Talk:Devin Nunes/Archive 2

Can someone tell me why this was in the lead?
I removed this part, as there was no material outcome arising from the investigation. Seems editorialized and undue. Normchou  💬 15:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Good call. -- Valjean (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

See also section
I question the need for a See also section for this article, and the elements within it. Currently the 4 links are: Fossil fuels lobby, List of conspiracy theories, Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, and Trump–Ukraine scandal. These seem crafted to push or overemphasize a subtle narrative by implication/association. WP:BLPSEEALSO, MOS:SEEALSO and WP:NPOV are applicable policies and guidelines. Per MOS:SEEALSO: The section is not required; many high-quality and comprehensive articles do not have one. Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. Per WP:BLPSEEALSO: "See also" links, whether placed in their own section or in a note within the text, should not be used to imply any contentious labeling, association, or claim regarding a living person, and must adhere to Wikipedia's policy of no original research. Fossil fuels lobby makes no mention of Nunes, and Devin Nunes makes no mention of fossil fuel lobbyists. I see in this an unfounded implication that Nunes is either a lobbyist or influenced by lobbyists. Similarly, List of conspiracy theories makes no mention of Nunes, and only a small fraction of that list article contains material related even tangentially to Nunes. Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and Trump–Ukraine scandal are already linked and prominently discussed in the article, violating MOS:NOTSEEALSO (As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body), and the latter article only discusses an aide to Nunes and makes passing mention of the Nunes memo. "See also" sections in other articles on similarly-prominent US politicians, if present, seem to be generally simple lists rather than what appear to be cherry-picked topical issues. Compare for instance: Ilhan Omar, Nancy Pelosi, Darrell Issa, Anthony Weiner, Adam Schiff, Jeff Sessions, and note that Paul Ryan, John Boehner, and others lack the section entirely. Anecdotally, Republican politicians appear to have more controversy highlighted in their See also's than do Democratic politicians. Care should be taken that editor partisanship (even unconsciously or collectively) does not systematically portray or present one party structurally differently than another, e.g. give undue emphasis to aspects of certain politicians while minimizing emphasis for others. 63.155.100.241 (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable. Section is removed. Thanks for referencing policy. Freelance-frank (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2022
Cannot independently verify that Devin Nunes received any GOIH award. Nothing on the Portuguese government website, no major news source, and no records on Devin Nunes' own website. 12.252.7.226 (talk) 00:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This is not an edit request. Nonetheless, sources for this are provided in the Devin Nunes section. They do not have to be cited in the lead per WP:CITELEAD. – Recoil (talk) 12:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC)