I assume I can add the link? Chip.berlet (talk) 03:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Commentary about defamation lawsuit not allowed

Editor 51.75.75.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), you have again deleted content related to the lawsuit. Do I sense ownership/censorship/whitewashing going on? We're supposed to follow WP:PRESERVE, IOW improve the content, not just delete it. So far all we've got is a generic statement documenting the existence of a lawsuit which has received much press coverage, ridicule, and criticism. BTW, you should log in to your account, instead of editing from your IP.

Here's the edit summary:

Enforced BRD says you discuss changes but you haven't posted at all on talk. A sentence or two about the lawsuit is fine. Block quotes and commentary from pundits like Maddow (not RS) isn't. I don't think The Inquisitr is RS either but we can talk)

There had gone more than 24 hours and this was completely reworked and improved content for which I was thanked. No discussion was necessary. Responsible editors don't game the BRD system by mass deletion. There is no rule that only "a sentence or two about the lawsuit" is allowed. There has been a very vigorous response, and some of it should be included, but you seem intent on whitewashing this of all commentary and criticism. That's not an NPOV response. MSNBC is a RS. Maddow is not quoted, and even if she was, that would be okay. We can discuss The Inquisitr. There are plenty of very good sources and important commentary in the edit. That was also deleted. Not good at all.

Here's the deleted content:

As the story went viral and the popularity of the defendant accounts soared, quickly exceeding followers of Nunes' own account,[1] observers began citing this as a prime example of the Streisand Effect.[2]

The public response included a summary by Brad Heath, DC Justice and Investigations Editor for USA Today, who described the suit: "Rep Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, is suing Twitter because a fake cow was mean to him on the internet. (He's also suing the fake cow.)"[3] Numerous others mocked Nunes on the internet.[4]

Other commentators noted the irony of Nunes having previously co-sponsored the Discouraging Frivolous Lawsuits Act,[5][1] with the Editorial Board of The Washington Post considering the suit "part of a dangerous trend":[6]

"Much of the speech against Mr. Nunes is likely protected under the First Amendment. But as troubling as Mr. Nunes's apparent determination to chill criticism from private citizens is his interest in bending social media sites' moderation policies to his will. Mr. Nunes has accused Twitter of negligence for allowing what he believes was a coordinated online smear campaign to proceed on its platform. Essentially, he wants Twitter punished for allowing people to be mean to him on the Internet."[6]

References

  1. ^ a b Watson, Kathryn (March 20, 2019). "The parody cow Twitter account Devin Nunes is suing now has more followers than he does". CBS News. Retrieved March 21, 2019.
  2. ^ Trapper Byrne; J.K. Dineen (March 19, 2019). "Devin Nunes' cow goes viral". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved March 21, 2019.
  3. ^ "Brad Heath on Twitter". Twitter. March 14, 2019. Retrieved March 21, 2019.
  4. ^ Francis, Nathan (March 19, 2019). "Republican Devin Nunes Sues Twitter Users Who Mocked Him, Includes 'Human Centipede' Drawing In Court Filing". The Inquisitr. Retrieved March 21, 2019.
  5. ^ Benen, Steve (March 19, 2019). "Why Devin Nunes' lawsuit against Twitter is such a bad idea". MSNBC. Retrieved March 21, 2019.
  6. ^ a b Editorial Board (March 20, 2019). "Why Devin Nunes's laughable cow lawsuit is no laughing matter". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 21, 2019.

The Inquisitr article documents many responses, which makes it a good source. We could replace it with a good GQ article, which ends with an argument that Nunes may be "libel-proof": "that is, that their reputation is already so low that it is beyond repair, and no statement, irrespective of its veracity, could cause it to meaningfully suffer any further. If this descriptor did not apply to Nunes before this week, I would argue his decision to humiliate himself with this vapid MAGA fanfiction nudges him a little bit closer."[1] BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Willis, Jay (March 19, 2019). "Devin Nunes Sues Twitter for $250 Million Over Objectively Hilarious Parody Accounts". GQ. Retrieved March 22, 2019.
The content should be included in roughly the form proposed, but citations 3 and 4 are not suitable for use in a BLP.- MrX 🖋 16:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Please expand on that. Why are they not suitable? That needs to be a factor in finding suitable replacement sources, because they likely exist. This story is getting quite a bit of coverage. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Twitter is a self published source, so WP:BLPSPS applies. Inquisitr is an inferior source. It's a news aggregator, except when it's not. There is no evidence of fact checking reputability or editorial oversight.- MrX 🖋 16:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

More ongoing by the look of things with edit by jake hicks regarding use of funds. Bodconn (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Allegations of bias are in fact clear examples of Wikipedia editorial stance

Citing opinion from the NYT as if objective sources accusing Nunes of "bias" reflects extremely poorly on Wikipedia. These sources should be balanced with sources from the other side of politics or removed entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.194.12.159 (talk) 09:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I concur. Flaviusvulso (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Bias is shown by stating, "His attacks on the FBI and the investigation by independent counsel Robert Mueller have created concerns about Republican efforts to halt the investigation and to protect Trump from any allegations against him.[8]" A fair way to present ALL FACTS would be to ALSO state that the Nunes Memo has alarmed many Americans by showing them that high-ranking individuals in the FBI and DOJ created false pretense to acquire approval for a FISA warrant. This FISA warrant was then used to spy on a Presidential candidate in the hope that it could influence the election result. When President Trump won, the flawed Steele Dossier was then used as the main reason to create the frivolous Mueller Special Counsel Investigation. Sara Carter and John Solomon, as well as many others, have written articles stating this viewpoint. Share ALL viewpoints or none at all. Karl Dynamite (talk) 13:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
The last statement on this page is blatantly partisan and needs to be removed. Barton664 (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree. Of course Devin Nunes is biased against Mueller, the FBI, the CIA and other federal agencies that are the pillars of the American Republic. However, that fact is no excuse for Wikipedians to sink to Nunes' level and be biased themselves. As Wikipedians, we hold ourselves to higher standards (truth, integrity, the rule of law) than Nunes has ever held himself to, so let's start embodying those standards. Luc Donald Vélour (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a joke this days.

"Family members acknowledge that they couldn't maintain their farms without the labor of illegal immigrants."

What is this if not a hit piece?

And this kind of bias and snipping is absolutely widespread. Shame on you Wikipedia, you used to be cool and not just propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.38.56.121 (talk) 11:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

In what way is that "hit piece"? Factual reporting is not a "hit piece". — Red XIV (talk) 02:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

With the new revelations of Devin Nunes' involvement with federally indicted Lans Parnus. It seems Wikipedia was right on. What a difference a year makes. Mr.Faison3 (talk) 06:50, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

Dear all, after 56 years, it is a fairly good bet that there weren't multiple shooters in Dallas on November 22, 1963. But how does one conclude that something is a conspiracy theory when the determination of the veracity of the claim is in the future? Same applies to the Hunter Biden conspiracy theory. The media likes to say it has been debunked and then we get this: https://www.scribd.com/document/436505018/Giuliani-letter-to-Sen-Graham. Shouldn't we wait to get all the facts before calling something a conspiracy theory. Best regards, Alain Alainlambert (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2019

In the second-to-last paragraph in "Role in Trump-Russia investigation", "against" is misspelled as "agianst". Twjwesterhold (talk) 08:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done Fixed. Thank you Twjwesterhold for pointing that out. 331dot (talk) 08:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

New lawsuits against CNN and Daily Beast

Nunes announced he would be suing the two news outlets owing to their stories based upon Lev Parnas' claims that he helped Nunes meet with Ukrainian(s) during a trip late 2018 and begain regular meetings via his aide Derek Harvey with Giuliani and attorneys for Firtash at the Trump Hotel at the restaurant BLT Prime. I have not added this to the page since an announced lawsuit is not a lawsuit in fact. Thoughts? Pbmaise (talk) 06:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it's okay to state his intention or desire to sue since that is well reported. 331dot (talk) 08:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Response to CNN

When asked by CNN to comment on his trips overseas to solicit dirt on Biden, Nunes responded, "I don't talk to you in this lifetime or the next lifetime. At any time. On any question."

