Talk:Spygate (conspiracy theory): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:58, 15 February 2024

Before requesting any edits to this protected article, please familiarise yourself with reliable sourcing requirements.

Before posting an edit request on this talk page, please read the reliable sourcing and original research policies. These policies require that information in Wikipedia articles be supported by citations from reliable independent sources, and disallow your personal views, observations, interpretations, analyses, or anecdotes from being used.

Only content verified by subject experts and other reliable sources may be included, and uncited material may be removed without notice. If your complaint is about an assertion made in the article, check first to see if your proposed change is supported by reliable sources. If it is not, it is highly unlikely that your request will be granted. Checking the archives for previous discussions may provide more information. Requests which do not provide citations from reliable sources, or rely on unreliable sources, may be subject to closure without any other response.

Skip to table of contents

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!

Template:WikiProject Donald Trump

Politics: American 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
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 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative Views Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

}}

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.

Roundup of more recent descriptions of the term "spygate"

This article was created in 2018 with the edit comment "spygate" refers to trumps claims that his campaign was spied on. Since then it has become specifically about an embedded campaign informant and specifically about the Obama administration. I think limiting the scope to that is unsupported by the way "spygate" is referred to in the reliable sources. Below are some examples of the way the term spygate is described:

“Spygate” — a labyrinthine conspiracy theory involving unproven allegations about a clandestine Democratic plot to spy on Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign.^[1]
“Spygate,” the term it used to describe a sweeping conspiracy to undermine Trump through investigations into Russian election meddling.^[2]
The claim that his 2016 campaign was illegally spied on — either “spygate” or “Obamagate”^[3]
“Spygate: The Attempted Sabotage of Donald J. Trump,” which posits connections between the Hillary Clinton campaign and foreign entities to undermine Trump’s 2016 election chances.^[4]

And finally here is an MSNBC opinion columnist implying that spygate has morphed into many things over time, sort of illustrating my point here:

Over the course of his presidency’s first year, Donald Trump came up with a conspiracy theory he seemed quite excited about. The Republican called it “Spygate.”
If you’re struggling to remember the details of the manufactured controversy, don’t feel too bad about it: Trump also had a hard time explaining exactly what he thought the story was all about. In 2017, for example, Trump invested a fair amount of energy pretending that Barack Obama had wiretapped Trump Tower. (There was no such wiretapping.) A year later, “Spygate” involved an imagined scheme in which the FBI put a spy in his 2016 political operation. (That didn’t happen, either.)
...
Four years later, the now-former president has apparently decided to tweak his conspiracy theory, swapping out one central detail for another. In the new iteration, Barack Obama didn’t spy on him, but Hillary Clinton did.^[5]

There are many aspects to this and it involves international people and non-government people. The way things are now, it's confusing where the scope of one related page ends and another begins. I think this is the place to really tie it all together since this is the term most commonly used to refer to all of it. Nweil (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Roose, Kevin (October 20, 2020). "How 'Spygate' Attacks Fizzled". The New York Times. Retrieved July 7, 2022.
^ Markay, Lachlan (January 11, 2021). "Epoch Times revenue soared on Trump conspiracies". Axios. Retrieved July 7, 2022.
^ Brown, Hayes (April 16, 2021). "The GOP is still telling Trump's 'spygate' lies. They have nothing on the reality of COINTELPRO". MSNBC. Retrieved July 7, 2022.
^ Roig-Franzia, Manuel (April 20, 2021). "Dan Bongino isn't just taking over where Rush Limbaugh left off — he's building a conservative media universe". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on April 21, 2021. Retrieved July 7, 2022.
^ Benen, Steve (February 15, 2022). "The new 'spying' story is clearly not what Trump thinks it is". MSNBC. Retrieved July 7, 2022.

