Talk:Nunes memo/Archive 1

New info on the contents of thr memo
Info here should be added. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:ReleaseTheMemo

ReleaseTheMemo is the hashtag #ReleaseTheMemo
Shouldn't the title and description mention that this is a hashtag? Therefore the title should be ReleaseTheMemo (hashtag), just like Me Too (hashtag)‎. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes.Casprings (talk) 02:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this action. The disambiguation at Me Too (hashtag) is necessary to disambiguate from topics like Me Too (album) and Me Too (Meghan Trainor song). But we have no other articles called ReleaseTheMemo nor Release the Memo. Per WP:PRECISION, Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  02:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with PinkAmpers&. The hat-note explains already. zzz (talk) 03:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Russian bots
Five of the ten sources currently in the article discuss Russian bots. Please stop trying to spuriously remove this info.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Russian bots were already mentioned and 2) the main force behind the memo is the House Committee chairman and author. It doesn't belong in the first sentence.  The memo itseld doesn't purport to have any connection to Russian interference in the election which is what the wikilink you added implies.  --DHeyward (talk) 10:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The first sentence is summarizing the rest of the article. I have no idea what a "main force" is. But this article isn't about the memo. It's about a hashtag. Is Nunes the "main force" behind the hashtag? No. And how do you know what the memo does or does not purport? You read it? Then release it please. Else stop making stuff up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no public evidence that Russian bots promoted this hashtag. All of the sources that mention that claim attribute it to the Alliance for Securing Democracy (ASD), a think tank with ties to neoconservatism and the U.S. national security state, and which is by no means a reliable source. Twitter has found nothing to support ASD's claim. (ASD's "Hamilton 68" only monitors Twitter, not "social media" generally, as this article falsely implies.) ASD does not list any of the accounts that it considers Russian bots and has never explained its methodology, so there is no way to independently verify anything it says. The language Casprings and Volunteer Marek are fighting for is equivalent to Wikipedia repeating as fact allegations about the CIA made by a Kremlin-tied think tank. It's scarcely believable that this is what Wikipedia has become.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's according to one source. Which also says " according to this source, who would not speak to The Daily Beast for attribution". Other sources say otherwise . Your original research about ASD is completely irrelevant. ASD is a perfectly reliable source, as are all the sources that are reporting about them in this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * BTW, the ASD report is not even mentioned in the article. In fact, it needs to be added.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As stated, russian bots are mentioned. Ass stated in the second paragraph, per Twitter is they are not the originator nor highest volume.  Second paragraph is appropriate place as bots are not the story and there is no connection of the document and Russia.  American made about US DoJ and FISA courts. --DHeyward (talk) 12:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * (EC) No, all of the sources attribute this arbitrary assertion to ASD's "Hamilton 68." For example, the source you linked above (by a longtime CIA mouthpiece) states: "'#Releasethememo' is now the top trending hashtag among Russian bots and trolls on Twitter and other platforms, according to the German Marshall Fund's 'Hamilton 68' website, which tracks Russian influence campaigns." There is no reason for Wikipedia to eschew similar attribution. We would never in a million years repeat similar allegations against the U.S. in Wikipedia's voice—even though the U.S. uncontroversially has a history of foreign meddling that vastly dwarfs even Russia's—and that's what WP:SYSTEMICBIAS is all about.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In addition, Newsweek makes it clear that the "Russian bot" angle is a Democrat talking point, not a fact.. We are not the mouthpiece for reporting partisan rhetoric as fact.  --DHeyward (talk) 12:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You ever consider that it could be BOTH a "Democrat talking point" AND a fact? No? Maybe you should.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, but Twitter analysis disagreed so it's better as an attributed position which is how sources presented it. We attribute opinion which this clearly is.  I agree with you that the attributed opinion should be included rather than complete removal that would occur if we only included "truth."  --DHeyward (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I sort of doubt that "Twitter analysis" described it as a "Democratic talking point". Of course we can mention what Twitter claims, but we need to also mention other reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's why I never said that they did. But then again, no sources or analysis by anyone but democrats say this was a Russian-bot social media campaign. George takei blamed Russian bots for the #metoo campaign he got caught up in, but even if it was the top-trending Russian bot hashtag for awhile doesn't mean we attribute the #metoo campaign as "russian bot supported social media campaign."  The #releaseTheDocuments hsshtag was top of Twitter with or without Russian bots.  And if just Russian bots are counted, it did not trend on Twitter at all.  That makes them immaterial to the media campaign except as something the Democrats mentioned and it should be treated as such. --DHeyward (talk) 04:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Similarly, CNN states: "Software developed by the German Marshall Fund's Alliance for Securing Democracy showed that #ReleaseTheMemo was one of the talking points being pushed most frequently on Thursday and throughout the weekend by a group of Twitter accounts it believes to be part of 'Russian-linked influence networks' on the platform. The group does not disclose which accounts it tracks and CNN has not independently verified its findings. ... It's not clear that any such analysis will show that Russians had anything to do with the hashtag's popularity, or even that bots did. The Daily Beast reported Tuesday that Twitter's internal analysis has "found that authentic American accounts, and not Russian imposters or automated bots, are driving #ReleaseTheMemo." And a number of people with influence both on Twitter and in the media have promoted the campaign and the hashtag. ... Much of the hashtag's virality was due to legitimate, organic activity. Republican lawmakers, prominent conservative media figures and the president's son, Donald Trump Jr., all helped the hashtag trend with their own tweets. One tweet from Rep. Mark Meadows, who said he had read the memo and described it as 'shocking,' was retweeted almost 50,000 times. Media coverage also likely played a role as well." None of the sources say anything close to Wikipedia's "According to an unnamed source familiar with an internal analysis by Twitter, the accounts promoting the hashtag were mostly American, although a large number of Russian accounts were also involved."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You, like, bolded exactly the wrong parts.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Most sources describe it as Russian bot supported. That needs to be primary in the article.Casprings (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

American or Russia social media campaign
The article originally called this a "Russian supported social media campaign"

Then an IP changed this to "American citizen" in essentially a piece of vandalism

I added a dubious tag to that assertion, as it deserved one.

User:Neutrality changed it to "a social media campaign" without any nationalities in there

User:DHeyward then added back the adjective "American" with the Daily Beast source (this is the only source that calls this American. All other sources note the hashtag being pushed by Russian bots. Hence this is cherry picking undue info)

DHeyward also removed the part which said "supported by Russian bots", which was based on reliable sources.

DHeyward also added "Democrats blamed Russian bots for spreading the hashtag" which is true enough, but the placement of this claim in the article and the wording is obviously meant to imply that ONLY Democrats made this claim, whereas it was actually an independent assessment.

Then even more IP hijinks ensued.

So what started out as a source based neutral text gradually morphed, with the help from some fly by night accounts, into highly partisan POV text.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The problem with your version is that the reason it is trending and was notable was not because of Russian bots. No sources say say that Russian bots were responsible for either hashtags popularity or origin.  It may be the most popular hashtag repeated by Russian bots, but that does not confer the reason why it's trending on Twitter.  It could also be the most popular hashtag for blind, one-legged senior citizens but we would not categorize it as a "blind, one-legged senior citizen social media campaign."  The analysis by twitter in the sources say 1) it's trending because of organically driven American accounts and 2) the contribution by Russian bots weren't significant in its trending.  Being the top trending Russian bot hashtag is relatively meaningless unless it is driving the trend and the sources that mention Russian bots don't make the claim and the analysis by Twitter shows that it would be baseless to make the claim.  It reads pretty neutrally without the false narrative that it's a Russian-bot social media campaign.  --DHeyward (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "The problem with your version is that the reason it is trending and was notable was not because of Russian bots" - this is your own original research.
 * "No sources say say that Russian bots were responsible for either hashtags popularity" - false, sources do say this.
 * The analysis by twitter is just one source of information here. We also have independent evaluations of the phenomenon. Twitter's been - rightly - catching all kinds of shit for allowing itself to become a platform for various disinformation campaigns, so yeah, of course they're gonna deny it. This is why we use secondary sources.
 * You - and a few IPs - changed the wording to say something completely the opposite of what it said. If you want to include the internal Twitter analysis as another view point, that's fine. But you can't just remove all the info based on sources that says something else.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll be more specific. Neither the NBC source or CNN source make the claim that the reason it is trending and was notable.  NBC notes that it was a top bot hashtag but not that being the top bot hashtag is a significant effect of Twitter trending topics.  CNN is much more in-depth and specifically says they can make no connection from the bots to it's trending on Twitter.  If you have other sources than the ones you provided, please place them here otherwise the influence of Russian bots is not established in any source and they are generally downplayed in all the reliable sources that analyzed them. --DHeyward (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The article currently says that it is supported by Russia. It makes no mention of how effective that support is.Casprings (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If it's a not a prominent level of support, it doesn't belong in the most prominent spot describing it's support. It may also be the number trending hashtag of MENSA members but we would not describe it in the lead as a "MENSA-supported social media campaign."  What makes it trend is what should be stated in the article, not a cherry picked group that is mentioned by partisans to make a partisan point.  Organic American twitter accounts are the reason it's a notable social media campaign on Twitter, not Russian bots.  --DHeyward (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether it's notable or not depends on whether sources discuss it. They do. Your original research is irrelevant.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. WP:RS's give it weight and so should we. Full stop.Casprings (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, which is why it's even mentioned at all. But the weight reliable sources give Russian bots is low. --DHeyward (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Weight
It's important for divisive articles like this to not overly base the article on one source which may skew the article. Drawing from a wide variety of sources, and apportioning weight likewise, will lead to a better article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The bit you reverted is sourced to CNN regarding egg accounts.
 * Here's the sources version More than 1,000 accounts that were set up between Thursday -- when the hashtag first appeared -- and Sunday night have tweeted the hashtag. 460 of those were what are known as "egg accounts," accounts that don't even have a profile picture. CNN's analysis found that between Thursday and Sunday night, newly created accounts (which are not necessarily related to Russia or to any other state actor) tweeted or retweeted the hashtag more than 5,000 times -- a tiny fraction of the total number of tweets which included the hashtag.
 * Here's what you think is the weighted NPOV version.  According to an analysis by CNN the hashtag was pushed by over a thousand newly created accounts, of which 460 were "egg accounts" without even a profile picture.  Notice all the weight and balance you removed?  I left the "tiny fraction" of egg accounts sentence but it's clear they are overweighted and should be removed completely.  --DHeyward (talk) 12:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2018
Eliminate the sentence "Russian-linked bots on Twitter helped spread the hashtag.[3][4][5]" in the first paragraph. References 3, 4, and 5 point to "Hamilton68", an organization that claims (without verification) that it has identified Russian-linked twitter and facebook accounts. It further claims, without verification, that the relatively normal content of these accounts was somehow anti-American. There has been no objective evidence set in the public domain that supports "Hamilton68" as a credible source, only "Hamilton68" self-assertions. The sentence is without verified merit and is therefore reckless in Wikipedia. Pongo1978 (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ - This is already being discussed elsewhere on this page. Feel free to make you views known there.- MrX 🖋 23:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Reject.  SPECIFICO talk 23:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Important add
FBI opposition and accurately of document.https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-31/trump-says-100-percent-after-he-s-asked-to-release-gop-memo Casprings (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also: O3000 (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hot stuff POTUS  SPECIFICO talk 18:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * It's notable that the FBI has stopped alleging exposure of "methods and sources" (what is required for clearance) to "out of context" argument which is not a national security issue. --DHeyward (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, they said "grave concerns". I'm not sure that means that they don't have "regular concerns" about methods and sources, but who knows.- MrX 🖋 23:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Bolded name in first sentence
Sorry, I hit Enter by accident before adding a summary for this edit. The memo isn't formally or widely known as the "Nunes memo," or for that matter as any other name; therefore we shouldn't include a bolded name. If the official name of the memo becomes known then it should be used instead. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * According to my research, "Nunes memo" is what the memo is frequently called in sources. It is also called "secret memo", but that's ambiguous. I think it's important to link the article subject to the lead, as opposed to starting the article as if telling a story. An encyclopedia lead should not start in a narrative style. - MrX 🖋 13:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * FBI calls it "HPSCI memo" as it was released by the committee, not just Nunes. And CBS has followed suit as do others  --DHeyward (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added HPSCI memo. - MrX 🖋 00:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Peter Strzok
Interesting article. This belongs somewhere. Maybe more than one somewhere if confirmed by more RS. O3000 (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there a connection to this memo?
 * It's pretty wild that Trump can thank both Strzok and Comey for ensuring he won. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Guess we have to wait for the memo release. O3000 (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Some sources
Some may already be used, but some aren't:


 * The Real Aim of the Nunes Memo Is the Mueller Investigation


 * Rosenstein stood up to the Nunes menace. Now it’s Republicans’ turn.


 * Release the Memo: What's the Conspiracy Behind the Right-Wing Meme?


 * Democrats' rebuttal memo knocks Nunes


 * FBI Director Opposes Memo Release Because of Inaccuracies, Source Says

Reference formatting, ready-for-use, provided. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Most recent sources have dropped the reference to Russian bots entirely
Newsweek omitted all reference to bots in their latest story on the memo and hashtag. Replaced with Hannity and Trump Jr. . If we follow the guideline on sources, most recent are deemed highest quality. Here's relevant quote about the hashtag: Those advocating for the release of the memo, written by California Republican Representative Devin Nunes, have pushed the trending Twitter hashtag #releasethememo for the cause. In addition to members of Congress, some of the greatest advocates for the document's release have been Fox News anchor Sean Hannity and the president's son, Donald Trump Jr. Russian bot attribution has apparently evaporated under analysis. It should be moved down into a section documenting the notable Democratic response rather than anything more prominent. --DHeyward (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Has anyone WP:RS issued a retraction? If not, then nothing has changed.Casprings (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Here are recent sources that reference the Russian bots:.- MrX 🖋 13:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * All three downplay any claims the bots were significant in driving the trend. They mention it as historical record of what Pelosi requested.  None made any claims that bots drove or impacted the trend.  And "Mother Jones?"  Come on. --DHeyward (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Here ya go:
 * "Analysts have also found Russian bots have amplified a #ReleaseTheMemo campaign on social media."
 * "... Representative Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), helped spearhead the #ReleaseTheMemo social media campaign—an initiative apparently boosted by Russian bots." - MrX 🖋 17:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * By the way, we should not be adding "According to Hamilton 68, a project started by Clint Watts,..." in front of this material. While it may be true, it is WP:UNDUE in that it inappropriately amplifies the importance of Hamilton 68's role. It may be OK as background detail, but it does not belong in the lead. Pinging for any comments they may have.- MrX 🖋 17:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong support. WP:RS's state it as a fact: we should to.Casprings (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The cited sources say "may have". And they acknowledge the group reporting the allegation. It is not a fact and should not reported as one. We should note what the reliable sources say. I tried to fix it many times, most recently due to a glitch or perhaps I was working from an older article version(?) a bunch of other changes were made too. That was unfortunate. When we make allegations it's inportant to make clear that they are accusations and who has made them, jist as the reliable sources have done. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The Pulitzer Prize winning Washington Post treats it as a fact. We need to see how the most reputable sources treat this information, not simply chose an oddball one that happens to be cited in the article.. While the actual impact that Russian bots had is debatable, I'm not seeing any sources that say they didn't have a role. If something is uncontested and most source do not attribute it, neither should we.
 * From WP:WikiVoice: "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability."- MrX 🖋 19:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * One more thing: Of the three sources cited in the lead for this material, the two that attribute it to Hamilton 68 are from January 19. - MrX 🖋 20:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Mr. X can you please link to the article you're referencing? FloridaArmy (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have referenced several articles in this thread. Which one are you referring to?- MrX 🖋 20:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Analysts have also found Russian bots have amplified a #ReleaseTheMemo campaign on social media." - I can't find that text in the source. --DHeyward (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * WaPo updated their article. I have no idea why they omitted that sentence. If you Google search for that sentence you will see in in the snippet.- MrX 🖋 23:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * lol. It's at the name of the header for this section. Seriously, you just proved it. WaPo dropped it in a correction.  --DHeyward (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not following you. Where exactly does it say that they dropped it in correction?- MrX 🖋 23:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What part of the WaPo story that dropped it was causing a comprehension problem? It was removed in a corrected version and it says "this post has been updated."  You understand it was removed right?  --DHeyward (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Updated≠corrected.You did say "dropped it in a correction". Perhaps you need to correct that?- MrX 🖋 23:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Mr X, "The FBI just gave us another reason to be skeptical of the GOP memo criticizing the bureau" is an opinion piece written by Amber Phillips and based almost entirely on official statements by the DOJ/FBI and by former FBI officials—not hard news reporting in The Washington Post! Furthermore, the opinion piece appears to have been updated and corrected several times, including: "Correction: An early post incorrectly said the dossier was funded by a conservative website. That website has said none of the research it paid for eventually ended up in the dossier." Phillips's opinion article no longer contains any reference to Russian bots. That you cited her (since-retracted) opinion to claim "The Pulitzer Prize winning Washington Post treats it as a fact" is completely unconvincing. No reliable source has stated that "Russian bots promoted the hashtag" in its own voice and without attribution, period; if any did, you wouldn't have had to use Phillips.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, actually it's an analysis, not an "opinion piece". I'm aware that the analysis has been updated. That does not mean the facts have changed. Note: I cited other sources as well.- MrX 🖋 00:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Did NPR drop it too, as that source doesn't mention the hashtag. --DHeyward (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Another source:
 * - MrX 🖋 00:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, it's also not comparative. Horton heard a lot of things too but it doesn't make them loud or a significant source of noise.  That is why the Russian bot angle has faded to a one day news story that is no longer encyclopedic per WP:NOTNEWS.  --DHeyward (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You started this discussion claiming "Most recent sources have dropped the reference to Russian bots entirely". I've proven that to be entirely false, and now the goalposts seem to be moving. Oh, and if you're going to allude to a well-known children's story in your argument, you might want to remember how the story actually ends.- MrX 🖋 12:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You started this discussion claiming "Most recent sources have dropped the reference to Russian bots entirely". I've proven that to be entirely false, and now the goalposts seem to be moving. Oh, and if you're going to allude to a well-known children's story in your argument, you might want to remember how the story actually ends.- MrX 🖋 12:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * More Russian Bot related sources from today: - MrX 🖋 00:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * First paragraph WaPo: lawmakers on Wednesday chastised Facebook and Twitter for failing to explain the role pro-Russian accounts played in a large online campaign to release a classified memo related to the Russia investigation. so if the role is unexplained, why are saying it had any impact? --DHeyward (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You're parsing it wrong. Hamilton 68 presented evidence of the bot campaign, which several sources accept as factual. The impact is unknown, and probably unknowable. Separately, lawmakers (and citizen's like me!) want to know why Facebook and Twitter repeatedly allow their platforms to be co-opted by the Russian government to interfere in the affairs of the United States. This is not that complicated.- MrX 🖋 00:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, you are parsing it wrong. Not even Hamilton 68 has stated the bot campaign significantly affected social media.  They stated it was significant bot activity but not that the bot activity significantly affected Twitter or social media.  It's the noise generated by Who's in Horton Hears a Who!.  Without that connection, the story died as being insignificant to the HSCI memo.  That's apparent by the lack of legs the story had.  The question is why do Russian bots still exist on Twitter/Facebook and what are they doing about it, but that question is unrelated to the HSCI memo.  --DHeyward (talk) 02:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * None of Mr. X's sources state that Russian bots promoted the hashtag on Twitter. Rather, they state that Schiff and Feinstein are pressuring Twitter (and Facebook, too, for some reason, even though ASD doesn't track Facebook) to find some "evidence" to "confirm" ASD's arbitrary assertions. The tech companies will probably cave to government power eventually, just as they caved on "Russian" "interference" during the 2016 election—Twitter is now emailing hundreds of thousands of users to warn them that they may have "liked" a Russian tweet, even though less than "0.02 percent of the election-related tweets" came from Russian accounts, and Russian activity on social media was just as critical of Trump as of Hillary, with no evidence of a sophisticated Russian conspiracy to elect one candidate over another—but until that happens and Wikipedia can state that Twitter et al. "independently corroborated" this McCarthyist exercise, we have to use the language used by RS. Every single RS attributes the "Russian bots" angle to ASD, often with qualifiers like "alleged Russian manipulation ... The hashtag was allegedly boosted by a Russian bot campaign."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes they do. No we don't need to wait for Twitter to confirm anything.- MrX 🖋 02:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

