Talk:Spygate (conspiracy theory)

President Trump recently mentioned "SPYGATE" (05/23/2018)

He has tweeted that it "could be one of the biggest political scandals in history" as titled. He additionally tweets "how things turned around on the Criminal Deep State" of the Russian interference, in which "they go after Phony Collusion with Russia, a made up Scam, and end up getting caught in a major SPY scandal," concluding aforementioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.196.54.45 (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

MOS:NEO and WP:NEO are probably helpful guidance on if and when to add this. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 23:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Reputable sources using the term:

• http://fortune.com/2018/05/28/rudy-giuliani-spygate-mueller-investigation/
• https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-flake/trumps-spygate-is-a-diversion-tactic-senator-flake-idUSKCN1IS0OQ?il=0
• https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/28/us/politics/trump-conspiracy-theories-spygate.html
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/05/23/there-is-no-evidence-for-spygate-but-there-is-a-reason-that-trump-invented-it/
• https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/05/donald-trump-russia-investigation-fbi-informant

All five headlines enclose the term in quotation marks, signaling a lack of linguistic acceptance. For now, it's still President Trump and his publicists' term, not the sources' term. That could change quickly, though, so it's worth keeping an eye on. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Given the skyrocketing of visitors to this page since May 23rd of this year who are no doubt disappointed to see a disambiguation page that has no internal links at all to the current Trump accusation, I have changed this disambiguation page into an article on the supposed scandal presented by Donald Trump. I don't think we are doing our readers ANY kind of service by having no article on this issue, even it it is shown to be concocted— the fact is that the presidential accusation was made, and the popular press has begun reporting on it, and people are turning to Wikipedia for more information on it, and they have not been finding anything about it here except links to an obscure Formula One racing controversy and another on the Patriots football team's misdeeds. My version of the article is very short, but I am all but certain that others will begin adding to it very soon, if only to elaborate on the theory's baselessness. I know the use of the term in this sense is still quite new, but I think it is clear that it is going to be sticking around for awhile (regardless of its appearance within quote marks in newspaper headlines, which while they do indicate the lack of acceptance of the term so far, do not prevent us from hosting an article on it if the "thing", the idea, seems to be real and of at least some lasting significance, even if it is a dumb term like "controversyaffair" or "battleconflict"). A loose noose (talk) 10:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• A loose noose - I expanded some. starship.paint ~ KO 13:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Here is the proper reference to President Trump's first SPYGATE tweet on 5/23:

"SPYGATE could be one of the biggest political scandals in history!"

kgrr ^talk 15:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Removal of stuff from the background

I refer to my edit here. I do not see how this material is relevant. These are articles written before Spygate was popularized. If there are any articles written in late May 2018 after Spygate was popularized which links this material to Spygate, I will be glad to include. But there must be a link. starship.paint ~ KO 06:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Ibanezguy1232: ^ for the above. starship.paint ~ KO 06:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
• I also removed Nunes and Rice from the background section. It was full of innuendos that aren't there, with no explanation about the reasons. Fails NPOV, by pushing a fringe theory that has been explained. Dave Dial (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Lede

@Vanjagenije: - is the lede adequate now? You previously tagged it as too short. starship.paint ~ KO 03:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 5 June 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 19:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

---

Spygate (conspiracy theory) → Spygate – This article is almost certainly the primary topic for this term— the other two examples of "spygate" meaning anything else fall MUCH lower down on the significance scale (consider the number of people searching for "spygate" prior to Trump's use of the term, and how the frequency of visitors has shot up since then because of Trump). We could put a hatnote on the top of this article that mentions the other two uses, but since this one seems pretty clearly to be primary, I'd like to suggest we move it [back] there. A loose noose (talk) 06:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the 2018 conspiracy theory is the primary topic. Consider google trends result for Spygate. Interest in the term spiked in 2008 when the New England Patriots were first accused of spying on their opponents and again in 2015 when the team was accused of deflategate. I understand that interest today is based almost entirely on the current conspiracy theory, but that interest is much smaller than previous spikes related to the term and we will need to wait and see if the current spike grows into something more substantial. Smmurphy^(Talk) 10:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

