Talk:Spygate (conspiracy theory): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:55, 5 June 2022

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Spygate (conspiracy theory) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11: 7 days

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

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism.
In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established.

The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Donald Trump Start‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Donald Trump, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Donald Trump on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Donald TrumpWikipedia:WikiProject Donald TrumpTemplate:WikiProject Donald TrumpDonald Trump articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American Start‑class Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

United States Start‑class Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Start‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump) was copied or moved into Operation Crossfire Hurricane with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Trump Spied on February 2022 (2)

Trump was spied on per the Durham report and investigation. This is not a conspiracy nor was it ever a conspiracy. Fact is Obama and Hillary Clinton took illegal steps to spy on them candidate Trump and now we find tech was also accessing WH server information to spy on them President Trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.213.161.206 (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} – Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hillary-clinton-campaign-paid-firm-to-spy-on-trump-9hrbjjkr2 Is a reliable source per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources Nerguy (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"a US special prosecutor has suggested" soibangla (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is a correct description of John Durham. Nerguy (talk) 00:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This CNN article includes in it Right-wing media outlets and Republican politicians, including Trump, are citing Durham's court filing to accuse Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign of spying on Trump because of the use of the data. But Durham's court filing doesn't allege that the pro-Clinton researchers use of internet data meant that there was any eavesdropping on content of communications. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is also a correct description of what he did. soibangla (talk) 00:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soibangla's additions (to the John Durham article) of content on this subject are excellent. Durham did not allege that any eavesdropping of Trump communications content occurred. This is an allegation that DNS lookups may have occurred. That activity could not provide any content information. -- Valjean (talk) 05:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to The Times article mentioned by Muboshgu (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hillary-clinton-campaign-paid-firm-to-spy-on-trump-9hrbjjkr2), "Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign paid an internet company to access servers at Trump Tower and the White House in a search for links between Donald Trump and Russia, a US special prosecutor has suggested. The Clinton campaign was effectively accused of spying by John Durham, a lawyer investigating the origins of the Russia inquiry which dogged the first half of the Trump presidency."

As per WP policy: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". Time to add it in. If CNN has a different take, add it too; this is going in. A perennial reliable source has given it great prominence. SeanusAurelius (talk) 08:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "Clinton campaign paid to infiltrate" narrative originated with this Fox News article.[1]. It was quickly copied by The New York Post, another Murdoch property, which used the Fox News story as its source.[2]] That was followed by The Times which yesterday wrote "Clinton’s presidential campaign paid an internet company to access servers...a US special prosecutor has suggested." And its headline says "paid firm to spy on Trump," as a quote. I don't subscribe to The Times, so I can't see who that quote comes from, but it didn't come from Durham.[3] Now, The Times is green at WP:RSP, but it bears noting it is also a Murdoch property. Last night, Charlie Savage at The New York Times reported in "Court Filing Started a Furor in Right-Wing Outlets, but Their Narrative Is Off Track"[4]:

[Durham] slipped in a few extra sentences that set off a furor among right-wing outlets about purported spying on former President Donald J. Trump. But the entire narrative appeared to be mostly wrong or old news — the latest example of the challenge created by a barrage of similar conspiracy theories from Mr. Trump and his allies...The conservative media also skewed what the filing said. For example, Mr. Durham’s filing never used the word “infiltrate.” And it never claimed that Mr. Joffe’s company was being paid by the Clinton campaign.

Neither the words paid nor infiltrate appear in Durham's searchable brief.[5]

And just FYI, Muboshgu didn't mention The Times article, Nerguy did. soibangla (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Times isn't quoting. That is the Times' statement of fact. WP doesn't operate on a 'Reliable source 1 and 2 disagree so we only add the one we think is true basis'. In this case, The Times - a perennial reliable source is itself saying that Trump was spied upon as a statement of fact.

WP:UNDUE requires that statement of fact to be covered in the article even if you or other editors think it is rubbish based on some other reliable source.

Raise whatever objection you like, raise whatever complaints about Fox you like, The Times is a perennially reliable source and its main statements of fact in a major article are required to be covered. SeanusAurelius (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign paid an internet company to access servers at Trump Tower and the White House in a search for links between Donald Trump and Russia, a US special prosecutor has suggested is not a statement of fact. I emphasized that clause that is doing a lot to hedge there. The Clinton campaign was effectively accused of spying by John Durham is also not a statement of fact. The rest of that article is behind a paywall so I don't know what else it says. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SeanusAurelius, when there are legitimate differences of opinion between RS, we usually report both. When an otherwise RS makes a blunder and states something false as fact, then that RS is not reliable in that instance and we usually ignore it. If their error is commented on by several other RS, then we sometimes document the issue because their error has caused confusion, and we thus show how other RS have resolved the confusion. In this case, other RS have not commented on the thetimes.co.uk as an erroneous source (at least not yet, to my knowledge), but the Fox News error has been called out by RS, and since thetimes.co.uk was just repeating the error by Fox, we do document that error and show how RS have pointed to Fox as the originator of that error. There is no reason to bring thetimes.co.uk into the matter. We just ignore thetimes.co.uk as being unreliable in this instance. We often do that, even to The New York Times and WaPo, when they get it wrong. We don't use them in those instances because, in those cases they were not RS. No source is reliable in every instance. (Mind you, we're not talking about differences of opinion/interpretation, but actually false info proven by facts.) Fox lied about what Durham said, which is their typical MO. They are a disinformation channel, and that's why we officially consider them unreliable for politics and science. See WP:RSP. Whenever possible, we use other, much better, sources. -- Valjean (talk) 19:23, February 15, 2022‎ (UTC)