"Twitter said that an initial inquiry had not identified “any significant activity connected to Russia”. Mr. X please stop including allegations as fact. The "disregarded" bit is also not in the sources cited and is false and misleading. The sources clearly state that there "may" have been involvement from Russian bot and that this analyst firm found that. We should stsy consistent with their reporting and not go beyond it. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Take it easy. Different sources say different things. Some sources say may; some say alleged; some say did. I have no idea what you mean by "the disregarded bit".- MrX 🖋 02:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * These social media websites are all under scrutiny. We don't accept their self-interested statements over RS reporting.  SPECIFICO talk 02:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And RS's has stopped reporting it as relating to the HCSI memo. WP:NOTNEWS] and WP:TOPIC mean it should be removed as unrelated to this article.  It's a different issue and wasn't a lasting connection to this article.  --DHeyward (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's still relevant. All that's happened is that the attention has moved on from the release the memo campaign to the memo itself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Get rid of it. At this point it is WP:FART. PackMecEng (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

both memos
DHeyward, please stop adding - repeatedly - text which is not supported by the source. The source says that the vote to release Nunes memo was along party lines. The source says the panel rejected (also along party lines) making the Shiff memo public. The source does say "The committee did vote to allow the full House to read Schiff's memo" - but it does not say anything about who voted how.

You've done this twice now. It's becoming disruptive. Either find a source which actually supports the statement or just stop.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There is also the confusion between voting to release to the public or just to the full house. The old wording conflated them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Twitter's internal analysis
I tagged the following sentence in the 'Spread on social media' section as possibly undue:
 * "According to Twitter, although a large number of Russian accounts were also involved, they were insufficient to reach the top of Twitter's internal analysis which showed the retweets are coming from inside the United States from authentic American accounts."

This is only sourced to The Daily Beast, without attribution, based on an anonymous source. I would suggest that we remove this sentence unless someone can show that it is backed by at least a couple of additional sources or that other sources cite the Daily Beast article..- MrX 🖋 16:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Casprings (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I've removed it for now. It's easy enough to put back in if consensus turns.- MrX 🖋 17:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course RS are increasingly telling us that the distinction between "Russian" and "American" is somewhat less clear than it was 2-3 years back.  SPECIFICO talk 18:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

There are some sources for it The Hill, The Daily Beast, and Reason. But I would not mind seeing all the bot stuff pulled as undue. PackMecEng (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There's some pretty mind-blowing stuff going on here. For one, MrX is now asserting that nothing that is anonymously sourced can be stated in wikivoice. However, from Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections to Donald Trump's disclosures of classified information (an entire article based solely on anonymous "current and former officials"), Wikipedia routinely accepts anonymously sourced claims as fact, and MrX has been one of the leading editors to maintain that attributing such assertions would undermine their status as "fact" (see here, here, and, e.g., here). ASD's "Hamilton 68" is not an academic source with publicly available data that can be subject to peer review, but rather a secretive think tank that refuses to name any of the "Russian" accounts it is allegedly "tracking," yet MrX has repeatedly argued that ASD's claims are "fact." Volunteer Marek just added anonymously sourced allegations that Nunes wasn't "really" cleared by the House Ethics Committee, and MrX has not objected. How can this be possible? In addition, MrX obviously knows that the content he removed has been supported by numerous other editors (including, who added it) in earlier discussions; is it credible to start a new discussion, and then immediately remove the content based on Casprings's one-word reply? Most crucially, MrX's entire rationale for deletion—anonymously sourced, not picked up by other outlets—is totally discredited by Twitter's official statement confirming The Daily Beast's report: "Preliminary analysis of available geographical data for Tweets with the hashtag #ReleaseTheMemo ... has not identified any significant activity connected to Russia with respect to tweets posting original content to this hashtag." MrX previously cited several sources that contain this statement, but neglected to mention them here!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Take a deep breath... I have no objection to adding something like ""Twitter said that it has “not identified any significant activity connected to Russia with respect to Tweets posting original content to this hashtag.”". This doesn't have to be difficult or require lengthy comments about minds being blown. Let's just make sure that the content in the article doesn't depend on a single weak source. Easy peasy lemon squeezy! 🍋🍋🍋 - MrX 🖋 19:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The personal remarks only obscure whatever merit this long comment might otherwise have carried. It becomes unintelligible.  SPECIFICO talk 01:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Russia Bot in opening
We have a consensus per the RFC (or it at least looks to me like consensus) to include Russian bots in the article. As such, per Manual of Style/Lead section, it should be in the lead.Casprings (talk) 06:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No. Bots have dropped off news coverage of the memo. It is clearly NEWS an unenctclopedic.  The thread showing it's dropped is clear.  WaPo even dropped in a story update.  Bots are a none issue with respect to the memo.  The topic has evolved behind a twtter tag when the bots were first discussed (and even then as a trivial component). --DHeyward (talk) 07:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, the consensus is pretty clear that it belongs in the article but doesn't belong in the lead. If I'm not mistaken there's literally only one editor !voted to include it in the lead section. And that was several days ago when the "release" controversy was hot. It's already in the rear view mirror. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether they belong in the lead or not, there is almost no support for repeating ASD's claims without attribution, as Casprings insists on doing.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The second part of the RFC was about it being in the first sentence, not the lede. And this was when the article was about the media campaign.Casprings (talk) 12:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think this should go in the lead, unless coverage develops further.- MrX 🖋 13:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Regardless, it's disruptive to try and change this while the RfC is ongoing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Serious neutrality issues
I'm trying not to get too deeply involved in this article, but boy does it have some neutrality and organization problems. I'm going to lay them out here without dropping a POV tag and just stay out of it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) The lead does a poor job of explaining what's known about what the memo says. The memo is about how a FISA warrant was obtained against Carter Page. How can a 3-paragraph summary of the memo (i.e. the lead section) not include the name "Carter Page?" It belongs in the first paragraph.
 * 2) The section "Purported contents of the memo" starts with a hefty paragraph about... how and why the memo was prepared in the dark of night? That's not the purported contents of the memo.
 * 3) This sentence is egregiously non-neutral and abuses out verifiability policy: "According to Adam Schiff, in composing the memo, Nunes didn't even bother reading all of the relevant source material, and referred to the contents as pushing a conspiracy theory." Adam Schiff is a politician. He cannot be treated like a reliable source, even with in-text attribution. We go down that path, and the next thing we know, we're writing stuff like, "However, according to Donald Trump, the article was fake news." No. Never. And then the language "didn't even bother reading" is glaringly normative. How about just "didn't read"?
 * I agree that Volunteer Marek citing Schiff as a reliable source on the contents of the memo (without even mentioning who Schiff is!)—when Schiff's comments are already included under "Responses"—is egregiously non-neutral and should be removed.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not citing Schiff. I'm citing Newsweek. And what do you mean "without even mentioning who Schiff is? The link is right there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Compare your edit, which is written like a blog (and does not even bother to wikilink Adam Schiff), to the "Responses" section, which is written like a neutral encyclopedia ("Democrats have pushed back on the memo, with Adam Schiff, Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee ...").TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * How exactly is it "written like a blog"? What does that even mean? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The lead needs a rework. Much of this is probably due to how this article has evolved. Some of the material under purported contents probably belongs in other sections. The other neutral POV issues can be handily addressed with a little copy editing, making sure we stick close to what the sources say. " According to Adam Schiff,... is perfectly fine. Newsweek is the source; Schiff is their source..- MrX 🖋 20:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I completely and totally reject the contention that we can use the Schiff statement that way. Read what I wrote above about Trump. We don't get to "dress up" unreliable sources as reliable sources just because they're quoted in the newspaper. If we're really going to go that route then we're going to need a whole lot of sentences in this article that begin with, "According to Nunes..." and "According to Sarah Huckabee Sanders..." See how silly this gets? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's moot now anyway, since I have changed it.- MrX 🖋 22:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope, "Adam Schiff commented that Nunes hadn't read all of the relevant source material, though Nunes had argued for months that the FBI and DOJ had taken part in a conspiracy" has exactly the same problems. At the very least, keep Schiff under "Responses."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a modest improvement, but I think it should be removed altogether. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not really defending this particular sentence, but it doesn't violate any policies or guidelines as far as I can tell. It may be WP:UNDUE if Newsweek is the only publication highlighting Schiff's comments. Also, it may not be especially encyclopedic, but that's not a serious neutrality issue.- MrX 🖋 23:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes it actually violates WP:V. It's being presented not for Schiff's reaction to the memo or its release, but to relay the allegation, which hasn't been fact-checked. It's an unreliable source hiding behind a reliable source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's obviously a response to an allegation. Nunes memo alleges stuff. This is the response. Of course it belongs in here. Does it belong in the Response section? Definitely. And then the lede summarizes the article so SOME response to the memo is necessary.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We're including commentary from Trump in the lede, so why not Schiff? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In response to your first point, I believe the intro should be just that - an intro. It's supposed to describe what the article is about in general terms, and thus, it shouldn't delve deep into the specifics of the memo. My earlier rendition of it - alleges abuses in surveillance practices by the intelligence community, including the Justice Department (DOJ) and FBI, to target Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign - is more than sufficient. The "Purported contents" section should then elaborate in more detail about what law it's about, who it's about, how it's related to the Steele-Trump dossier, etc. Enter Movie (talk) 02:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't even think that's verifiable. Abuses plural? Isn't it just about the Page FISA warrant as far as we know? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * RS tell us that 'Nunes memo' is an attempt to hijack Congressional oversight of the intelligence and law enforcement services of the US Government by individuals who RS tell us are under investigation for various levels of misconduct. These include individuals in the Executive Branch and some in Congress. So an NPOV description of the topic needs to frame it according to RS, not according to the tenuous theories it's reported to be promoting.  SPECIFICO talk 16:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but any lead that does not include the name "Carter Page" in it is complete bunk. Just look at how the reliable sources are describing the memo since we knew anything about what was in it. Our job is to inform readers, not confuse them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

See Also Section - Soliciting Commentary
Wikipedians, since everybody else here's discussing the CONTENT of the article, I figured I'd start on the SEE ALSO section. Can y'all comment with Consensus and/or Changes (additions, subtractions, etc)?