This may currently be a significant topic for the term, but it is recentism to draw any conclusion so soon. The term as used by Trump may sink without trace within a few months. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I oppose any move. At the disambiguation guideline, it says with regards to "primary topic" that two criteria are typically used by editors to determine 'primaryness': usage and long-term significance; Smmurphy (talk · contribs) researched and explained these above. Furthermore, this page has disambiguated other topics for 8.19 years before anyone came along and linked to the US president; moving it would not be "back". — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support. There is no question that Stefan Halper surreptitiously monitored the Trump campaign on behalf of James Comey's FBI. Comey and his supporters don't accept the idea that anything the FBI does is spying. That is the only basis for the "conspiracy theory" moniker. As far as the primary topic issue goes, this article is certainly primary topic at the moment. The "long-term significance" criteria is designed to make it easier to designate a topic with such significance as primary, not to create an additional barrier on the road to primary topic. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• Merge as Artw suggests below, or failing that, oppose move. Recentistic; no empirical evidence supports idea that this meaning is more common than other meanings. Neutrality^talk 22:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• Merge to Special Counsel investigation (2017–present) and give proper context as part of efforts by Trump/Nunes et all to undermine the investigation. If it becomes so sprawling a separate article is required then that article should cover the undermining efforts as a whole, probably starting with the Nunes run to the Whitehouse. A standalone article on "Spygate" not noting it's basis in those efforts and status as a conspiracy does not seem sustainable so if we don't merge I'm defaulting to oppose. Artw (talk) 02:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Do not merge and do not move - the special counsel stuff started in 2017, this is supposedly about events in 2016, not about the special counsel investigation. Will need evidence that this is the primary topic to move. starship.paint ~ KO 02:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• No move. Too soon. The continued use of quotation marks around "Spygate" suggests sources have not yet adopted it linguistically. WP:LABEL and WP:RECENT are particular NPOV concerns. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. While it might appear to be the primary topic at the moment, only time will tell whether this gains long-term significance. Smmurphy (talk · contribs) provided useful data above. -- Pemilligan (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support. I don't think it's decisive to note that one part of the title (the -gate prefix) seems to violate WP:LABEL and not note that the other part ("conspiracy theory") also seems to violate it. Go with WP:NPOVTITLE and WP:CONCISE. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Look, this is such an obvious term for journalists to apply to their latest local scandal that if ever we move the DAB away from the base name we'll inevitably have another RM in time, it's just a matter of when. Such moves invalidate bookmarks and incoming links from other webpages, over which we have no control... we can't even detect them let alone fix them. For the readers, it's a no-brainer. Andrewa (talk) 11:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

supporting evidence

Why does the article say no actual supporting evidence? There is evidence.--Democratic Backsliding (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• The reliable sources say that the so-called evidence do not support the allegations. This is referenced. What reliable sources do you have to back up your claim? starship.paint ~ KO 03:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• @Democratic Backsliding: starship.paint ~ KO 03:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

There IS supporting evidence. There are three books, two published, another that is on pre-order that are fully documented with references:

• • Gregg Jarett (2018) The Russia Hoax: The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump
  • Jeanine Pirro (2018) Liars, Leakers, and Liberals: The Case Against the Anti-Trump Conspiracy
  • Dan Bongino, D.C. McAllister, Matt Palumbo (2018) Spygate: The Attempted Sabotage of Donald J. Trump

kgrr ^talk 11:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, a couple slapped-together cash-grab smearjob books by right-wing commentators. That's your proposed rebuttal to a pile of mainstream reliable sources? Nope. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Have you ready any one of the three books? I have. The books are supported by references to known facts -- Congressional testimony, FOIA requests, and articles from credible sources. It seems to me that you have a real problem with maintaining a neutral point of view. kgrr ^talk 00:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Gregg Jarret's book is published by Harper-Collins/Broadside, a reputable conservative publisher.

Jeanine Pirro, a former judge, had her book published by Hachette Book Group, a reputable publisher.

Dan Bongino et al book, a former Federal investigator and Secret Service agent, has his book published by Simon Shuster/Archway, a reputable book publisher.

More supporting evidence: Documents obtained through FOIA requests and lawsuits are FACTS. Judicial Watch's FOIA Request Document Archive: https://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/category/foia-request/ kgrr ^talk 00:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)]]

Inspector General reports are FACTS. https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download kgrr ^talk 00:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

None of those documents support this conspiracy theory. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

IN YOUR POV OPINION. References please. Get prepared, I will open an NPOV dispute. kgrr ^talk 01:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

No, I would refer you to the reliable sources cited here in this article. What you call "my POV opinion" is actually the sourced conclusions of multiple independent reliable sources. In response, you proffered primary source documents you claim support the theory, and three purported books authored by partisan Trump supporters. These are not equivalent, and Wikipedia is not required to treat them as equivalent. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

"These are not equivalent" based on what? While New York times and the Washington Post are reputable sources, the other four sources are rather dubious. The Intercept, Paste Magazine, Vox and Cleveland.com are online publication that are not in print. References 1-6 in this article are significantly older than these three books on the subject. More evidence has been uncovered since the references 1-6 were published. The three references are hard-bound books with references. The two newspaper articles and the four online sources do not give sources. All of the sources 1-6 are liberal left-leaning. I'm sorry, I don't buy your claim. kgrr ^talk 05:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Whether or not a publication publishes dead-tree editions or not is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is a reliable source; moreover, you're wrong about Cleveland.com, because that's the website of the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

You appear to be under the delusion that because you disagree with the NYT and WaPo, you can dismiss the two most respected news sources in America as "liberal left-leaning." That won't work here. We don't subscribe to Trumpist notions of "fake news." His words (more precisely, tweets) have no power here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, you argue that Cleveland.com is a reliable source. Then is this article a reliable source? It supports the viewpoint that top Federal Bureau of Investigation officials plotted to stop Donald Trump from becoming president, and he wants a special counsel to probe whether that occurred. kgrr ^talk 08:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Evidence vs Conspiracy theory

The term conspiracy theory is derogatory. There is plenty of *evidence* pointing towards the "Spygate" narrative.