There was a mole in the Trump Administration that Hillary and Obama hired

Why isn't this mentioned? 205.149.37.229 (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spygate is a conspiracy theory promulgated by President Donald Trump in May 2018 that the Obama administration had put a spy in his 2016 presidential campaign soibangla (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spygate (Conspiracy Theory) and the Durham Report

The Durham Report (https://www.justice.gov/storage/durhamreport.pdf) confirms much of what is currently labeled as "conspiracy theory" in this article, including that all of the major players at the FBI, CIA, and Obama White House knew there was no substance to the "Russia/Trump collusion" theory, yet opened the Crossfire Hurricane investigation anyway. WikiJohnS (talk) 21:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what the Durham Report says. I suggest you read a description of its conclusions from a reputable source, like this one, rather than Newsmax or 4chan. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read the actual report, not summaries by third parties. No substance to the to the Trump/Russia collusion theory, I refer to page 8 of the report:

"As set forth in greater detail in Section IV.A.3 .b, before the initial receipt by FBI Headquarters of information from Australia on July 28, 2016 concerning comments reportedly made in a tavern on May 6, 2016 by George Papadopoulos, an unpaid foreign policy advisor to the Trump campaign, the government possessed no verified intelligence reflecting that Trump or the Trump campaign was involved in a conspiracy or collaborative relationship with officials of the Russian government.21 Indeed, based on the evidence gathered in the multiple exhaustive and costly federal investigations of these matters, including the instant investigation, neither U.S. law enforcement nor the Intelligence Community appears to have possessed any actual evidence of collusion in their holdings at the commencement of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation."

WikiJohnS (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"before" Downer's alert. And what does this have to do with Spygate? Are you asserting Durham proved Trump was spied on? I'm seeing a lot of "Durham proved everything Trump said was right all along" making the rounds. soibangla (talk) 04:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the bolded words are the ones Durham used in his report, which is a primary source. We prefer secondary sources that discuss primary sources over our editors' interpretation of those primary sources. Those analyses are still coming in. We have no deadline for that. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 February 2024

It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at Spygate (conspiracy theory). (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

To make the article more accurate-\ Spygate was a disproven[1] conspiracy theory peddled by 45th U.S. President Donald Trump

Spygate is a proven[1] conspiracy theory peddled by 45th U.S. President Donald Trump RomaBoy (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: That would make the article inaccurate. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was a conspiracy theory, now it's been proven true. So it's more accurate to describe it as a proven conspiracy theory rather than a historical disproven conspiracy theory. 38.96.169.131 (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has not "been proven true". Not at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It absolutely has been proven true, the Steele Dossier was proven to be false, by it's own author (https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-donald-trump-presidential-elections-campaign-2016-41116202428688e1088829852505e144), there is now a missing binder filled with formerly classified material that was ordered declassified as part of the declassifaction of the "Crossfire Hurricane" investigation into Donald Trump by former President Barack Obama's justice bureau (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/15/classified-russia-documents-missing-trump). 8.10.181.17 (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done: This should be voted on. The Wall-street Journal and other sources - along with a primary source from the Durham report - confirmed that Trump's 2016 campaign was illegally spied on.

[1] Roose, Kevin (October 20, 2020). "How 'Spygate' Attacks Fizzled". The New York Times. Retrieved July 7, 2022.

[2] Markay, Lachlan (January 11, 2021). "Epoch Times revenue soared on Trump conspiracies". Axios. Retrieved July 7, 2022.

[3] Brown, Hayes (April 16, 2021). "The GOP is still telling Trump's 'spygate' lies. They have nothing on the reality of COINTELPRO". MSNBC. Retrieved July 7, 2022.

[4] Roig-Franzia, Manuel (April 20, 2021). "Dan Bongino isn't just taking over where Rush Limbaugh left off — he's building a conservative media universe". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on April 21, 2021. Retrieved July 7, 2022.

[5] Benen, Steve (February 15, 2022). "The new 'spying' story is clearly not what Trump thinks it is". MSNBC. Retrieved July 7, 2022.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

@@ Line 82: / Line 82: @@
 :::It has not "been proven true". Not at all. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 18:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 ::::It absolutely has been proven true, the Steele Dossier was proven to be false, by it's own author (https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-donald-trump-presidential-elections-campaign-2016-41116202428688e1088829852505e144), there is now a missing binder filled with formerly classified material that was ordered declassified as part of the declassifaction of the "Crossfire Hurricane" investigation into Donald Trump by former President Barack Obama's justice bureau (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/15/classified-russia-documents-missing-trump). [[Special:Contributions/8.10.181.17|8.10.181.17]] ([[User talk:8.10.181.17|talk]]) 01:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
+::::'''Done:''' This should be voted on. The Wall-street Journal and other sources - along with a primary source from the Durham report - confirmed that Trump's 2016 campaign was illegally spied on.