requires that statement of fact to be covered in the article But not this article, which is specifically about an alleged embedded person. It's in John Durham#Indictment of attorney where it belongs, unless we decide to split it off into a new article. It's also in Michael Sussmann and Rodney Joffe. soibangla (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Valjean: Your totally uncorroborated thesis that The Times just copies Fox without doing independent reporting is your personal fantasy only. There's no evidence for it. The Times is a perennial reliable source. If it has a different view to e.g. CNN or the other left wing media sources you prefer, then they are both required to be covered. SeanusAurelius (talk) 10:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, SeanusAurelius, let's give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they did not get their false ideas from Fox News (actually from Kash Patel, a Trump acolyte and pusher of Trump conspiracy theories who can never be trusted). That makes their false statements even more egregious because they are totally off the mark and wrong. They got it wrong ON THEIR OWN. That's a pretty serious breach of journalistic ethics and a failure to perform due diligence and fact-checking. They showed they didn't even read Durham's indictment. They manufactured these false ideas on their own. Wow! They can't even blame Fox or Patel. That's a big failure to meet our minimum requirements for reliable sources. In this instance, no matter how they might otherwise be RS (which is now in doubt), they are not a RS. This isn't a difference of opinion between RS, it's fact versus fiction. Our content is SOLELY based on RS when they are at least not totally wrong, as in this instance. -- Valjean (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a situation where we do mention unreliable sources, and that is when RS mention them and their errors. That's why we mention the views of Fox News and the Washington Examiner. RS mention their errors. Do RS mention the errors made by The Times? If so, we can add them to the list of sources that got it wrong. -- Valjean (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. You've created both your own Times reporting process and your own WP policy in your mind. WP:UNDUE doesn't say that all major RS need to be covered unless Valjean thinks they're false. It says they need to be covered.SeanusAurelius (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have just described our common practice for this type of situation. Before we start an RfC about this, I want to see how you propose to actually use the source, especially since it adds nothing beyond what Fox and the Examiner (both rated unreliable for political and scientific topics) already say in the article. How will you do it? Let's see the exact wording and location. -- Valjean (talk) 01:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, you're confused; you think that if an RS says something and a non RS says the same thing, then you get to disregard the RS. That's not how it works. I think we need to deal with your misunderstanding here. SeanusAurelius (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you being sarcastic? Are you trying to belittle me? It sure sounds like it.

I'm saying that no source is reliable all the time. Even otherwise RSes make mistakes, sometimes serious ones, as in this case. This isn't a minor discrepancy, but literal fiction. The Times got it that wrong.

In such cases, if no other RSes have mentioned the error, we ignore the source and use other RSes. That's what we're already doing in this case.

If other RS have pointed out the error by the source and the media has made a big deal about it, we use the RSes which got it right to document how this particular RS got it so wrong. In this case, I don't know of any RSes which have pointed out the error by The Times. We know The Times got it wrong because they made EXACTLY the same error as Fox News and the Examiner, and many RSes pointed out their errors. So we know what is true and what is error, and The Times, Fox News, and the Examiner are in error. Serious error.

We mention that Fox News and the Examiner got it wrong because RSes say they got it wrong. We do not mention that The Times got it wrong because no RSes mention them in this connection.

Our usual practice in this type of situation is to simply ignore them completely since other RSes serve the purpose of telling what is true and what is false. We don't need The Times in this case as it provides no new or clarifying information. -- Valjean (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ping SeanusAurelius. -- Valjean (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2022

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

‹ The template Edit extended-protected is being considered for merging. ›

answer unsurprisingly no, closed thread, do not respond to this per WP:NOTFORUM Dronebogus (talk) 02:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Has nobody on here wanted to take the needed time to update this? This has all been proven wrong.. it's a little unprofessional at the least to just ignore the evidence that nunes came out with in the last weeks. Do better. 2601:989:4582:13F0:FCD8:69:9A94:52B9 (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everything here is current and correct. soibangla (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 March 2022

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

‹ The template Edit extended-protected is being considered for merging. ›

this request is open-and-shut, no further commentary needed per WP:NOTFORUM Dronebogus (talk) 02:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although the Durham investigation is not complete, at the very least, “Conspiracy Theory” should be removed. There is a Federal Investigation that has charged people, and will most likely hand out more charges. Conspiracy theory suggests something is completely fabricated and is 100% false, which this is not. This also defines Spygate as the Obama Admin doing the spying. From the start it was believed to be the Clinton’s, with the White House possibly turning a blind eye. ANGRYTOOCH (talk) 02:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Neither Obama nor Clinton spied on the Trump campaign. This is a bogus conspiracy theory. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 87: / Line 87: @@
 :[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:EEp --> Neither Obama nor Clinton spied on the Trump campaign. This is a bogus conspiracy theory. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 02:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 {{cob}}
-::[[User:Dronebogus|@Dronebogus]] The request is not open and shut. You can take a hike, you leftist commie POS! So sick of the obnoxious gatekeeping from you people. [[Special:Contributions/2603:6010:5B00:700:E1FB:B9C8:546E:B721|2603:6010:5B00:700:E1FB:B9C8:546E:B721]] ([[User talk:2603:6010:5B00:700:E1FB:B9C8:546E:B721|talk]]) 05:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)