"A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy—generally one involving an illegal or harmful act supposedly carried out by government or other powerful actors—without credible evidence. Conspiracy theories often produce hypotheses that contradict the prevailing understanding of history or simple facts. The term tends to be a derogatory one." -- Wikipedia

kgrr ^talk 00:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Barack Obama's administration paid to put an informant in the Trump campaign. That is the essence of the conspiracy theory, and not one iota of evidence exists to support it, as per the numerous reliable sources cited here. All else is obfuscation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

So why don't you please explain Stefan Halper. kgrr ^talk 05:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

You have a poor understanding of how Wikipedia is edited. It's not up to me to "explain" anything. Rather, if you believe something should be changed in the article, it's incumbent upon you to state which changes you believe should be made and provide sources which support those changes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Of course I understand how Wikipedia is edited. I don't have to propose a change, I can also ask for help to arrive at a correction that better reflects the facts. Follow me, I will make that suggestion.

The second sentence in the article "On May 22 - May 23, 2018, Trump announced and elaborated, without providing evidence, on the existence of this conspiracy via his Twitter account, stating his belief that the previous administration under Barack Obama paid to plant a spy inside Trump's 2016 presidential campaign to assist his rival, Hillary Clinton, win the 2016 US presidential election.[5][7]"

The beginning of this second sentence was mostly borrowed from a May 18 New York Times article "WASHINGTON — President Trump accused the F.B.I. on Friday, without evidence, of sending a spy to secretly infiltrate his 2016 campaign “for political purposes” even before the bureau had any inkling of the “phony Russia hoax.”".

Rather than labeling it a conspiracy and borrowing far too much from the NYT article, why not stay NPOV and state the fact when the word "SPYGATE" was (re)coined by President Trump?

On May 23, 2018, President Trump tweeted "SPYGATE could be one of the biggest political scandals in history" kgrr ^talk 10:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Because a broad consensus of reliable sources label it a baseless and unsupported conspiracy theory, that's why. While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. A clear and unambiguous majority of reliable sources depict these claims as baseless, false and ludicrous conspiracy theories. In response, you've provided... three partisan books written by Trump apologists. Unfortunately for you and Trump, the sources speak loudly here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

So since that all the left-leaning newspapers and online resources you have found say it's a conspiracy theory, you will disregard that there are other sources that disagree. It's not that the minority viewpoint does not exist, it's that it's not represented by the sources used. kgrr ^talk 15:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Back to the original subject of this talk discussion. The difference between evidence and a Conspiracy theory is that there is credible evidence. I have offered several sources that are credible Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). I offer that Gregg Jarrett's book is a credible source by the definitions offered in WP:IRS. kgrr ^talk 15:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

That Halper was being paid by the FBI to monitor the Trump campaign has not seriously been challenged. Trump calls him "spy" while the FBI calls him an "informant." Is that not the crux of the dispute? Nine Zulu queens (talk) 09:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE

I don’t understand the argument. This is a theory that there was a conspiracy based on no credible evidence and has been called a conspiracy theory by RS. (I struck Nine Zulu queens’ comment so no one tries to enter into a debate with a blocked sock.) O3000 (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

There are published reliable sources related to spying on Trump campaign officials and Michael Flynn. Ont of the most important primary sources, referenced in several secondary sources, is the opinion of the FISA court about illegal collection of phone calls and emails of Trump's personnel. This was a result of NSA Director Rogers informing the FISA court about illegal spying. I also refer you to Devin Nunes' press conference of 3/22/17. 1.) …”On numerous occasions the [Obama] intelligence community incidentally collected information about U.S. citizens involved in the Trump transition.” 2.) “Details about U.S. persons associated with the incoming administration; details with little or no apparent foreign intelligence value were widely disseminated in intelligence community reporting.” 3.) “Third, I have confirmed that additional names of Trump transition members were unmasked.” 4.) “Fourth and finally, I want to be clear; none of this surveillance was related to Russia, or the investigation of Russian activities. “The House Intelligence Committee will thoroughly investigate surveillance and its subsequent dissemination, to determine a few things here that I want to read off:” •“Who was aware of it?” •“Why it was not disclosed to congress?” •“Who requested and authorized the additional unmasking?” •“Whether anyone directed the intelligence community to focus on Trump associates?” •“And whether any laws, regulations or procedures were violated?” “I have asked the Directors of the FBI, NSA and CIA to expeditiously comply with my March 15th (2017) letter -that you all received a couple of weeks ago- and to provide a full account of these surveillance activities.” Devin Nunes 3/22/17Phmoreno (talk) 02:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Sources

You use three sources, none of which can be used: (1) The DNI source is primary; (2) theconservativetreehouse is a fringe right wing source that is far from a RS; (3) A YouTube of Nunes? Neither is a RS here. You've already been informed of Nunes's status as a Trump apologist who covered up evidence while pretending to perform an investigation. He can't be trusted. Three strikes and you're out.

