Talk:Spygate (conspiracy theory)

Requested move 12 April 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.

Extended. Please see Requested move 2 May 2019 below. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  04:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

---

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump) → Spygate (2016 United States presidential election) – To make the artilce title neutral as per the reasoning in the above RFC. Rusf10 (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC) --Relisted. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  16:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC) --Relisted. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  22:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion about reopening vs. closing and restarting

Paine Ellsworth, considering the level of WP:MEATPUPPETRY suspected in the below, not to mention the general mess of a nearly four week old request, wouldn't it be better to keep this discussion closed as "no consensus" so that we can open a fresh move discussion? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC) I completely agree and I am tempted to do it myself. I have not participated in this discussion and only recently discovered it, but it is a complete trainwreck. There appear to be several different proposed names and the actual proposal has been changed at least once. Even the suggested name in the hatnote at the top of the article has been changed from what it was a few days ago - so that it is impossible to figure out, when someone says "support" or "oppose", what they are !voting for. There is a lot of discussion here, and I would hate to just archive it all by closing it as no consensus, but on the other hand the discussion is impossible to follow. Strauss's closure made a lot of sense but apparently it got reverted. What would people think about simply withdrawing the RM heading from this discussion - no closure, no conclusion, just remove it - and opening a new RM? One that lists all the various alternative titles that have been proposed, so that people can express their opinions in an understandable way? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC) That seems like a large waste of everyone's time that commented below. The closure was not my first choice but I think it was the logical one. Why not just reinstate the close that did happen and if it is a big enough issue open a new one? I am not actually seeing an issue with the close that did happen. PackMecEng (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC) I agree. Strauss's close was the correct one, particularly as it did not close the door to future discussion but summarized the consensus achieved so far (i.e. there is no consensus for "by Donald Trump" in the title). I would recommend reinstating that and then considering a new proposal if necessary. – bradv🍁 19:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC) To editor Muboshgu: agree that this RM is controversial, and yet see no reason to bypass the RM process in any way. I have relisted this discussion and reopened Rusf10's request for an admin to close it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump)#Requested move 12 April 2019. While relisted, this RM can be closed by an uninvolved admin at any time. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  19:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC) Paine, I have not been involved in this discussion, but I don't understand why the close by Strauss was overturned. It seemed like a reasonable, even brilliant, analysis of the discussion here - consensus to remove "by Donald Trump," with an option to continue the discussion about possible alternate titles. Relisting this trainwreck of a discussion - in which the suggested title was actually changed part-way through, so there is no way to tell what version people are "supporting" and what they are "opposing" - is never going to accomplish anything. I would like to see this discussion make a clean start, with various alternate titles (I counted six) listed at the beginning so people can make their choice clear. Please reconsider your relist and let Strauss's closure stand. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC) MelanieN, Strauss was asked to reconsider his close at User talk:StraussInTheHouse#Spygate. The editor who requested that then opened this section below, proposing the exact same solution. I'm as confused as you are. – bradv🍁 22:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC) Yes, I see that Strauss overturned his closure after that request on his talk page from ONE user, namely R2. There are several of us here who think that was a mistake and the closure should stand, but whatever. What I think I will do is to start things over, with a new section under this same RM heading, and see if we can make some sense out of this. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC) Up until Strauss closed this RM with this edit, the proposed title was as it is now. After reopening, the proposed title was changed to the title to which it was moved, and then I changed it back to the original proposal shortly after that. Since this article is fully move-protected, it will take an admin to move it, so an admin should close it. We can only hope that your new section will help the closer sort things out. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  23:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Previous closure, reverted per request on talk page.

The result of the move request was: There appears to be consensus to remove the "by Donald Trump" part of the disambiguator. There is, however, no consensus over whether "conspiracy theory" should be removed, so there is no prejudice against speedy renomination for further discussion as to whether "conspiracy theory" should be removed, and whether it ought to be replaced with the proposed target, or Netoholic's proposal of FBI surveillance of Donald Trump campaign. I also remind any users who are perhaps here because of this that this process is not a vote and the strength of arguments is taken into account. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• No It's a conspiracy theory. That's neutral. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:RM#Commenting in a requested move Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  16:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Support- as proposer.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support At the very least, "by Donald Trump" needs to be removed. We do not include the author of a conspiracy theory or other idea in its title (No "Evolution (theory by Charles Darwin)"). Wingedsubmariner (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• No. We base our content on RS, not on the latest headlines, developing stories, or unreliable, fringe sources which push this conspiracy theory. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• No — Trump coined the term, he owns it. Darwin did not coin or even use the term “evolution” soibangla (talk) 03:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  Darwin is credited with the idea. If you need a better example though, it is not "Relativity (theory by Albert Einstein)". Wingedsubmariner (talk) 03:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  He is credited with formalizing it with the scientific method, but evolutionary theories predated him. Einstein used math to formulate his theory. Trump just blurted out yet another of his countless baseless notions he makes up from nothing. He owns it. soibangla (talk) 03:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support Conspiracy Theory (conspiracy theory) seems to be a sufficient format for all other claims of this type and calibre. I do not see why this article continues to enjoy such a special treatment. "Spygate (conspiracy theory)" is both neutral and accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 03:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  This is an account with very few edits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  This is an account with too much free time on his hands. I have more enjoyable hobbies than arguing on the internet, as you may have guessed. Considering as you just acquired 5+ edits to your edit count by spamming this message, maybe now you can let it go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 19:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• No - the RFC has barely started, how can this move be based on that RFC? Furthermore, how many comments here advocating for change actually bring up reliable sources to support their stance? starship.paint ~ KO 04:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support Something that is currently being investigated by both the Department of Justice (per AG Barr's comments) and by the Office of the Inspector General should not be titled a conspiracy theory. It is frankly ridiculous that this outrageous example of political bias has been allowed to stand for so long. Periander6 (talk) 05:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Again, this is an opinion piece, only reliable for the author’s opinion and not for statements of facts starship.paint ~ KO 10:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support AG Barr IS investigating spying of Trump by previous Obama/Whitehouse - correct this bullcrap. Wikipedia is and has become the world's largest purveyor of fake history thanks to pre$$ure applied by global corporations, politicians and elites. moefuzz (talk) 06:21, April 12 2019 (UTC)