List of Articles for See Also (Proposed, in no particular order)


 * removed list; all already included in article or See Also section, so can disregard this post now**

Confession: I'm not an experienced Wikipedian and mostly pitch in to help with current event pages (I spent awhile helping with the Catalonian independence vote page), so pardon any ignorance on my part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkJerue (talk • contribs)
 * You read my mind! I just started a see also section. Anything that is already linked in the article body should not be added to the see also section, but the others can be.- MrX 🖋 19:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

External link
Now that the memo has been publicly released, there should be an external link in this article to the actual memo itself. No? 32.209.55.38 (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Images of documents taking up too much space
Is it just me? This is getting quite excessive, not to mention how inconvenient it looks on mobile. The only one that matters, IMO, is the actual memo. Responses from the FBI, DOJ, etc. can be described in the body of the article and linked with references. - Enter Movie (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * At this point, I would be fine with only keeping the thumbnail of the memo and linking to the other documents in the appropriate sections below.- MrX 🖋 18:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, get rid of the other three thumbnails and just keep the memo itself. PackMecEng (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Russian bots
Saying that russian bots helped spread it is wrong, because twitter just labels any account with Russian characters in the title as bots. I'm not 100% sure on this, but it should be checked thoroughly before being put on the page. Alex of Canada (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The latest edit on that section is sufficient enough, as it highlights both Republicans and foreign actors reportedly helped pushed the hashtag. Twitter has not conducted a thorough investigation, so we don't know the full extent yet. Please leave bias out of Wikipedia. RedGreenBanana (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

To include both views, I suggest to add to the article intro a paragraph about Twitter’s statement about #ReleaseTheMemo and the alleged Russian bots. How about the draft paragraph below? I tried to include both point of views (POV), with their respective sources.



Francewhoa (talk) 10:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I would be OK with this under 'Social media influence' but we should include the full sentence from the letter, or paraphrase it as I did in the lead. We should also mention that Twitter says it will continue to analyze data.- MrX 🖋 12:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Organization of the article
As it stands, the article is pretty haphazard with the way the sections are presented, especially the "January 19 events" section, which sticks out like a sore thumb. I feel like some parts can be consolidated with others should be moved around, as suggested below: — Enter Movie (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Intro
 * Background - discuss the context around the memo (the Special Counsel investigation, the Trump-Steele dossier, Nunes "stepping aside from chairing the HPSCI Russia investigation" and his parallel investigation, who Carter Page is, etc.); basically the current Background and Purpose sections combined
 * Release - discuss the events from the Republicans' initial clamoring for its release (I believe it started around Jan 18-19) to its release today, including the social media campaign and hashtag, a description of the House Intelligence Committee meeting that voted to approve the release, etc.; basically the current "January 19 events" and "Social media influence" sections and some parts of the "Responses" section
 * Contents - a neutral summary of the memo, not unlike "Plot" sections of film articles
 * Reactions - maybe create two subsections here: one about reactions before its release (DOJ and FBI responses, Congressmen and media responses, etc.), and one after (obviously, this section would still be a work-in-process as analyses and responses pour in)
 * References
 * I agree that the current organization is a bit rough. This seems like it would be a step in the right direction.- MrX 🖋 03:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. Thanks for the suggestion. MelanieN alt (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Purpose
added a line from NY Times about shifting focus from the investigation here. I modified the sentence to fit more with the source here. reverted stating "ummm, the source explicitly references the Mueller investigation" which was not the issue. The source specifically says "Mr. Trump’s allies in recent weeks have increasingly sought to shift the focus away from Russian election interference and instead portray the actions of investigators as the real scandal.", which while Mueller is mentioned in the article, he was not for that part and would be synth to attributed to the source they said that. If you have to read between the lines to make a connection that is bad. PackMecEng (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "portray the actions of investigators as the real scandal" seems quite clear. So including a proper link to what investigation is being referenced seems appropriate. I don't see Mueller mentioned in either version. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I would be OK with "and portray the actions of investigators as the real scandal...", but I don't understand  why you removed "the Special Counsel investigation into...". It's fairly essential context.- MrX 🖋 19:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm with MrX. PackMecEng and VM are both correct in their insertions but incorrect in their deletions. The source also says, "But as a matter of political reality, the memo ... has everything to do with defending President Trump from Mr. Mueller’s investigation." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In this case they are pretty similar. It does specifically say the Russian interference but I would be fine with it going to Mueller. I think it is a little redundant to go to both. PackMecEng (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * How about this?
 * "Trump's political allies have strived for weeks to shift focus away from Special Counsel investigation and portray the actions of investigators as the real scandal."
 * As a compromise between the two. PackMecEng (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We still need to say what is being investigated. Something like this:
 * "Trump's political allies have strived for weeks to shift focus away from Special Counsel investigation into Russian election interference and to and portray the actions of investigators as the real scandal." - MrX 🖋 21:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * My concern about that language is that Nunes is trying to protect the White House, not Russia, but that language makes it sound like it's the other way around. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's what the source says:
 * A substantial part of the proposed sentence proposed is a copyvio. It needs to be reworded or enclosed in quotes.- MrX 🖋 00:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * How about this one? Seems to cover all the points mentioned.
 * "Attempting to portray the Special Counsel investigation as the real scandal, allies of Trump attempted to move focus away from the Russian election interference." PackMecEng (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I would suggest a small tweak to address Dr. Fleischman's concerns ( and also mine).
 * "Attempting to portray the Special Counsel investigation as the real scandal, allies of Trump attempted to move focus away from the Trump presidential campaign's role in the Russian election interference." - MrX 🖋 15:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with that, what do you think? PackMecEng (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ PackMecEng (talk) 12:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ PackMecEng (talk) 12:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

"Pushed back"
I don't like this language. It comes off as overly colloquial. But it's early, I can't stay on long and I'm not immediately thinking of something more professional sounding to replace it with. G M G talk   12:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, it is a bit colloquial. I suggest changing "pushed back on" to "repudiated." While were at it, the construct "... with Adam Schiff..." sounds awkward to my ears. Perhaps we can just make these into two separate sentences.- MrX 🖋 14:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Odd removal of an important source
A couple of editors have removed this source, a letter to Democratic leaders from the GC of Twitter. This source provides context for the secondary sources. There is nothing in policy that prevents, or even suggest, that primary sources cannot be used. I'm seeking consensus for keeping the source. DHeyward cited WP:PRIMARY as the reason for removing the source, for some inexplicable reason.

- MrX 🖋 01:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Main source for the claim is secondary - Wash. Post, but having an additional source I think does not hurt. My very best wishes (talk) 01:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A few things. There is an ongoing RFC to even put that the twitter stuff in the lead, which at the moment it no as undue. Even if we put it in the lead that part is not supported by the body. The primary source is not needed or helpful. Finally the Washington Post article make a distinction at the end of the article with the release the memo stuff and Russian disinformation, separating the two. If we even keep this information it should be in the body not the lead, and not use primary sources to support it. PackMecEng (talk) 01:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * One more thing about this important primary source, it specifically says Russia was not a major influence in the hashtag. Saying "Our initial inquiry, based on available data, has not identified any significant activity connected to Russian". So why does it matter if Twitter is informing people about Russia connected accounts if it has nothing to do with the memo? PackMecEng (talk) 01:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The primary source supports that Twitter is continuing to investigate. In other words, their analysis is preliminary. Regardless of whether the Russian bot material belongs in the lead or not, there is absolutely no reason to remove a primary source, especially one which which is a letter between a major company and the highest levels of government.- MrX 🖋 02:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The source specifically says Russia was not part of the release the memo stuff. Release the memo is unrelated to the 1.4 million letters to users because of that. The source makes no connection between the two and explicitly denies the connection we are stating in our article. PackMecEng (talk) 02:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "The source specifically says Russia was not part of the release the memo stuff." It says nothing of the sort. Let's try to keep this discussion grounded in reality rather than alternative facts.- MrX 🖋 12:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT I quoted above where the twitter memo said that. Again "We performed a preliminary analysis of available geographical data for Tweets with the hashtag #ReleaseTheMemo. Our initial inquiry, based on available data, has not identified any significant activity connected to Russia with respect to Tweets posting original content to this hashtag." So the contacted 1.4 million was not related to the memo or hashtag. I do not know why you are fighting to keep a primary source in the article that does not support the sentence it is attached to? In fact the whole Russia angle for the hashtag has turned out to be alternative facts at this point. PackMecEng (talk) 12:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for admitting that " initial inquiry, based on available data, has not identified any significant activity connected to Russia" is not equivalent to "Russia was not part of the release the memo stuff". Adjectives give meaning.- MrX 🖋 13:03, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Now that is getting into OR territory and disruptive. PackMecEng (talk) 13:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:PRIMARY, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."That seems to me to be what is happening here. I think it can and should be used.Casprings (talk) 13:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The source does not support the claim, so no it is not a straightforward, descriptive statement of fact. PackMecEng (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Its twitter's response to a question. Its straightfoward and there is no reason for the article not to include. We are making this too hard.Casprings (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Article should include full text of memo now that it is released
I have not been able to find the whole text online yet or I would do it. 64.183.127.182 (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The full text can be read here. [] 64.183.127.182 (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Also here: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/02/devin-nunes-memo-release-fbi-trump/ -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Download link here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links but uh no. Did you notice this is an encyclopedia? We summarize. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The memo can -- and should -- be included as an "external link" within this article.     32.209.55.38 (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Which appears to have been done. Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