You have been warned by Muboshgu before. You really must be stopped from pushing conspiracy theories using bad sources. RS are agreed that Spygate is just one of Trump's conspiracy theories pushed by Nunes and other GOP members, yet you persist. A topic ban is needed here. You really do lack the competence to understand our sourcing standards here. You seem incapable of learning that, so you must be kept away from political subjects. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 07:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

The above comment is interesting. Donald Trump is the POTUS, and Devin Nunes is a member of the Gang of Eight. They are part of a very small group of people with unparalleled access to government secrets and classified information. It is unreasonable to suggest that any left leaning reporter has more information than these two. The NYT and WaPo just got a huge black eye for their Russian collusion reporting over the last few years, and Trump/Nunes were shown to have been truthful about it. The editor who wrote the above seems to have a poorly calibrated estimation of the reliability of RS's. BullRangifer should do some thinking about how partisan animus colors the judgment of left leaning sources. Such pondering may lead to giving greater weight to secondary sources who report claims by POTUS and Nunes. Wookian (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Wookian, please present any evidence that NYT or WaPo got anything wrong. The Barr letter doesn't invalidate any of their reporting, as far as I'm aware. The Nunes memo is completely slanted and makes erroneous claims about the start of the Carter Page surveillance. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

What they got wrong was a matter of insinuation and emphasis. The NYT, WaPo, CNN, and other similarly left leaning organizations were instrumental in pushing an absurd conspiracy theory into the public's view. They richly deserve the black eye they are sporting now that the SCI is done. For a list of NYT and WaPo articles insinuating and pushing the Trump campaign/Russian collusion angle, see: . This is also a nice example of left-leaning "reliable sources" patting each other on the back and incestuously confirming their shared biases with a Pulitzer Prize as they remain blissfully unaware of how history will judge them (referring to the dramatic correction that started immediately on the SCI's conclusion and Barr's announcement). Wookian (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

So, I guess you don't have any evidence. Just an opinion. O3000 (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

No. Did you read the page I linked to? Here's a snippet: "For deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration." For readers conversant in the English language, this along with the long list of reporting quite clearly conveys that the NYT was vigorously pushing articles insinuating collusion between the Trump side and Russian election interferers. Wookian (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I read it and saw nothing about "pushing". Indeed, it would seem the NYT did do a far better job of furthering the nation's understanding than did the four page report. O3000 (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

If you are in the "I want to believe" camp, not sure what I can do for you here. Wookian (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. My response was completely neutral. O3000 (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Wookian, when have they published anything where they claim something as fact in regards to this investigation that has been proven false? Remember we haven't seen the Mueller Report yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

When it comes to "relentlessly reporting" (aka "pushing") conspiracy theories, it is not necessary that an organization like the NYT make specific claims from the conspiracy theory in its own voice. You seem confused on this, so let me give you an example. With the Obama "birther" conspiracy theor(ies), there were various writers who did not claim Obama was born in Kenya, but rather simply gave oxygen and airtime to those who did. You don't have to say Obama was born in Mombasa, all you need to do is produce "relentless reporting" about Sheriff Joe Arpaio and how his posse are questioning whether Obama produced a fake birth certificate, why one of his academic bios claimed he was born in Kenya, etc. Simply by giving respect to the material you elevate it in the public mind and thereby participate in the conspiracy theory. Do you now understand my point? Wookian (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Wookian, I don't want to misunderstand you, but to avoid doing so in further discussions, do you believe/deny that:

1. there was Russian interference in the election?
2. that it was for the purpose of helping Trump win?
3. that there were numerous secretive meetings and connections between Trump family/campaign members and Russians/Russian agents?
4. that they (including Trump himself) lied again and again about these meetings?
5. that several have been convicted for doing so?
6. that these meetings and lies were sufficient to justify strong suspicions of (a) conspiracy/collusion, (b) that it might have affected the election results in an unfair manner, and (c) that Trump might be a witting or unwitting Russian asset?
7. and that it would have been very negligent of intelligence agencies (American and foreign allies were doing this) to not react by starting perfectly proper investigations of the (a) interference, (b) roles of Trump campaign and Russians, and (3) whether Trump was (and still) is acting just like a Russian asset, wittingly or unwittingly?