Is this important to include in the article? I feel that it's random and diluting the rest of the article, which is already really long. --HSukePup (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes. It's shocking (and highly noteworthy) that a U.S. Representative would refuse to speak to a major, reputable news organization. - MrX 🖋 21:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes this belongs. Important to note his relationship with CNN. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree with the previous comments, unless/until something changes, this should remain. The Australian Red Man (talk) 05:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying that it should be removed, but Republican politicians these days typically have a dim view of CNN and many do not consider it reputable. Nunes' comment is consistent with this. 331dot (talk) 07:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Parnas

Lev Parnas is willing to implicate Nunes in the Ukraine matter: [9] I don't know if this is something we have to wait for him to actually testify to in order to add it to this article. 331dot (talk) 09:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

We would need to wait for the evidence and verification before we include something in a BLP that is potential wrongdoing. Is Parnas credible? Mr Ernie (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Looks like someone added information from the CNN story to the article already. Since Parnas is an indicted suspect in a crime, I'm not sure how credible he is, but he has supposedly turned over hard evidence to House investigators. I would tend to think we should at least wait until (and if) Parnas testifies under oath to the Committee, unless there's some way to word this information without any BLP issues. 331dot (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

There's no rush adding the Parnas bit to this article, but in the CNN piece above, Nunes' statement that he will never acknowledge any attempted interaction by CNN is certainly worthy of inclusion in his bio. That's an defining statement by a senior member of Congress. More power to him! SPECIFICO talk 22:50, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

...and now we have 5 paragraphs about it. It needs to be trimmed back. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Mr. Ernie. I agree. How would you carve the turkey? SPECIFICO talk 13:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
I don’t know what to do about it. Nunes just said tonight on Hannity again how fake that story is. But there’s not a lot of RS out there reporting on any actual facts yet. Regarding carving the turkey, we are doing a spiral ham this year. Much easier to carve and arguably a lot more delicious. I smoked a turkey last year, but that was a lot of effort when I would rather be visiting with family. I moved internationally last year and don’t see them much anymore. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorry to hear about that, Ernie. But maybe you can be thankful you are not a vegan like me. I have turkeys living on my property here, and I could probably go grab one if I were so inclined, swing him violently in the air, snap his neck, clean and dress him, and have him on the table within 2 hours. But instead I just watch them and think how ugly they are.
I haven't followed this story over the past 24 hours. If Nunes is now clearly denying the allegation, that should be easy to source to a mainstream reference. My recollection is that on Maria Bartiromo's show, he changed the subject and it was kind of conspicuous that he did not want to deny it there. I can't figure out why, but look at the video. It was kind of odd. Anyway, the whole thing can wait until we know whether anything comes of it. Then the allegation will be open and public and the denial or other statement by Nunes will also be public, presumably. SPECIFICO talk 02:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
In the lawsuit it states Nunes was in Libya and Malta, and never traveled to Vienna. Waiting for a RS to cover that, but I’m not going to hold my breath. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Lawsuit outcomes

Shouldn't the listed lawsuits mention the outcomes, or that it's still pending?

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2019

I suggest prefixing "Trump" with either "President" or "President Donald" in each instance it is used. While there may be widespread disdain for a politician, refusing to use their honorific in the article gives -at least- the perception of bias. 75.85.180.113 (talk) 03:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done - By convention, we usually only use titles and first names in the first instance. - MrX 🖋 04:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
As Mr.X says, we apply this standard across the board, whether the individual in question is a religious figure, or a politician. This isn’t an example of bias. Doing otherwise would appear to be kowtowing to the subject of the article. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 05:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Stick to what is in the citations