memo with annotations
Here. The annotations are worth ... highlighting


 * 1) The memo admits that Nunes and a few Republicans initiated a *secret*  investigation into the FBI, which they coordinated with the White House. This "investigation" of course goes beyond the scope of the initial mandate of the committee.
 * 2) The memo does not accuse anyone (including the FBI) of any "wrong doing". It only "raises concerns". Ok, whatever.
 * 3) The court order extending the surveillance of Carter Page was authorized on the basis of "probable cause" which is the standard for FISAs
 * 4) Comey signed off on three of the FISAs on Page, McCabe signed of on one more. These were then also approved by Rosenstein, Yates and Boente. This was more or less known (I'm not sure if the sheer volume of FISAs on Page has been known, but the fact that they've been watching him since 2013 has been public for awhile)
 * 5) The main argument of the memo is that in the applications "material and relevant information was omitted"
 * 6) The memo claims that the Steele Dossier was an "essential" part of the application for the renewal of FISA on Page. As the source notes, this is disputed, and indeed, dubious. "Essential" is a vague word and it depends on what was in somebody's head at the time. We don't know how the various party evaluated the relevance of the dossier vis a vis all the other evidence that the memo fails to reference.
 * 7) The memo admits that Steele had a long relationship with the FBI and was viewed by them as a credible source before the dossier.
 * 8) The memo says that in filing for the FISA the FBI and DOJ did not talk about how the firm that Steele was working for had been hired by the DNC (after being earlier hired by anti-Trump Republicans)
 * 9) The FBI thought about hiring Steele themselves to continue the work he was doing for Democrats but that became a non-starter after his name and authorship became prominent in the media.
 * 10) The FBI application also used an article for Yahoo News by Isikoff. Again there's that word "substantially" thrown in there but it's not clear what that means or whose head it came out of.
 * 11) The memo complains that in this regard the FBI application stated that Iskioff did not get his info directly from Steele but that it is known that Steele did meet with Yahoo News. What's not clear is who he met with and to what extent it influenced the Iskioff story (again, this is not MY analysis, it's WaPo)
 * 12) The memo states that Steele was "terminated" by the FBI (no, not like that), because of "most serious violations", specifically telling the press he had a relationship with the FBI. The memo references this article by Mother Jones  (that's the "bad Steele!" part). However, the article does not name Steele. What the article said was "And a former senior intelligence officer for a Western country who specialized in Russian counterintelligence tells Mother Jones that in recent months he provided the bureau with memos, based on his recent interactions with Russian sources, contending the Russian government has for years tried to co-opt and assist Trump—and that the FBI requested more information from him."
 * 13) The memo alleges that Steele lied to the FBI about his contacts with Yahoo News and Mother Jones. This is a new allegation (AFAIK). But we actually have no way of knowing if this is true or not. Also not clear if "lied" means "did not disclose" or "falsely denied". It's also a bit of a weird charge to make - if Steele lied, then FBI didn't know, so they did nothing wrong.
 * 14) Steele did not like Trump. Yaaawwwwnnnn. I mean, if you found out what Steele found out, would you? At this point in the game lots of Republicans did not like Trump.
 * 15) Somebody that Steele talked to, who was working for DOJ, had a wife that worked for the same firm as Steele. According to Rosenstein, this somebody, Ohr, had no role in the Russia investigation . All this has already been previously known.
 * 16) Ohr wasn't mentioned in the FISA application. Probably cuz he had nothing to do with it.
 * 17) Comey told Trump the information in the dossier was "salacious and unverified" so, according to the memo, why did they use it in the FISA application? Well, it was certainly salacious. And at that point most of it was unverified. But the dossier was only a part of the evidence used to get the FISA renewal, as the memo itself admits.
 * 18) According to the memo, McCabe told the House Committee in December that they would not have sought a FISA without the Steele dossier. Which would be important except... Democrats, at least are calling this a lie. Specifically this claim "seriously mischaracterizes the testimony of Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and the FISA application." This is probably what all the hoopla between Schiff and Nunes memo was about.
 * 19) What triggered the FBI investigation into potential collusion between Trump and Russians was not the Steele dossier but rather Papadopolous bragging about getting dirt on Hillary to Australian diplomats. Whoa whoa waggy. You just admitted that the basis for the investigation is NOT the Steele dossier. Here the memo sorta shoots itself in the foot.
 * 20) Peter Strzok bad! Bad! Bad! (Again, a false characterization of facts - per source, not me)

So that's what the memo says, with comments from a reliable sources (and a few small places where I couldn't help myself).

Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, Volunteer Marek, I STRONGLY recommend utilizing the memo itself to source material and not a Washington Post or Fox News article, given that both media outlets have opposite political affiliations and bias. Use the memo itself to form conclusions, please don't include any bias. RedGreenBanana (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, we rely on reliable secondary sources. The memo is a primary source. Fox News is not a reliable source in this context (though it may be used in some cases with attribution).Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly the opposite. We should be citing reliable secondary sources for our conclusions, and we should not be drawing our own conclusions from primary sources. Please read WP:BIASED. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Primary sources are fine if we're just summarizing what those sources are saying, just like film plots don't need secondary sources to prove what those film are about. Secondary sources are definitely needed if we're adding commentary or analysis.
 * As a side note, it seems that quite a few news sources have also annotated the memo: NY Times, Politico, PBS, Financial Times, LA Times, Wall Street Journal. FallingGravity 22:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Is this WP:FORUM or something you actually want to insert? PackMecEng (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope. It's commentary and notes on the memo from a reliable source. And yeah, some of this should def go in here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The New York Times has also published an annotated version. If there are any points common to both sources, they should be considered for inclusion in the article, perhaps in a bulleted list.- MrX 🖋
 * A lot of this commentary appears to be you adding your own comments onto Aaron Blake's annotations. For example, I don't see where Aaron Blake writes "Ok, whatever" or "Yaaawwwwnnnn." Let's just stick to the sources instead of adding our own commentaries. FallingGravity 22:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Not a lot. And it's the obvious parts.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As I read the memo, the main allegations are as follows:
 * The Steele dossier was essential to securing an October 2016 FISA order against Carter Page, but the DOJ never informed the FISC that the dossier was opposition research ultimately funded by the Clinton campaign: "On October 21, 2016, DOJ and FBI sought and received a FISA probable cause order ( not under Title VII) authorizing electronic surveillance on Carter Page from the FISC. ... The 'dossier' compiled by Christopher Steele (Steele dossier) on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application. ... Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele’s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials." The memo argues that this violated the government's responsibility to provide "all material and relevant facts" to the FISC.
 * Steele was terminated as an FBI source for leaking the contents of his dossier to the press and lying about it: "The Carter Page FISA application also cited extensively a September 23, 2016, Yahoo News article by Michael Isikoff, which focuses on Page's July 2016 trip to Moscow. This article does not corroborate the Steele dossier because it is derived from information leaked by Steele himself to Yahoo News. The Page FISA application incorrectly assesses that Steele did not directly provide information to Yahoo News. ... Steele was suspended and then terminated as an FBI source for what the FBI defines as the most serious of violations—an unauthorized disclosure to the media of his relationship with the FBI in an October 30, 2016, Mother Jones article by David Corn. Steele should have been terminated for his previous undisclosed contacts with Yahoo and other outlets in September—before the Page application was submitted to the FISC in October—but Steele improperly concealed from and lied to the FBI about those contacts. ...Steele's numerous encounters with the media violated the cardinal rule of source handling—maintaining confidentiality—and demonstrated that Steele had become a less than reliable source for the FBI."
 * Contrary to media reports that information from the dossier would not have been used to surveil U.S. citizens without corroboration, the dossier was uncorroborated when presented before the FISC: "According to the head of the counterintelligence division, Assistant Director Bill Priestap, corroboration of the Steele dossier was in its 'infancy' at the time of the initial Page FISA application. After Steele was terminated, a source validation report conducted by an independent unit within FBI assessed Steele's reporting as only minimally corroborated. ... Furthermore, Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information."
 * Volunteer Marek's comment contains at least one egregiously inaccurate assertion, which needs to be corrected: "The memo complains that in this regard the FBI application stated that Iskioff did not get his info directly from Steele but that it is known that Steele did meet with Yahoo News. What's not clear is who he met with and to what extent it influenced the Iskioff story (again, this is not MY analysis, it's WaPo)" In fact, Isikoff has already confirmed that his September article was based directly on one of Steele's memos, writing: "Another of Steele's reports, first reported by Yahoo News last September, involved alleged meetings last July between then-Trump foreign policy adviser Carter Page and two high-level Russian operatives ... " Yet the FBI used Isikoff to "corroborate" Steele!
 * Vox summarizes the memo as follows:


 * The FBI used an unverified, allegedly biased document known as the "Steele dossier" to get a warrant in October 2016 to surveil Carter Page, a former Trump campaign adviser. The dossier, prepared by former British spy Christopher Steele, alleges the existence of a conspiracy between Donald Trump and the Russian government. The Steele dossier was partially financed by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) — which the memo argues is a major problem.
 * Senior FBI and Justice Department officials knew that the Steele dossier was indirectly funded by a lawyer for the Clinton campaign and the DNC, but didn't disclose this in their application to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court — a court that approves surveillance warrants pertaining to national security and foreign intelligence. They also didn't disclose it when renewing their applications requesting additional time for surveillance.
 * In September 2016, Steele spoke with Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr. Steele told Ohr that he "was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president." Ohr's wife worked for the research firm, Fusion GPS, that hired Steele on behalf of the DNC/Clinton lawyer.
 * The head of the FBI's Counterintelligence Division Bill Priestap apparently said corroboration of the Steele dossier was in its "infancy" at the time of the FISA application.
 * This article doesn't adequately summarize any of this content.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Are these your conclusions based on your reading of the memo, or can you cite the source(s) that makes these claims? - MrX 🖋 23:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe TheTimesAreAChanging cites Vox's summary. Other sources I could find that summarize the memo include Quartz and The Globe and Mail FallingGravity 05:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Using the memo as a guide, and sources to back it up, I have updated the "Contents" section. Previously, the section relied on information about the memo according to pre-release press reports. I think the article could also use a section which includes analysis/criticism of the memo according to experts, not just comments from politicians. FallingGravity 23:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Justice Dept. told court of source’s political influence in request to wiretap ex-Trump campaign aide, officials say
Seems important. "But its central allegation — that the government failed to disclose a source's political bias — is baseless"

https://washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-dept-told-court-of-sources-political-bias-in-request-to-wiretap-ex-trump-campaign-aide-officials-say/2018/02/02/caecfa86-0852-11e8-8777-2a059f168dd2_story.html

Should be added.Casprings (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, it should be included. - MrX 🖋 12:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added it in the Reactions section. I think the section could be greatly improved with more statements from intelligence experts. Here are some potential sources: FallingGravity 08:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

On SPECIFICO's inaccurate claim that Twitter has identified #ReleaseTheMemo as a "Russian disinformation campaign" and warned 1.4 million users
This content fails verification, as it is sourced to a WaPo article in which Twitter actually denies any significant Russian role in #ReleaseTheMemo: "Twitter said in its response that a 'preliminary analysis of available geographical data for Tweets with the hashtag #ReleaseTheMemo ... has not identified any significant activity connected to Russia with respect to tweets posting original content to this hashtag.'" Only at the very end of the article does WaPo add, in reference to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, that "Separately, Twitter on Wednesday said it was notifying 1.4 million users that they had followed accounts linked to the Russian disinformation campaign or had shared related content with their followers by retweeting, quoting or replying to their messages." (Actually, Twitter began sending out those notifications on January 19—which is also when I got mine!) I'm willing to grant that the WaPo article is sloppily written and that SPECIFICO may have genuinely misinterpreted the addendum if she skimmed past all of Twitter's denials, but that is no excuse for adding immflamatory and false claims to the lead (which are not reflected in the body) to the effect that #ReleaseTheMemo is a "Russian disinformation campaign" and that all of the Americans who supported it, including prominent Republican lawmakers, are Kremlin agents.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * BTW, here is Twitter's official statement on the matter, titled "Update on Twitter's Review of the 2016 U.S. Election":

Updated on January 31, 2018

We have expanded the number of people notified about interactions with Twitter accounts potentially connected to a propaganda effort by a Russian government-linked organization known as the Internet Research Agency. Our notice efforts are focused on certain types of interactions, and they will not encompass every person that ever saw this content. Our goal in providing these notifications is to advance public awareness of and engagement with the important issues raised in our blog post, and provide greater transparency to our account holders and the public.

We have now sent notices to Twitter users with an active email address who our records indicate are based in the US and fall into at least one of the following categories:

Approximately 1.4 million people have now received a notification from Twitter. We will be sending a short survey to a small group of people who received our notification to gain feedback on this process. As our review continues, we may also email additional users. If and when we do so, we will do our best to keep the public updated.
 * People who directly engaged during the election period with the 3,814 IRA-linked accounts we identified, either by Retweeting, quoting, replying to, mentioning, or liking those accounts or content created by those accounts;
 * People who were actively following one of the identified IRA-linked accounts at the time those accounts were suspended; and
 * People who opt out of receiving most email updates from Twitter and would not have received our initial notice based on their email settings.
 * There's nothing in the statement about #ReleaseTheMemo. In fact, Twitter explicitly says that the Russian activity in question occurred "during the [2016] election period" and that the accounts have since been suspended. It's hard to see how anyone could misinterpret that as referring to events in January 2018.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you've misread the source:




 * It's pretty clear that "the Russian disinformation campaign" in the third paragraph refers to "The campaign to release the memo" in the first paragraph. If you believe it's an error, you can contact The Washington Post and ask them to correct it.- MrX 🖋 21:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That would be an error, since Twitter's official statement, which WaPo cites as its source, explicitly says that the Russian activity in question occurred "during the [2016] election period" and that the accounts have since been suspended. However, that interpretation would also contradict that rest of the WaPo article, which emphasizes Twitter's denial: "Twitter said in its response that a 'preliminary analysis of available geographical data for Tweets with the hashtag #ReleaseTheMemo ... has not identified any significant activity connected to Russia with respect to tweets posting original content to this hashtag.'"TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Where exactly does the Washington Post article cite that specific Twitter blog post?- MrX 🖋 21:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "Separately, Twitter on Wednesday [January 31, 2018] said it was notifying 1.4 million users that they had followed accounts linked to the Russian disinformation campaign or had shared related content with their followers by retweeting, quoting or replying to their messages." (cf. SPECIFICO's "On January 31, Twitter contacted 1.4 million of its users to inform them that they had retweeted, followed, or otherwise promoted accounts linked to the disinformation campaign.") Twitter only made one official statement on January 31, 2018, about notifying 1.4 million users that they may have "retweeted" or "liked" Russian propaganda. It did not make two statements—both on the same date (January 31, 2018) and both notifying the same exact number of users (1.4 million)—but one about the entire 2016 election period and one about a hashtag that went viral for a few days—while simultaneously denying any significant Russian role in #ReleaseTheMemo!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I asked where they cited the blog post, not for your personal interpretation of what the source wrote. Help me to help you.- MrX 🖋 22:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As quoted above, WaPo cited a Twitter statement of January 31, 2018, about notifying 1.4 million users regarding Russian social media activity. There is only one such statement.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, let's just take it out. I assume that the Washington Post's ambiguity is resolved by the Twitter blog post that they seem to be referencing.- MrX 🖋 22:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, as OP helpfully copied in green at the beginning of this thread, the WaPo reference does not state "regarding Russian social media activity" but rather that "it was notifying 1.4 million users that they had followed accounts linked to the Russian disinformation campaign", so what's up with that? We only tell our readers what RS say.  SPECIFICO talk 23:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not really that clear. the word "separately" indicates that the "Russian disinformation campaign" is considered separate from "the campaign to release the memo". FallingGravity 21:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No it's not clear. I read "separately" as separate from the "Lawmakers pressed the companies to explain the methodology..." in the preceding paragraph.- MrX 🖋 22:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * For context, MrX previously cited several news articles on the same topic from January 31, 2018 in addition to WaPo: None of them conflate Twitter's "update" on the 2016 election with the hashtag #ReleaseTheMemo; in fact, they all emphasize that Twitter has found no significant Russian involvement in the latter: "Twitter said that an initial inquiry had not identified 'any significant activity connected to Russia' and the #ReleaseTheMemo hashtag."; "Twitter said that it has 'not identified any significant activity connected to Russia with respect to Tweets posting original content to this hashtag.'"; "Twitter, meanwhile, offered a more lengthy reply, stressing that its 'initial inquiry, based on available data, has not identified any significant activity connected to Russia with respect to tweets posting original content to this hashtag.' It also pointed to the fact that #ReleaseTheMemo had been spread by 'several prominent, verified U.S. accounts'—including President Donald Trump's own son, though the company didn't name him. Twitter further questioned the methodology behind the German Marshall Fund's work, noting that the organization does not publish the list of accounts it tracks—so it can't review them as part of an investigation."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Hope this edit helps restore NPOV. — JFG talk 01:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * POV whitewash. Twitter is a self-interested party, not RS as to its business activities that are under scrutiny. As for TTAAC's testimony he received notice from Twitter about promoting Russian on Jan. 19, we have no RS that states the 1/31 disinformation campaign warnings were the only such notices. There may be hundreds of lists of users who have been warned or notified that their activity has been promoting Russian disinformation. Personal testimony here is not helpful. WaPo clearly sets forth the date and sequence of the notices referenced in the now-deleted article text. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 01:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree. should self revert. This shouldn't be difficult. Muliple RSes report it and so should we.Casprings (talk) 02:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * First of all, "1.4 million users" was right in the publication on the subject of the page. This is not a misrepresentation of sources. Second, I think last version by JFG is bad. Simply telling "... but Twitter stated they had not found ..." in last phrase is not really a correct summary or description of the situation as follows from multiple RS. My very best wishes (talk) 02:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

It should not be necessary, but here goes: Please everybody read the cited references before making edits that change the meaning of the article text. The twitter document makes if very clear that they are not disputing the Hamilton data, they just have not done all their analysis as of the 26th. Then on the 31st they sent the warning notices to users who had promoted the Russian disinformation. I have added some context from the sources that clarify the timeline and the very limited statement from Twitter. And once again, note that Twitter is communicating through its counsel. They are not going to volunteer anything that could possibly be adverse to their interests, with several far reaching investigations underway in the USA alone. They are not RS for facts beyond their opinion or their otherwise verified actions. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 03:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that Twitter is a self-interested source, but couldn't the same be said about Alliance for Securing Democracy, an advocacy group that has a stated mission of countering Russian propaganda to protect U.S. democracy? I haven't seen any news outlet that has independently verified the Hamilton 68 data. For example, according to CNN: "The group does not disclose which accounts it tracks and CNN has not independently verified its findings." FallingGravity 04:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ASD has no legal or regulatory risk. Twitter has both. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 04:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As noted above the Twitter source is important and frankly as stated by FallingGravity just as reliable as ASD, if not more so. It is not up to us to speculate on their motive on why they said what they said or second guess their validity. I also agree with JFG's edits and they should be restored as a good cut to the POV of this article. PackMecEng (talk) 05:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Primary attorney-speak vs. Secondary. Not equivalent. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 05:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I was repeatedly assured in the above sections it had just as much weight and basically equal to the source listed with it. But regardless the Washington Post source we list there basically repeats the twitter source so if we do not want to include the twitter one that is fine and does not go against the arguments listed. PackMecEng (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