What's your position on these very well-established facts? Feel free to use the relevant numbers for your answers. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

As far as I have read, Russian interference was all over the map, and it was more about destabilizing than advancing any particular candidate. The Wikileaks release is perhaps the most famous example, and I will grant that this specific example was intended to attack Clinton by airing her team's dirty laundry. There is also the Steele Dossier, which came from Russian sources and was used against Trump by Hillary Clinton and the DNC -- as they arguably "colluded" with foreign actors including ultimately their unnamed Russian sources in an attempt to bring Trump down via "salacious and unverified" claims from that material (this judgement per Comey). When anti-Trump agents at the DOJ and FBI uncritically made use of the unvetted oppo research from Clinton and the DNC, they certainly fulfilled Russian goals of destabilizing American politics, culminating in this two year investigation. Have I summarized this fairly? Wookian (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Wookian, It was clear to the CIA in 2016 that Russian interference was geared around helping Trump, not just "destabilizing". There is no evidence that anyone at DOJ or FBI acted in the way that you suggested. It's also completely wrong to compare the Steele dossier to the Russian interference. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

There is certainly a critical difference between the leaked DNC emails and the Steele Dossier. In both cases it is understood to be material delivered by Russians that harmed the electoral prospects of an American politician. However at least the emails were cryptographically proven to be true and real, whereas the important (i.e. scandalous) elements of the Steele Dossier appear likely to be Russian disinformation, which of course was all too eagerly pushed by Clinton's camp among other anti-Trump parties. Is that what you meant by "wrong to compare" the two? Wookian (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Wookian, I meant that Russian interference was an illegal attempt to influence an election and the Steele dossier was opposition research, the sort that is conducted by any campaign. Also, note that the claims made by the Steele dossier have either been verified or not verified, but nothing in it has been disproven. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Your are saying the Steele Dossier has been neither proven nor disproven. Perhaps a good conspiracy theory, much like a good soldier, never dies, and just fades away. You will find that vehemently anti-Trump sources are still hanging onto this. However I think you'll find that our best journalistic sources will refuse to attach their credibility to the dossier's. If Cohen wasn't in Prague, for example, that leaves the whole thing pretty much indistinguishable from any LARP from 4-chan. I have a suggestion for you, along these lines, though. The distinction between "false" and "unproven/undisproven" is an important distinction. Would you agree with softening the leading sentence of the article from "false" to "unproven," thus following the journalistically safer NYT's wording rather than the careless and inaccurate wording of Vox? Wookian (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Wookian, that's not what I said. I see that I didn't word it clearly enough. Parts of the Steele dossier have been verified. Other parts haven't been, at least publicly. Maybe Mueller knows more about some of the unverified allegations than we know. No part of it has been debunked, as far as we know. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Can opinionated sources be reliable?

Please read WP:Identifying reliable sources I believe that Wikipedia says yes. The article's references 1-6 are biased towards the left. And, yes, the three books I cite are possibly biased towards the right. kgrr ^talk 05:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, they can, but they should be factual, not partisan twistings of facts and based on unreliable sources, such as the books you've suggested.

Otherwise, NPOV expressly allows biased sources. The trick is with extremely biased sources, where their bias leads them to start twisting things, not covering subjects unfavorable to their POV, etc, IOW what Fox News, Breitbart, InfoWars, Daily Caller, etc. do all the time. Then they become unreliable. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

So for example, who judges that Gregg Jarrett's book is extremely biased? It's an analysis of the known facts in the scandal (not conspiracy theory). It is thoroughly documented with references. It's published by a very well known publisher. It's certainly not an obscure book. It's a best seller. kgrr ^talk 15:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The number of copies something sells has precisely zero to do with how reliable it is. From our biography of Jarrett, which helpfully has an extensive section on his Trump apologism and the book in question specifically: In a review for The Washington Post, Carlos Lozada described the book as a Trump hagiography. PolitiFact rated a number of claims made in Jarrett's book as false, misleading and unsubstantiated. That's why it's not a good source here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

But this is not some flat-earth conspiracy. Just because you can find some people that don't like the book, does not mean that it is not written by the minority viewpoint, based on facts. Carlos Lozada is a book critic for the Washington Post, it's his opinion, this does not make it fact. Politifact's Fact-Checking is also their opinion. They are known to have their own bias. Just because found a few items they disagree with, it does not make the whole book conspiracy theory. kgrr ^talk 21:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

So will you take Bob Woodward's book "Fear" as historical fact? Or just his opinion? kgrr ^talk 21:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

if its right wing it's not RS if it's left wing its RS עם ישראל חי (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Bob Woodward is a Republican, last I heard. This has nothing to do with party or politics. O3000 (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

References

With the completion of the Mueller Report (SCI), the tables have been turned, and this article should be updated accordingly. The NYT, WaPo, and Vox are given top billing in the article and used to call Trump's accusation "false" in the encyclopedia's voice, no less. That was already inappropriate, but now is clearly unsustainable. The conspiracy theory that has been proven false is that Trumps campaign colluded with Russia, a theory trumpeted by RS's like NYT, WaPo, and other favorites cited here. These sources have experienced significant journalistic disgrace for their blind anti-Trump promulgation of false conspiracy theories (again, Trump campaign-Russian collusion, now authoritatively declared to be false by DOJ). As such, these frankly POV conflicted, anti-Trump sources certainly do not deserve to be used to speak in WP's voice as they were here. Furthermore, the sources already cited by kgrr have not been refuted, and if anything the additional material coming out from Padadopoulos confirms that Trump's accusation, while a "conspiracy theory" in a literal sense, has nevertheless been shown to be correct. 2601:5C7:100:1515:58E2:9CD4:D1C1:B301 (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

