Talk:Adam Schiff/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This edit request to Adam Schiff has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change : “(numbered as the 27th from 2001 to 2003, the 29th from 2003 to 2013), as the 28th from 2013 to 2022, and from 2023 the 30th, is centered in the San Gabriel Valley east of Los Angeles,”

To: “(numbered as the 27th from 2001 to 2003, the 29th from 2003 to 2013, as the 28th from 2013 to 2022, and from 2023 the 30th), is centered in the San Gabriel Valley east of Los Angeles,”

It’s just the closed parentheses 2600:4041:40ED:7100:E14C:DD5A:79D1:695D (talk) 06:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done ARandomName123 (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

• Change: On January 26, 2023, Schiff announced his candidacy for the United States Senate in the 2024 election.:
• To: On January 26, 2023, Schiff announced his candidacy for the United States Senate in the 2024 election. On February 2, 2023, Schiff was endorsed by Nancy Pelosi, should incumbent Dianne Feinstein decide not to seek re-election:
• ^[1]:

2600:1700:4542:2CC0:14CA:C5DF:3A10:B7FA (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done Lemonaka (talk) 10:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

The references to "President Trump's claims" that the Obama administration had wire tapped Trump Tower should be followed by the fact that this "claim" turned out to be true, as the FBI used a FISA warrant targeting Trump campaign aide Carter Page to monitor communications across the Trump campaign, and later, the Trump transition and administration. This is important because the wiki currently reads like the claim was bogus, giving credibility to Schiff's representative of the Nunes Report, which has been proven mostly accurate, if not entirely accurate. 2603:6011:C7F0:71D0:2054:BE8E:3657:9E82 (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

As soon as you find a

WP:RS that says that the Obama administration wiretapped Trump Tower, we'll add it. I say this because no such source exists and you should really save yourself the time and go do something productive instead. – Muboshgu (talk

) 19:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Here are some examples [1][2][3] – Muboshgu (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I'm not sure what you are looking for. Do you want the citation to the fact that the emails were authenticated?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/30/hunter-biden-laptop-data-examined/ PerseusMeredith (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Does that WaPo source mention Schiff? Even if Schiff said the emails were fake and they were proven to be real, how is that statement on cable TV

WP:DUE for his bio? – Muboshgu (talk

) 01:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

He was the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee. He was investigating collusion and claimed that one of the lead stories was Russian disinformation. It wasn't.

He was even sued for defamation by the computer repairman.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/hunter-biden-files-counter-claims-computer-repairman-handling/story?id=97918174 PerseusMeredith (talk) 02:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

You tried twice to add that Schiff made a false accusation. The cite you gave was a YouTube video that does not state it was false. The cite above does not appear to mention Schiff. This is

biographies of living persons. O3000, Ret. (talk

) 01:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, how about if I remove "false" since the video doesn't mention that. I can include the Washington Post reference on the emails.

"On October 16, 2020, Schiff alleged that the emails reported by the New York Post were part of a Russian claim and that the story was a “wonderful propaganda coup for Vladimir Putin.” The emails were later determined to be authentic communications from Hunter Biden. [1] PerseusMeredith (talk) 01:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

First, you would need one citation tying together what is in NYPost, CNN, and WaPo articles. Otherwise, it is

WP:DUE for his bio? Politicians say lots of things that may or may not be true. We would require multiple reliable sources saying this and suggesting it matters. This far, I don't see how the statement “wonderful propaganda coup for Vladimir Putin” has been shown to be incorrect or that the fact Schiff opined this matters. He is allowed to have opinions. O3000, Ret. (talk

) 02:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

The headline is "Comments on Trump–Russia collusion investigation," it certainly seems to be due weight. This is a headline story in NY Times, Washington Post and WSJ. Schiff stated that the emails were Russian propaganda and part of the collusion with the Trump Administration. That is not true. Russia had nothing to do with the emails. I really don't understand the objection. PerseusMeredith (talk) 02:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Where do the NYT, WaPo, and WSJ say Schiff falsely stated that the emails were Russian propaganda and part of the collusion with the Trump Administration? O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/02/13/hunter-biden-laptop-claims-russian-disinfo/

As I mentioned, I'll take out falsely. PerseusMeredith (talk) 02:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

The article in its entirety is a lot more complex than that. I do not see how this is