As its official statement makes clear, Twitter notified 1.4 million Americans that they unknowingly interacted with Russian disinformation during the entire 2016 election period. According to Twitter, a relatively small number of troll accounts linked to the Internet Research Agency (IRA) reached the 1.4 million users. SPECIFICO has twisted this into something which, crucially, not only distorts the source but also makes no sense: That Twitter warned 1.4 million Americans that they were promoting Russian disinformation by using the hashtag #ReleaseTheMemo (which went viral for a few days), even though all known IRA accounts have already been suspended and "a 'preliminary analysis of available geographical data for Tweets with the hashtag #ReleaseTheMemo ... has not identified any significant activity connected to Russia with respect to tweets posting original content to this hashtag.'" While that might sound contradictory, it doesn't have to be ... if you assume that Americans with Right-leaning political views are a treasonous fifth column. After all, #ReleaseTheMemo is a hashtag (one originated by House Republicans like Mark Meadows, even if it was also promoted by other parties), not "disinformation" ... and if the Nunes memo itself is "disinformation," it's certainly not "Russian." Moreover, while Twitter users would have no way of knowing if an account was operated by the IRA, Americans that used the hashtag #ReleaseTheMemo in their own Tweets would not need to be notified that they had done so—and it's likely that many of them fully understood the meaning of the hashtag. (Besides, the purported 1.4 million Americans would positively dwarf any foreign involvement in the campaign by sheer number!) In other words, SPECIFICO seems to be implying—I assume unintentionally, based on a careless misreading of the sources (although there is reason to wonder: "Of course RS are increasingly telling us that the distinction between 'Russian' and 'American' is somewhat less clear than it was 2-3 years back."–SPECIFICO, 18:40, 1 February 2018)—that even without direct involvement by the IRA or other Russian agencies—or, indeed, anyone at all in Russia—an American social media campaign promoted by hundreds of thousands or even millions of U.S. citizens (including top leaders from a major political party) can still constitute "Russian interference" in "our democracy" if those U.S. citizens are advocating for better relations with Moscow or merely promoting causes that might indirectly benefit Russia. Beyond the clear-cut, easily checked falsification of what Twitter actually reported, it is this implicit innuendo created by SPECIFICO's use and juxtaposition of the sources that is so problematic, especially in the lead. , I have no issue with the rest of your revert because I have taken no position on whether the "Russian bots"/ASD controversy belongs in the lead, but you should not have restored SPECIFICO's recent "1.4m" addition, and I implore you to consider retracting that part. Please examine the source for yourself. Addendum: Promoting factually inaccurate claims will not advance any political interests, but only undermine Wikipedia's credibility; our readers are not stupid.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not think this is a an obvious misrepresentation, but yes, one can argue this should be excluded from the lead because the source tells : "Separately, Twitter on Wednesday said it was notifying 1.4 million users...". My very best wishes (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Move to Nunes Memo
Given the memo will be released, I propose moving the article to the Nunes memo, keep the current content, but expand to coverage of the memo. Casprings (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Per my comment at the RfD.- MrX 🖋 01:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Well, if it's going to exist, it shouldn't be named after a Twitter hash tag. O3000 (talk) 02:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - A week ago, I would've said no. But given that more credible sources are confirming that such a memo actually exists, and how the social media campaign is only a backdrop to the actual news story (i.e. the memo), it makes sense to move this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enter Movie (talk • contribs) 03:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Why is this called the "Nunes Memo" instead of the "FISA Memo"? It isn't about Nunes, nor was it written by him.2001:558:6033:19D:35E9:5652:4D55:FC71 (talk) 06:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

How Twitter Bots and Trump Fans Made #ReleaseTheMemo Go Viral: Russian bots and their American allies gamed social media to put a flawed intelligence document atop the political agenda.
Good reporting on Russian Bots. Need to include and change our wording somewhat.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/04/trump-twitter-russians-release-the-memo-216935

Casprings (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that when I was researching sources for the above section. There is some good information in that article. Nice of KARYN19138585 to help out there. Спасибо! - MrX 🖋 21:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've tagged the section for close paraphrasing. In some cases sentences were lifted straight from the Politico article. Perhaps an admin should go through and clear the search history. Then the content could be properly summarized and re-added. FallingGravity 04:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * While that source is interesting and worth including, on its face it only presents evidence that likely bots promoted the hashtag. It does not provide any evidence that any particular bot was Russian, let alone controlled by the Putin government to meddle in American democracy. In fact, the author, Molly K. Mckew, concludes that Russian social media propaganda campaigns and American Right-wing social media propaganda campaigns have become virtually interchangeable and cannot be differentiated from one another:


 * Samantha Bradshaw, a researcher with Oxford University's Computational Propaganda Research Project who has helped to document the impact of 'polbot' activity, told me: "Often, it’s hard to tell where a particular story comes from. Alt-right groups and Russian disinformation campaigns are often indistinguishable since their goals often overlap. But what really matters is the tools that these groups use to achieve their goals: Computational propaganda serves to distort the political process and amplify fringe views in ways that no previous communication technology could." ... Regardless of how much of the campaign was American and how much was Russian, it's clear there was a massive effort to game social media and put the Nunes memo squarely on the national agenda—and it worked to an astonishing degree. The bottom line is that the goals of the two overlapped, so the origin—human, machine or otherwise—doesn't actually matter. What matters is that someone is trying to manipulate us, tech companies are proving hopelessly unable or unwilling to police the bad actors manipulating their platforms, and politicians are either clueless about what to do about computational propaganda or—in the case of #releasethememo—are using it to achieve their goals. Americans are on their own.


 * I also agree with FallingGravity that Casprings's COPYVIO should be replaced with a neutral summary, and would add that Casprings continues to misrepresent the sources by asserting that multiple "Journalist and national security advocacy groups," in addition to ASD, attributed bot activity to Russia: That is verifiably false, and Casprings does not name any of these alleged "national security advocacy groups." Every single journalist cited, including Mckew, attributes the allegation to ASD; the number of times a claim is repeated has no bearing on its veracity.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I will try to get to fixing the wording today. That said, a blow by blow of the spread of the hashtag is important to the article. The source backs up that Russians were involved.Casprings (talk) 11:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * TTAAC, come on you know better than to post a bunch of original research as a justification for IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * So now a direct quote from the article means "a bunch of original research". This charge is especially ironic from VM, who posted a bunch of original research in the section to explain his own dislike of the memo. 2605:A601:5E6:3300:39FC:B0EB:DA24:7BCA (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

POV of the article
Many of the contributions to this article seem to biased against Congress’s release of the memo. (Which many believe is criminal but the nation is split on this.) Some of the articles referenced are opinion pieces. Shouldn’t we edit this to have a more neutral POV. Harpervi (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The article mostly has a neutral POV. If you have any specific concerns, I'm sure we can discuss them.- MrX 🖋 18:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Harpervi, we, as editors, really don't care one way or the other. Our job is to document faithfully what RS state, including to remain "neutral" by not altering or censoring their POV. The POV of a RS should remain evident.
 * NPOV does not mean "no point of view", "neutered point of view", or a false balance presentation of opposing POV. NPOV refers primarily to editorial conduct, not to neutral content , and our NPOV policy expressly allows biased content in articles, as long as it is properly sourced. For more, see WP:NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content (essay) -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that essay. WP:NPV absolutely means neutral content, just not in the way that some newcomers think. It's written right in the policy and it's dangerous to tell suggest to newcomers otherwise. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome to discuss it on the talk page there. I'd love to tweak it if necessary. Ping me. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I read most of the referenced sources and edited some of the article to more accurately reflect those citations. Hopefully the article has an appropriate NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harpervi (talk • contribs) 20:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Legality
If the memo contains classified material and it is released, the act of release would be considered treason, punishable by death. — Jeff G. ツ 06:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Um, no.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This seems like WP:NOTAFORUM. Nevertheless, the memo could probably be released in redacted form in some future date since so many Republican lawmakers apparently want to #ReleaseTheMemo. FallingGravity 07:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, all they have to do to release the memo is have the Republicans on the committee (you know, the dudes that actually wrote it) vote to declassify it, then if the president doesn't object for five days, they can release it wherever they like.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The president can also unilaterally declassify on his own if I am not mistaken. PackMecEng (talk) 02:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * WaPo is reporting that Trump sought to #ReleaseTheMemo. FallingGravity 18:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no way that the President can unilaterally declassify House documents, although he could theoretically declassify much of the underlying evidence from FBI/DOJ. (That said, if Trump did so, he might be accused of corruptly interfering with the investigation...)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The President can unilaterally declassify any document. Politifact and NBC PackMecEng (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The Committee voted to release the redacted memo, albeit along party lines, so this now becomes a legal release of the formerly classified information. The FBI and White House both reviewed it also to remove any classified information. You may think it should not have been released but that doesn’t make it illegal.(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Inaccurate statement
Representative Trey Gowdy, the only Republican who actually read the underlying classified material, said the FISA application cited other material besides the dossier, but in his opinion the warrant would not have been authorized without the dossier. He added that the dossier does not invalidate the Russia investigation, which would have been launched with or without it. He said he has confidence in Rosenstein, Wray, and Mueller.[66]