You know that Trump's ridiculous "I'm being spied on by Obama" conspiracy theory has absolutely nothing to do with Mueller or Russian interference in U.S. elections, right? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

You appear to be denying that members of the Trump campaign were wiretapped, or otherwise surveilled via 21st century techniques, and further you seem unaware that the FBI's Papadopoulos and Carter Page entrapment attempts were used to bolster the FISA application(s) to continue surveillance of the Trump campaign, ostensibly to find evidence of Russian collusion. It's possible you are also ignorant of the circumstances of the SCI's creation, specifically Trump's resistance and implicit denial of Russian collusion with respect to Flynn to Comey, and his later firing of Comey - which Rod Rosenstein deemed sufficient to trigger an investigation into Trump campaign Russian collusion. So I'm not sure where you get your news, however you'd be well advised to widen your reading, because everything you just said is mistaken - unless you really squint sideways at it and use words with very different intended meaning than most people would. 2601:5C7:100:1515:58E2:9CD4:D1C1:B301 (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh I'm well aware that Papadopoulos says he was entrapped, but that doesn't mean he was entrapped. The Russia interference investigation began because he told an Australian MP about Russian dirt over drinks. That investigation grew into the Special Counsel investigation. Papadopoulos and Page were investigated properly. The only question I have about that is why Page wasn't charged with anything. Nice try. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say that Papadopoulos was entrapped, I said there were "entrapment attempts." As regards Russian collusion, it's my understanding from summaries of PapaD's experiences that he passed the test and with advice of campaign decision makers refused to engage with Russia. For those paying attention, that would be why Mueller reported that no Trump campaign members were found to have colluded with Russia. So what should Carter Page have been charged with? I'm very curious. From my reading on this, Carter Page got the most bum deal of any of the major players - his reputation was trashed simply by the leaked info that he was being surveilled. I never saw anything tangible that he was even accused of - it was just a Kafkaesque cloud of suspicion created by the anti-Trump guys at DOJ. Do you have a link to an RS on something credible there? 2601:5C7:100:1515:58E2:9CD4:D1C1:B301 (talk) 01:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: I am the IP account above 2601:5C7:100:1515:58E2:9CD4:D1C1:B301 (talk)... didn't notice I wasn't logged in. I'll plan to use this account if there is any continued discussion. Wookian (talk) 02:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Wookian, I don't know. I said I was curious about it. We have to wait and see what the evidence is and why it didn't result in charges. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The 132 articles deriving from Trump is a Russian agent are full of RS material from now known liars like Brennan and Schiff who maintained they had incontrovertible evidence proving collusion to obvious hyper partisans now being explicitly accused of treason like Strozk and Page. While I read not only maybe the single worst WP page ever put on the net(not shocked this is a who's who of never NPOV- being defended by your sources suck! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk) 11:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 20 February 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure). Xain36 {talk} 19:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

---

Spygate (conspiracy theory) → Spygate (Donald Trump conspiracy theory) – Reduce confusion with Spygate (NFL). When many people hear "Spygate," they think of the 2007 controversy involving the New England Patriots. (When you search online for "spygate", the NFL controversy comes up far more often then the Trump wiretapping claims.) That controversy involved various conspiracy theories, both that the Patriots coaches and front office conspired among themselves and also that they conspired with NFL commissioner Roger Goodell to destroy embarrassing videotapes. Therefore, we need a way to make clear which "Spygate" conspiracy theory this article is about. R2 (bleep) 22:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support Spygate (NFL) In ictu oculi (talk) 10:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose ¶ There is no mention of conspiracy theories at Spygate (NFL); further disambiguation seems unnecessary and disingenuously specific. — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  Here are examples of mainstream sources that refer to Spygate (NFL) as a conspiracy theory: [1][2][3]. As for your suggestion that my request is disingenuous, please try harder to assume good faith. For what it's worth I'd support a different, less specific parenthetical if it addressed my concern. R2 (bleep) 17:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  I can't speak to the reliability of those sources, but if the gaming incident is considered a conspiracy theory, its article should mention that with citations. That being said, if both topics are reliably cited as conspiracy theories, then the political one should be simpler in its parenthetical: Spygate (politics), perhaps.