WP:DUE for this article. O3000, Ret. (talk

) 02:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Adam Schiff has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Adam Schiff was censured by the United States Congress in June of 2023 after he was found to have lied to the American Public for years about the Trump Russia collusion investigation. 2605:59C8:30A5:9A00:4C51:6A8B:6EF4:5AA2 (talk) 03:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a

"change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. we already mention this in the #Comments on Trump–Russia collusion investigation section Cannolis (talk

) 04:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Adam Schiff has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please correct the table heading under § California's 30th congressional district from '28th' to '30th,' per the section name. Thank you. 104.246.222.65 (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done The edit has been implemented by another editor. Closing request. Liu1126 (talk) 23:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Adam Schiff has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

• Change (Under Personal Life): Schiff and his family live in Burbank.:
• To: Schiff's primary California residence is a small condo in Burbank. He also maintains a larger home in Potomac Maryland. ^[1]:

SomeGuy9837 (talk) 09:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC) E6

I do not see the relevance of calling one home "small" and another home "large". Almost every member of Congress who represents a state or district a long way from Washington maintains two homes. It is not at all unusual or suspicious. Cullen328 (talk) 09:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The mention of the small size of the California condo is in contrast to the original text, which claims that he and his FAMILY live in Burbank. It's not credible that he, his wife and two grown children all live together in a 650 sq. ft. (1BR, 1BA) unit. Given the information in the referenced article, the original text could arguably be changed to "Schiff and his family live in Maryland", but I'd think that statement would be much more controversial than the change I suggested. The new text doesn't in any way claim that there's anything unusual or suspicious going on, though the referenced article does explain why the facts about his properties may be politically inconvenient for Mr. Schiff. I prefer the new text as I wrote it, including the reputably sourced information about the size of the respective properties. But if you STRONGLY object to the size adjectives, you have my permission to remove those two words. SomeGuy9837 (talk) 12:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

All members of Congress live in Maryland, DC, or Virginia. It's where their job is.Some have a larger place back in their home district and a crash pad in DC, others, usually those with children in school who will want to live with their parents, will have a family residence close to DC. This is totally normal, but is a perennial campaign issue for any incumbent. You appear to be trying to insert campaign talking points. Acroterion (talk) 13:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Please suggest your update to the existing text that accurately reflects where Shiff and his family live. SomeGuy9837 (talk) 13:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

All that sounds like

WP:NOTGOSSIP. Kire1975 (talk

) 15:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

OK, you folks are beginning to frustrate me here. I made a relatively straightforward edit which updates the existing information about Mr. Shiffs current residences since the text in the current article is incomplete. I believe the new text I've suggested is factual/non-disputed and non-controversial (not scandalous or gossip). There is no original research in my suggested replacment text. I included a reference from a reputable source for this residence information. Evidently the location of Mr Shiffs residence(s) is relevant, as it appears in the current article. So I really don't see the issue with my new text.

I also believe that even here on the talk page I have maintained a neutral viewpoint. Remember the discussion on this talk page is not itself a wikipedia article, so I don't believe my discussion on the talk page itself must preclude any basic use of logic, which Kire seems to think is akin to forbidden original research. If so, their assertion that Shiff is required to claim the condo as a primary residence would also be original research, wouldn't it?

As reguards the referenced CNN article, I do not agree that it is either scandalous or gossip. It appears to me to be an example of relatively straightforward investigative journalism. It quotes experts that say Schiff is in no legal jeapordy and even mentions that three well known Republicans have been in similar situations. But that's beside the point, as the reference is provided only to support the information in the new text, which merely describes the location of his two residences.

So far three of you (Cullen, Acroterion, and Kire) have apparently contested my edit. No one who's commented has yet responded to my responses to them. Do all, or any of you have the power to fulfill my request, or are you just normal wikipedia users like I am? For anyone who responds to this thread in the future, I'd appreciate it if you would indicate if you have the power to complete the edit. If you have no intention of ever approving my edit or any modified version of it, please note that as well. I may not respond to those lacking the necessary power and willingness to constructively engage, as there would be little point, and that could be a never ending task. Also, as I've said before, if you don't like my new text, please suggest an alternative which acccurately reflects where Shiff and his family currently live - or just delete the current text that lists his residence in Burbank if you feel that information isn't noteworthy. SomeGuy9837 (talk) 01:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

You must gain consensus. So far, nobody agrees with you. There are no special classes of editors "with the necessary power," apart from meeting edit counts on protected pages, it is simply a matter of getting other editors to agree that your edits are appropriate, which you have not yet done. Please read the guidelines that have been linked for you.Acroterion (talk) 01:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

autoconfirmed threshold is low. For two reasons, I am not going to make the change. This is nothing but a campaign talking point, and there is no consensus for it. Cullen328 (talk

) 01:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The linked guidelines I see, which apparently you are applying to the linked article, are

WP:NOTGOSSIP

. As I read them, those guidelines are meant to apply to the text of the wikipedia article, not linked reference sources. But even if they were to be applied to linked references, the article I reference does not violate them. Quoting from those references:

Scandal mongering

Promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person.