This appears to be inaccurate. Trey Gowdy did an interview that contradicts this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6033:19D:35E9:5652:4D55:FC71 (talk) 06:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Corrected.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ...and revdeleted, along with a bunch of other edits. Not good. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think Diannaa reinstated all the edits unrelated to the copyvio here. PackMecEng (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

renewed three times
Actually this is NOT redundant. The background section says that the FISA warrant was renewed three times. BUT, it's also important that the MEMO admits this as well. These are two distinct pieces of information.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It is redundant, if you feel it should be in content then move it. Do not reinsert it elsewhere with the same information. Also dang it learn how to format references so others don't have to keep fixing what you leave out. PackMecEng (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that it's redundant. The central fact concerning the Nunes Memo is that it cherrypicked information to support a certain narrative and agenda. So it is unexpected and remarkable that the memo refers to the renewals, which undermine the various theories the pro-Memo contingent is emphasizing. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * By the way, insisting that we attribute this to a CNN correspondent is rather tendentious when it took me all of five minutes to find three excellent sources that state it as a fact. And why the hell are we using Snopes to source a serious article like this anyway?- MrX 🖋 23:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Because it's considered an extremely RS. We like to use fact checkers as sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Correction: it was pointed out to me that the last part of the sentence (now a separate sentence) is what was attributed to Jim Sciutto ( "At each instance the FBI had to show the signing judge that the warrant had merit"). I contend that attribution is not needed because Snopes used the wording "as CNN’s Jim Sciutto pointed out..." which is not equivalent to "according to Jim Sciutto from CNN". Furthermore, this is how FISA warrant renewals work, so it's not a disputed point anyway (is it?).- MrX 🖋 00:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * x2The issue is adding that little tail section with the source provided adds POV without attributing it to who said it and implies wrongdoing. Also only the Nation from the sources you added makes that same connection, the Atlantic dances around implying anything with it, and the LA Times does not even mention the implication of the renewals. I also agree that Snopes was not the best source and would be happy to use the other three you found. But would like a second look at the final part there. PackMecEng (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think it introduces a POV, or at least much of one, but if you insist on attribution, we have to do it with the same meaning as the source (i.e. "pointed out").- MrX 🖋 00:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's fine by me. PackMecEng (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Category: Conspiracy theories in the United States
I added Category:Conspiracy theories in the United States because the memo contents and its underlying motivations are described as such by a number of sources.

The category was removed earlier today, although I'm not sure why. I'm opening this discussion to see what other's think about this.- MrX 🖋 18:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks similar to tag shaming. Not a defining characteristic of the subject, and should not be added. PackMecEng (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Also most of the sources cited above are not RS, they are opinion pieces. PackMecEng (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a memorandum, not a theory. Hence remove the category. There are other pages to remove from this cat. For example, people/persons are not theories, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * But the categories are not only ones that are identical to the subject. They are also ones entailed by or related to the article subject. On that basis it does fit. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Meaning that the memo documents a theory about an alleged conspiracy by the FBI? Then OK. My very best wishes (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC).
 * The sources discuss the conspiracy theory behind the memo. The memo itself is the product of the conspiracy theory.
 * No, a few of the sources are opinion pieces, most are not. Anyway, opinion pieces are perfectly fine for demonstrating that a subject should be included in a category. I don't know what tag shaming is.- MrX 🖋 20:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Tag shaming is normally for maintenance tags like POV and such, put in place to denigrate or cast doubt on the information. You are right about most though, I was mistaken. It is only half that are opinion sources not most. But opinion sources should not be used as a statement of fact if it can be avoided and over all less than ideal especially for contentious topics. I still disagree that it has been a defining or even notable part of the subject. PackMecEng (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What statement of fact? Categories are aids to navigation and organization. If that were not true, Donald Trump would not be in Category:WWE Hall of Fame. Obviously Trump is not a hall of fame.- MrX 🖋 21:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Adding a category about something is a statement about that thing. Which I would hope you want to be a statement of fact. Bad categories elsewhere mean nothing for categories here. Though as an aside, lets be honest here. He should be the in the WWE Hall of Fame for taking down CNN like that. PackMecEng (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it fits better in the redirect ReleaseTheMemo per WP:RCAT, which focuses on the social media campaign behind the memo. See: . In addition, there's WP:CATVER, which says that categories should be verified by the article's contents. Right now all we have is a politician saying that the memo was meant to spread conspiracy theories, and I guess you could shoe-horn in the linked opinion articles (many of which discuss the conspiracy theory as part of the #ReleaseTheMemo campaign). The memo itself "raises concerns" about "bias" in the FBI and DOJ, which I guess could be described as a "conspiracy theory", but that would be WP:OR. FallingGravity 20:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirects don't focus on anything. They redirect. Frankly, I think it's asinine to categorize redirects. The journalists that wrote in the sources that I cited are not politicians. They are objective observers.- MrX 🖋 21:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Like it or not, categorizing some redirects is Wikipedia policy. Looking through your sources, I found columnists, bloggers, journalists, and a politician. The only criteria appears to be that it mentions the memo and "conspiracy theory". FallingGravity 22:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, categorizing redirects is not policy, it's a guideline. I've actually provided evidence for categorizing this article, and you have provided none for categorizing the redirect. It's nonsensical. Yes, journalists are indeed our most common sources when writing about current events. This article is almost entirely sourced to content researched and written by journalists, as it should be.- MrX 🖋 00:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you not read the Rolling Stone article I linked to? Plus, a lot of the "evidence" you provided actually builds my case. For example, the Politico and Wired articles are about the the social media campaign and discusses the conspiracy theories surrounding it. The New Yorker article says the memo itself actually helps to "undermine" some of the conspiracy theories surrounding Trump-Russia, while the category you're proposing suggests it's only meant to build up those theories. FallingGravity 22:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that's why this article belongs in that category. Whether the memo is an extension of the conspiracy theory, or the undermining of it, it is till a defining characteristic of the subject.- MrX 🖋 01:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Let's be clear, the memo is being used to promote a conspiracy theory, right? (according to the way WP uses the term and RS reports about the memo). So it's got as much right to that category as it does to the categories about computers and whatnot. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's exactly right. It's fine that some people, especially the theorists themselves, do not regard the Hillary/Fusion GPS/Hannity/FBI/Page/FISA narrative to be a conspiracy theory, but there are a diverse collection of reliable sources that disagree. We follow sources.- MrX 🖋 21:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Leave it out. This is not a "conspiracy theory". It is a memo from an official source. On its face it really only draws one conclusion: that the FBI withheld or mischaracterized evidence to obtain a FISA warrant on a single individual who was no longer connected to the Trump campaign. Some people are using the memo to expand far beyond what the memo says, to impugn the entire FBI or the entire Russia probe (did you see the congressman who claimed it shows evidence of "treason" on the part of FBI officials?) The memo may have inspired some conspiracy theories, but it is not one itself and should not be categorized as one. --MelanieN alt (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You've missed the point. The conspiracy theory have been circulating for more than a year. The memo is the manifestation of the theory. We know that a memo is not a theory. Categories are not literal like that.- MrX 🖋 21:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That is exactly right. It's important that we, as editors, understand where events and sources come from. Just as when we work on for example scientific or cultural subjects we know how to differentiate self-published or incidental comments from peer-reviewed and often-cited sources. Similarly, we need to understand how the media can be fed "news", how it originates and propagates with premeditated talking points, and how the media function to sort it out.  It's widely reported for the past 6-9 months that Nunes is collaborating with the White House on these matters. The memo itself was created to support the narratives that were broadcast in the news media and amplified (including by Russian-controlled accounts) on social media. The memo is notable only in this context. Our loosely-defined and non-determinative category of conspiracy theory certainly fits what RS tell us about this chain of people and events. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * On the one hand MrX says the memo is a "manifestation of the theory". On the other hand, elsewhere on this page SPECIFICO has said that it "undermines the various theories the pro-Memo contingent is emphasizing." How can we have it both ways? FallingGravity 00:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Easy. The main objective is supportive of the conspiracy theory, since it's part of the Trump/Putin/GOP/fringe cover-up and distraction, yet must admit certain facts that shoot themselves in the foot. It's an example of the "truth will out". Lies often contain the seeds of their own undoing. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Easy. Nunes, latched on to the conspiracy theory around the time he had to recuse from the Trump-Russia collusion investigation. He no doubt thought the memo would seal the deal, but oops, he didn't realize that people are smarter than the average bear and so the whole mess kind of backfired on him.- MrX 🖋 01:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * How? Because the guy who wrote it was inept and he was not well-supervised. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 01:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Trump denies release of Dem memo
Now, this is important and "breaking news". As usual, I’m against including breaking news. We need to follow this and eventually add it when we see more of the fallout. O3000 (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow! He released the Nunes memo, which unmasked very sensitive information crucial to the investigation, essentially sabotaging it and giving suspects (on his side) information they should not know. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * February 8:
 * Politico reports that the release of the Nunes memo exposed previously masked information about a phone call made by Steve Bannon to former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page in January 2017. The Nunes memo also unmasked that the call might have been recorded by the FBI as part of its court-approved surveillance of Page. According to congressional testimony given by Page in November 2017, Bannon referred to the recently-released Trump–Russia dossier and asked Page to cancel a scheduled television appearance.[198] Page had stepped down from the Trump administration several months previously. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Eh judging by how this investigation has been going, if it is negative to Trump. It will leak shortly. PackMecEng (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * LOL! Very true. "The truth will out." -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Please observe WP:NOTFORUM, folks. The salient issue is how and how much to discuss the Democratic counter-memo and its current blocked release. My removal of File:Page 1 Nunes Reaponse.jpg was reverted by, who added it. I felt it premature to shoehorn in yet another document before the document itself (or the context) is even mentioned in article. Currently only the counter-memo itself is discussed. Also, note MOS:TEXTASIMAGES discourages adding texts as images. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Another issue with the version inserted, it is only page one, which cuts off mid sentence. Though I agree that it most likely should not be inserted in general. PackMecEng (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, it's a jpeg, which limits its use in scanning, selecting, machine reading, etc. --Animalparty! (talk)
 * Now I feel silly for not noticing, that would explain why I could not go to page two huh? PackMecEng (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And even now that has replaced it with a pdf, it's still poorly placed. On mobile devices, the denial letter of the counter memo appears before any discussion of the response to the Nunes memo. Let's keep sight of what this article is about . If it must remain (it shouldn't), it should be placed lower in the article, only when it is accompanied by explanatory text (captions should not have unique, new information). --Animalparty! (talk) 02:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)