  I said seems […] disingenuously specific; according to the article, the conspiracy isn't simply promoted by Donald Trump, and to label it "Donald Trump conspiracy theory" seems to affiliate it only with the US president and not the other proponents. I did not call your request disingenuous. — fourthords | =Λ= | 18:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  My thought process was that the conspiracy theory is about Trump, not that it is held by Trump, but I'm sympathetic to your concern. R2 (bleep) 19:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support move. NFL Spygate can reasonably be considered to contain a conspiracy theory. ONR (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: Perhaps the 2007 Formula One espionage controversy could also be considered a conspiracy theory, as it was a theory that several parties were conspiring. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support any move - if we have ambiguous parentheticals, we're really failing Red Slash 00:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. The proposed title implies the article is about a conspiracy involving Donald Trump, rather than one imagined by him. Perhaps the parenthetic should be, Donald Trump's conspiracy theory? --В²C ☎ 23:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page needs to be moved

I'm coming here from a 3RR report and only intrigued by the name. This current disambiguation is inappropriate as it could either read "A conspiracy theory propagated by Trump" or "a conspiracy theory about Trump" (the latter which is absolutely wrong against BLP). I understand the conflict with the NFL term to make "Spygate (conspiracy theory)" a potential conflict, but searching Google, there's far far less connection of the term "conspiracy theory" to the NFL incident compared to the Trump situation. News hits are also also double for Trump and Spygate than the NFL.

This page must be moved back to "Spygate (conspiracy theory)" to avoid the immediate BLP problem, as well as to meet the conciseness needed for disambiguation terms, and in case anyone that gets here thinking this is the NFL one, a hatnote is sufficient to point them to the right direction. --Masem (t) 01:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

*Support It needs to be moved to Spygate investigation because the term is in mainstream use to encompass the failed coup d'etat against Trump rather than just Trump's claims. See Dan Bongino's book Spygate: The Attempted Sabotage of Donald J. Trump. There is also an excellent infographic that is referenced in various media.Phmoreno (talk) 02:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Phmoreno, lol, "failed coup". 17:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Moreno, please quit citing unreliable sources like Bongino and The Epoch Times. You have been instructed on this many times. Your refusal to learn our RS policy is damning. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

*Support It needs to be moved to Spygate. Enough of the two year WP campaign pushing the Trump is a Russian agent POV. The President accused former FBI lawyer Lisa Page and former FBI agent Peter Strzok and "hundreds of others" of treason and implied they could be punished for it.

PingMe, Have you read Spygate: The True Story of Collusion]? I have. It has 24 PAGES of end notes pp 235-259. It's documented with literally hundreds of mainstream articles. Unreliable? Says who??? I'm really getting tired of your slanted opinion calling this book "unreliable". I'm giving you three days to get over your non-neutral POV. kgrr ^talk 01:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/27/politics/trump-mueller-attempted-takeover-government/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk) 06:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

There are numerous sources, including the Washington Post, regarding declassification of the FISA warrants covered by Spygate, plus discussion of the FBI spies interacting with the Trump campaign.Phmoreno (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Masem: It's pretty clear that we can't take those two "support" comments above seriously, and why. This is "a conspiracy theory propagated by Trump", but of course it's also about him because everything he says and does is about him. I don't see how it's a BLP violation though. He's the one who put this out there. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'm not considering those !votes. But as I said, one possible interpretation of the disambiguation phrase is "a conspiracy theory directly about Trump", rather than a BLP that involves events that include Trump but are not directly about him, or a conspiracy theory created by him. Add that the phrase can be naturally condensed down to "conspiracy theory" without disrupting any other pages, and the easy means to implement the clarification with the NFL event, and that basically would make it clear that the page should be moved back. There is strong BLP and article titling policy reasons to move the page, with very little reason to retain at this point. --Masem (t) 22:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Gotcha. Not really sure what the best title for this should be, but I'm open to reasonable NPOV possibilities. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Spygate originated with Louise Mensch and the NY Times in November of 2016

In a Times op-ed posted online Friday, Louise Mensch, a writer and former member of the UK Parliament, gives her suggestion for what questions the House Intelligence Committee should ask as it holds hearings on Russia’s influence in the US election. Mensch offers Times readers reason to trust her expertise: “In November, I broke the story that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court had issued a warrant that enabled the F.B.I. to examine communications between ‘U.S. persons’ in the Trump campaign relating to Russia-linked banks," she writes.

“In November, I broke the story that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court had issued a warrant that enabled the F.B.I. to examine communications between ‘U.S. persons’ in the Trump campaign relating to Russia-linked banks," she writes.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/17/opinion/what-to-ask-about-russian-hacking.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk • contribs) 10:51, March 28, 2019‎ (UTC)

Protected edit request on 29 March 2019

Spygate is not false, nor a conspiracy theory. Please follow reporting by John Solomon, Andrew McCarthey, Dan Bongino, Sara Carter, and more. This is a developing story that we cannot definitively say is false or a conspiracy theory. Each and everyday, new discoveries are being made that suggest that it is in fact true and shaping up to be the largest political scandal in U.S. History. 2600:1702:1940:9210:343C:E68A:5474:95C6 (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Yes, it's false. It's a conspiracy theory. We won't be following the reporting of conspiracy theorists and other partisan writers. You provide no sources that suggest this isn't false. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

NPOV

Now that the Mueller probe has found that there was no Trump-Russia collusion, this is quickly turning into conspiracy FACT. Can we finally have NPOV in this article? Here is a well-documented BOOK on the subject. Spygate: The Attempted Sabotage of Donald J. Trump by Dan Bongino , D.C. McAllister, et al. Oct 9, 2018 ISBN 978-1-64293-099-3 If you don't let me post it now, I will open an NPOV case on this article kgrr ^talk