The new text is certainly all factual, non-contested, and non-controversial. The linked article seems to be all fact based and non-contested and hence non-libellous, and as the information is part of the public record, unlikely to infringe a right to privacy.

Celebrity gossip and diary.

Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overly detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goals scored warrants inclusion in the biography of that person, only those for which they have notability or for which our readers are reasonably likely to have an interest.

As the current article already lists one of Mr Schiffs two known residences, I assume information about the MD residence is just as notable and likely to be of interest to readers as is the info about the CA residence, if not more so.

As to the implication that facts which also can be used as a so-called campaign talking point disqualifies that information from being included in a Wikipedia article, I can't see how that is a practical standard. Almost any perceived achievement or failure of a politician can be used as a campaign talking point. For instance, the current article states that "Schiff voted in favor of the 2003 invasion of Iraq". That information could certainly be used as a talking point by his opponents. Should that information be removed from the article? Forgive me if my following analysis is incorrect, but it appears to me that the people so far objecting to my change don't want any information that could possibly be twisted to portray Mr Schiff in an unfavorable light to be allowed in his article, no matter how factual, or normally relevant it is. That does not seem to me to be in the spirit of Wikipedia.

@Acroterion and @Cullen328: I think I've stated my case extensively, in detail, and reasonably well. I expect my arguments will not sway you. If I am wrong about that, or you can suggest a way forward, I'll happily re-engage with you. Otherwise there seems no point in further discussion between us. SomeGuy9837 (talk) 03:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

dispute resolution available for you to use. Cullen328 (talk

) 03:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Acroterion requested for a second time that I read those WP policies, implying that my edit violated them. As they didn't explain exactly how my edit violated those policies, and I could see no violation, it was necessary to address all the individual components of the policies in-context to show that there was no violation. If I had not, I expect I'd be directed to read those policies yet again. Rather than quickly linking a few WP policies, I'd expect a highly experienced editor to explicitly point out at least one item of text that violates a policy and which element of the policy was violated. If that were done, I'd have no need to defend my short text and the entire referenced source against all elements of the indicated policies.

FYI - Your dispute resolution link took me to a disambiguation page that did not contain a link to the correct wiki page, which apparently is

wp:dr

.

As I only ever intend to be a casual Wikipedia editor, and the edit I attempted was so trivial, and the reaction I've received so far has been universally negative, I'm having a hard time imagining that the effort necessary to learn and navigate the dispute resolution and/or consensus processes on this semi-protected page would be worth my time, or be ultimately successful. So I suppose I'll just leave the request in place for a while in the hopes that some more agreeable editors view it in the future. SomeGuy9837 (talk) 05:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

SomeGuy9837, I sincerely apologize for the typographical error in my link to dispute resolution. Please feel free to discuss your feelings and observations about the relative size of Schiff's two homes on the blog or social media platform of your choice. Cullen328 (talk) 06:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

We'v'e explained to you that:

• You are trying to by implication frame a commonplace circumstance as a scandal without explicit reliable sources that describe it that way
• That your apparent conclusion that this is a Very Important Matter or somehow unusual appears to be your own, not that of reliable sourcing
• That this is a shopworn campaign tactic against incumbents, which you appear to be trying to repeat
• That this is a perennial issue for every election from opposing candidates and their campaigns, and has been generally regarded as insignificant in a biography, as opposed to a campaign statement
• That you would need to convince other editors that you have compelling, reliably sourced support to the contrary of the above
• That filibustering at length with extracts from WP guidelines is not advancing your argument Acroterion (talk) 12:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Acroterion - I'm afraid you're seeing conspiracies and evil intent where none exist. I don't believe any reasonable, unbiased person would find my very small change to be an unacceptable threat to Mr. Schiff or as unacceptable Wikipedia content. While I do believe that my proposed change would improve the Schiff article and is fully within WP guidelines, I don't believe that my change is "Very Important". What I do believe is Very Important, is the principal that making such a small but worthwhile change should not require the amount of time and effort I've so far expended to overcome stubborn, and to my mind unreasonable objection. I've attempted to address all noted concerns in detail, but apparently to no avail. I do certainly agree that none of the three other editors that have commented here so far have seen things my way, which does not bode well for my proposed change. However, what I find most offensive in your most recent posting is your accusation that I was "filibustering", when all I was trying to do was fully rebut YOUR vague implication that I was somehow violating some unspecified element of the two WP guidelines which I was directed to here on two occasions. I believe I've fully heard and understand the nature of your objections, which I continue to find without merit. Therefore I'll call an end to the discussion between you and I, consequently ceding to you the opportunity to make a final comment in our dialogue, no matter how much I may possibly disagree with its content. SomeGuy9837 (talk) 15:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