An editor just added new material that wasn't included in the citation provided, so I edited it accordingly. --Malerooster (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I thought Nunes was talking about drive through testing, not take out. I would still stick with the wording as is. --Malerooster (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
There is serious competency / POV concerns with your editing, and you need to seriously ask yourself what your purpose on this project is if you're devoting your time to sifting through sources, misrepresenting them and running interference for politicians who are lying about a pandemic and endangering the public. And putting other editors in a position of having to clean up after you. Nunes's comments are so so obviously a brazen falsehood. The addition of his BS "clarification", without the "false" qualifier, gives readers the misleading impression that there was a genuine mix-up when there was no such thing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
If I've understood correctly, Snooganssnoogans added stuff including "Later, Nunes walked back his comments and falsely claimed that he had encouraged people to use drive-thrus." The transcript has an interviewer saying "these restaurants are now delivering, taking care of their customers in other ways", shortly before Nunes says "what I was saying [i.e. in the earlier interview] is you have empty restaurants. You can go through the drive-thru, you can do take-out." That is: it's clear that Nunes said he'd mentioned empty restaurants, but not clear whether he said he'd mentioned drive-thru or take-out, that's (if the transcript punctuation is correct) a different sentence that could be merely a response to what the interviewer had brought up. Malerooster only removed the word "falsely". I think Malerooster should have removed more. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Lets just stick to what the citations say. I am not sure when Snooganssnoogans next shift is, but he needs to be seriously reigned in. Could you talk to him? Thank you --Malerooster (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Malerooster, sorry, I can't help in that particular way, and I don't have a suggestion about who could. Perhaps other editors will eventually see this thread and add more opinions. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Nunes did not say in the earlier interview in question that ppl should use drive-throughs. It's a brazen falsehood and should be described as such. Removing "falsely" makes it seem as if there was some kind of mix-up or that RS reporting on this failed to provide the full context of the remark when the reality is that this man, with a history of ceaseless lying and conspiracy theorizing, lied. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans is right. Nunes is "walking back" his erroneous advice and trying to substitute a falsehood in a clear effort at historical negationism. Many reliable sources criticize his deceptive cleanup efforts, so "falsely" should be restored. -- Valjean (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Valjean, can you please provide some of those sources? Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
The ones we're using are good enough to make it plain he's dissembling, so "falsely" accurately describes the gist of what they're saying. -- Valjean (talk) 03:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
One source uses the term "claimed". I don't see any of the sources saying he "lied" about what he had said. Its best to stick to what the sources actually say, rather than going with the "gist" since that can be original research. --Malerooster (talk) 03:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
When we paraphrase, we should seek to accurately describe the important details, as well as the context and essence of what the sources are saying, and that's what they are telling us. That's not OR or SYNTH. They call him out, not just document, for trying to push a false version of what he had originally said. If we wrote something that did not convey what the sources are telling us, then we would be violating NPOV by introducing whitewashed editorial alteration of what the sources tell us. That is the non-neutral introduction of editorial opinion contrary to what is in the sources. If what we write is not contrary to the sources, then we are on solid ground. -- Valjean (talk) 06:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Again, the source says that he "claimed", so stick with that. No need to add your interpretation of what the sources are saying. You probably should also check your bias here. --Malerooster (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
There is no need to mention bias, as that cuts both ways. We're all trying to "get it right". NPOV violations are both inclusive and exclusive. Including wrong information, and leaving out correct information are both violations. Including deceptive information from a source (Nunes) without making it clear that it's false is not allowed. There are many modifiers we can use, all the way from "state/says/claimed" (all neutral, thus misrepresenting what the sources tell us) to "false". This time "falsely" fits the bill accurately. A bias that does not see that Nunes his trying to wiggle out of responsibility for his previous statements is the bias that needs to be checked, because the sources do not support that bias. -- Valjean (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
"Claimed" is a lot less neutral then "stated" or "said" since it implies some question of "truth". Isn't there some essay on using the word "claimed", lol. I wouldn't use Wiki voice to say he lied, but maybe attribute it to the person or people saying he lied. Also, this seems very trivial compared to the entire bio, but thats something different. --Malerooster (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. "Claimed" is listed as a WP:Weasel word (see WP:CLAIM), and, in lieu of better, it would be justified to use it here. "Lied" is a step too far, IMO. "Falsely" is a word we often use when there is no doubt and it is therefore important to notify readers of the nature of the beast. In some cases it's so obvious that there is no need for an editorial signal, and in other cases (like this, where there is no doubt), we should not leave it up to them to guess. Many of our readers are not native English speakers and may not understand the subtleties of what the sources are saying or implying. We must then make it clear for their sake.
As always, editorial signals must be neutral, in the sense that they must agree with the sources, no matter which way they go. If there is doubt in the sources, our wording should convey doubt, and if there is no doubt, our wording must not leave any doubt. That door should be closed. -- Valjean (talk) 00:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Falsely claimed is the same is lying. Also, there is some doubt. The first source says he "walked back" his comments. It doesn't say he lied or falsely claimed. Again, we don't try to interpret what sources are trying to "imply", we just to stick to what they are actually saying. This isn't about what truth you believe. --Malerooster (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Dairy Famer?