Welcome back from six months of not editing this talk page. Dan Bongino is a conspiracy theorist, and nothing about the Mueller probe has changed anything about this conspiracy theory. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

It is YOUR Non-POV opinion that Dan Bongino is a conspiracy theorist. I have watched the page but have waited until the hoax was finally exposed. The Mueller probe in fact has shown there was no Trump-Russia conspiracy. kgrr ^talk 01:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

No hoaxes have been "exposed". A lot of you laid dormant until the last few days; nothing has changed. Nothing suggests that this conspiracy theory where Trump claimed that Obama was wiretapping him is true. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)|

This is YOUR opinion. In the first section of Barr's letter, Barr explained that the special counsel "did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its effort to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. There was no Trump-Russia collusion. It's a hoax. kgrr ^talk 01:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Kgrr, I know that that's what Barr's letter says. None of us know what Mueller's report says, aside from that one conclusion. And even then, that has nothing to do with this page! – Muboshgu (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

And you choose to completely ignore that oPaul Manafort was wiretapped. Cater Page was wiretapped. Donald Trump Jr. was wiretapped. Jared Kushner was wiretapped. Gen. Michael Flynn was wiretapped. What do you think the FISA warrants were all about? You of course won't let me cite references to this due to your lack of NPOV. Stefan Halper was used to collect HUMINT on the Trump Campaign. kgrr ^talk 02:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Kgrr, present WP:NPOV / WP:RS references here. By all means, point out what in the article is incorrect. Tell me how they were inappropriately wiretapped. Dan Bongino is not a reliable source. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

How is Dan Bongino's book an unreliable source? It has close to 600 mainstream references. This is your lack of NPOV. kgrr ^talk 02:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Daniel John Bongino (born December 4, 1974) is an American conservative commentator, radio show host, author, politician, and former Secret Service agent. He's not a journalist, a historian or a recognized expert on anything. He has stated, My entire life right now is about owning the libs. That's it. His book is a reliable source only for his own opinion. The opinion of an unabashed Trump apologist is not particularly useful here except to explain the POV of Trump apologists. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes. He's a news analyst. He is not a first-hand reporter, but he's gathered the facts. Given the circumstances, there is no true journalism surrounding this case. kgrr ^talk 02:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

No, he's not a "news analyst," he's a Trump apologist. You wouldn't want me citing Seth Abramson's book, Proof of Collusion, as fact here, would you? No, I suspect you'd object to that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Again, your labeling him as a Trump apologist reveals that you lack NPOV. I have not read Seth Abramson's book. Does it cite sources for the claims it makes? kgrr ^talk 02:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Carter Page was wiretapped using false pretenses. Page was part of the Trump campaign. He was never indicted for collusion. That is what I was waiting for. I can go through each one of the cases. The Trump campaign was wiretapped and the Woods Procedure was not followed. kgrr ^talk 02:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

You've presented a fair and neutral news article which discusses the fact that the FBI obtained legitimate, legal warrants under the Constitution and the law of the United States to investigate suspected criminal activity. There is nothing in that source which supports your wild claim of "false pretenses." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

You are, of course, correct that a number of people were apparently wiretapped. Please present evidence that they were inappropriately wiretapped? Two of the people you listed there were convicted of federal crimes based, in part, on those wiretaps — surely you're not suggesting that getting a warrant to wiretap criminals is evidence of a "conspiracy"? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Manafort was convicted for tax fraud. Papadopoulos was convicted for lying to the FBI about a technicality. No one was convicted for conspiracy or collusion. The US does not investigate people. It investigates a crime. If the initial crime did not happen (collusion or conspiracy to rig the 2016 election with Russia), then the FISA warrants were requested on false pretenses. Considering that the "evidence" was the Steele Dossier, bought and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and that exculpatory evidence was not disclosed to the FISA judges. This means the FISA warrants were fraudulently obtained. kgrr ^talk 02:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Kgrr, you're making a lot of conclusions with very little evidence. Surely there's more in the 300-1,000 pages of the Mueller Report that you don't know. (And btw the Steele dossier was started with funding by conservatives, and had nothing to do with the start of the Russia investigation; it started when Papadopoulos drunkenly told an Australian PM about the Russian dirt he had access to.) – Muboshgu (talk) 02:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the basis of the FISA warrants are reliably reported to be under investigation for suspected fraud.Phmoreno (talk) 02:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Is this being presented fairly in this article? NO. There you are let's get some NPOV balance in this article. kgrr ^talk 02:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes claimed Monday that the FBI and Justice Department failed to include exculpatory evidence in surveillance warrant applications against former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. "There is exculpatory evidence that we have seen, of classified documents that need to be declassified,” Nunes said in an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity. If they failed to include exculpatory evidence, it's a fraudulent FISA application. kgrr ^talk 02:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)