 Note: ::I am marking this as responded-to, given the ongoing discussion. This obviously requires consensus before any changes are implemented. -- Pinchme123 (talk) 05:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Adam schiff was censured in congress on June 21 2023

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/06/21/politics/adam-schiff-censure-vote-house/index.html

this should be added into his Wikipedia. 2601:14E:80:46D0:59C6:EDA0:27CE:D024 (talk) 01:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

It's already there. See the last paragraph of Adam Schiff#Comments on Trump–Russia collusion investigation. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

It's essentially buried. It should be mentioned in the lede.. Even if it was an entirely partisan act, he is one of only about two-dozen congresspeople in U.S. history to have received a House censure. That's incredibly notable, and it appears that many of the others who received them have it mentioned in their articles' ledes. SecretName101 (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I modified the lede accordingly SecretName101 (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure it has due weight for a lede: in the context of this article (as opposed to one on censure) it could perhaps call for its own paragraph, but its significance seems rather petty. Sparafucil (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Kire1975 (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, he's been in office a couple of decades and the opposing party censured him for something he said and called for an investigation -- which apparently never occurred. The body is fine. As it had no effect, why the lead? O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree it's undue for the lead and have removed it. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Censure is in the lead of every other Congress person censured in the last 100 years but not Schiff. Yet it been removed. 2601:648:8486:E3D0:D06E:3696:651B:6450 (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

how many have been censured in the last 100 years and who are they, i would like to read all thier wikipedia entries - thats how it should be looked in to. 2601:84:8100:11A0:653B:2D4F:F5DC:2B3E (talk) 06:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Adam Schiff has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change the succession box concerning the House Intelligence Committee to the following, as he ceased to be chair at the end of the last congress:

2601:249:9301:D570:49D:C3A4:8625:A369 (talk) 07:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Pinchme123 (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Here is a source from the committee's website describing Mike Turner as chairman.2601:249:9301:D570:1469:F023:AE39:1F33 (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

The infobox information as it stands is up to date and correct. Mike Turner is mentioned. Zefr (talk) 06:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done The infobox is correct, but edit request wanted to update it to the tables at the bottom as well. —Sirdog (talk) 07:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

The bottom table date still says 2019–present instead of 2019–2023. Please correct that.2601:249:9301:D570:24AC:99F5:B709:BADB (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done - FlightTime (open channel) 15:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

The bottom succession box still reads:

when it should read:

Please correct the end date.2601:249:9301:D570:1469:F023:AE39:1F33 (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to Adam Schiff has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

2024 Senate election should include the information that Democratic Majority for Israel a Super PAC has been running ads on Schiff's behalf (https://prospect.org/politics/2024-02-14-big-money-bets-adam-schiff/) as well as Standing Strong Super PAC (https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/09/schiff-pac-ads-fox-news-00140785) and that he has taken Corporate PAC money directly through Frontline USA (https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/adam-schiff/summary?cid=N00009585) BalorCrand (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a

notable enough for inclusion - almost all members of Congress accept PAC donations, and numerous PACs run ads supporting and opposing candidates in competitive races. Jamedeus (talk

) 02:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Steve Garvey is a baseball player, not a football player. Jonathanator1 (talk) 07:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to Adam Schiff has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

adam shift lives in Maryland according to the my post he claims his primary residence is in Maryland not in California he has a tiny apartment in Burbank and those who know say he is never there here is a link to the New York post article

https://nypost.com/2023/11/06/real-estate/congressman-adam-schiff-claims-primary-residence-in-maryland/ 2600:1012:B12D:3C20:69A2:67B3:BDC:19D9 (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

•  Not done for now: There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)