I believe Devin Nunes claim to being a former dairy farmer might be controversial - has that already been covered? Aerik (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The entire second section of this paragraph is wrong

On March 22, 2017, during the House Intelligence Committee's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, Nunes held a press conference to announce that he had received information that the communications of "some members of Trump's transition team, including potentially the president himself" had been "incidentally collected" by the intelligence community and "widely disseminated" throughout the intelligence community. He added that it was legal FISA surveillance, and unrelated to Russia.[89]

The entire second section of this paragraph is wrong

On March 22, 2017, during the House Intelligence Committee's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, Nunes held a press conference to announce that he had received information that the communications of "some members of Trump's transition team, including potentially the president himself" had been "incidentally collected" by the intelligence community and "widely disseminated" throughout the intelligence community. He added that it was legal FISA surveillance, and unrelated to Russia.[89]

It was later revealed that it involved Russia and the Trump transition team. The surveillance was of multiple phone conversations between Michael Flynn, a member of the transition team, and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, which occurred after Flynn sought advice from the Trump transition team at Mar-a-Lago, where they discussed what Flynn should tell Kislyak "about the administration's stance on the sanctions. [Kislyak had contacted Flynn the day before] ... members of the team at the president's Florida estate agree that they do not want Russia to escalate the diplomatic crisis. After the initial call, Flynn [spoke] with Kislyak multiple times by phone and urge[d] him not to exacerbate the situation. U.S. intelligence officials intercept[ed] the calls as part of their routine surveillance of foreign dignitaries."[90]

There has never been a FISA warrant on Flynn, and the entire conversation was revealed by the FBI when they provided unvetted intelligence [1] to the White House. It's a completely separate issue from the unmaskings. In fact, the unmaskings occurred both before and after the Kisylak conversation [2] [3]

Txantimedia (talk) 02:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2021

Add Category:Presidential Medal of Freedom recipients HannesBlaman (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@HannesBlaman: - Looks like someone beat me to it! Thanks for your suggestion! It's been completed. Missvain (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Simplistic truth

Why aren't his truths updated? He is no longer a leader. Update the info. If you want to omit his medal of honor, most people would be fine with that. KellBell70 (talk) 06:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Nunes v Lizza

This page covers the ongoing suites filed by Devin Nunes. However, it doesn't mention the ongoing lawsuits filed by Nunes' father and brother against some of the same plaintiffs, e.g. Ryan Lizza & Hearst Magazines.

I'm not sure where the best place is to put information about Nunes v Lizza as the father & brother and their company do not have wikipedia articles on their own.

I was a little confused about the case against Lizza et.al. since Nunes' case against the same defendants was dismissed with prejudice, while the case filed by his father & brother remains unresolved. I think it would be appropriate to include a brief sentence mentioning the Nunes' family business' suits.

See https://www.fresnobee.com/news/politics-government/article252189908.html for more info.

Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

  1. ^ Davis, Sean. "Samantha Power Claimed She Never Tried To Unmask Michael Flynn, But Records Show She Unmasked Him 7 Times". The Federalist. FDRLST Media.
  2. ^ ODNI. "Memorandum for Director of National Intelligence" (PDF).
  3. ^ Nakashima, Ellen (May 20, 2020). "Michael Flynn's name was never masked in FBI document on his communications with Russian ambassador". Washington Post.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Devin_Nunes/Archive_1&oldid=1063354194"