  This is an account with very few edits, especially recently.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support Is it because you disagree with someone that you accuse members out of the blue? Seems like an attack on a long term member, nothing more nothing less moefuzz (talk) 05:05, April 13, 2019 (UTC)
  • Duplicate !vote struck. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support With recent development I can not understand how this can be considered just a "conspiracy theory" anymore, more an unproven allegation SJCAmerican (talk) 06:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - You should let the RfC run its course before trying to backdoor it via a page move. This is still a conspiracy theory, like many other Trump ones. --Gonnym (talk) 07:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support The title currently violates neutrality given available sources. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Massive back-and-forth argument. Please use the extended "Discussion" subsection for this sort of thing, or you make the entire RM difficult for everyone else to follow.

By listing no sources, your argument is devoid of substance. starship.paint ~ KO 11:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC) Consider this source [1]. It confirms that four campaign staffers--Manafort, Flynn, Papadopolous, and Page--were surveilled by the FBI starting in 2016, and that Page and Clovis were directly contacted by FBI informant Stephen Halper "over the course of the campaign". The piece goes on to say "Whether these acts constitute “spying” is the less interesting part of the question...The important part is that he and Barr claim it was targeted “on a campaign."" I'd like to see the article reflect this more even-handed approach. The FBI surveilled and sent informants to several members of the Trump campaign starting in 2016, and they at least partly depended on the Steele dossier--an unproven list of outlandish claims that was funded by political opposition to Trump--to get authorization for some of this surveillance. I can understand there being some disagreement about whether this constitutes spying. But let's not pretend that there is no reasonable controversy here. Relatedly, it's nuts that the article currently doesn't mention the Steele dossier. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC) @Shinealittlelight: - the key problem is that the article you provided, while reliable, doesn’t mention Spygate. starship.paint ~ KO 13:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC) "Spygate" is currently characterized in the wikipedia article as an attempt to "plant a spy" in the Trump campaign. I provide a WaPo article according to which four campaign staffers, including the chairman of the campaign, were under FBI surveillance, and it says that a spy was sent to two people in the campaign. And now you say that this information is not a relevant source because the source doesn't use the term 'spygate'. I'm not sure what to say to that. How about: in light of the facts in the piece I cited, I think it is a violation of neutrality to describe the view that the FBI was spying on the campaign as a conspiracy theory in the title of the wikipedia article. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC) @Shinealittlelight: - the May allegation was that a spy was implanted into the Trump campaign. That means the spy literally joined the Trump campaign. Talking to campaign members does not mean joining. By that logic, a whole bunch of journalists also joined the Trump campaign. starship.paint ~ KO 14:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC) The May allegation was that Halper had been paid to spy on the Trump campaign. By your logic, Trump did not realize that Halper was not a member of his campaign, which is not plausible and is not supported by any RS. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC) So you admit that Trump claimed something which he didn't know and didn't happen. Yes, that's a false claim made by Trump. This article is correct. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC) @Shinealittlelight: No, the RS is clear. NYT, WaPo, Vox at least. Halper was never part of Trump’s campaign. That’s why what Trump said is a conspiracy theory. Of course it’s possible for Trump to not know who is in his campaign. Trump is the same guy who called Steve Bannon a staffer (Bannon was the chief White House strategist and campaign CEO), who called George Papa a mere volunteer (George was a foreign policy adviser who was in meetings with Trump) and who called Michael Cohen a “PR person” and a “rat” after calling him a “great lawyer” and a “wonderful” person. Of course Trump can be wrong or a bullshitter. starship.paint ~ KO 15:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC) @Bullrangifer, far be it from me to deny that Trump has made some false claim. But I don't see what that has to do with the issue at hand, which is whether the current title of the wikipedia article violates neutrality. I have argued that the title does violate neutrality. My argument is that RSs report that the FBI surveilled several members of the campaign and sent a spy to several of them, and the title of the article should not (per neutrality) characterize everyone who regards this as "spying on the Trump campaign" as a conspiracy theorist. That argument does not require me to endorse the truth of everything Trump has said on the topic of spying. @Starship, so you're saying that because Halper was not officially part of the campaign, but only offering to help out the campaign with info, the whole theory that the FBI was spying on the Trump campaign is neutrally described as a conspiracy theory. What can I say--this view goes well beyond any RS, and isn't plausible at all. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC) Spygate was the Trump claim that Trump Tower was wiretapped. Your source specifically states that this was a false claim. The FISA stuff is covered in other WP articles. O3000 (talk) 12:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC) The fact that it is covered elsewhere is completely irrelevant. The issue at hand is that the article about Spygate does not define Spygate accurately. The fact that certain aspects of Spygate are discussed in other Wikipedia articles doesn't somehow change the definition of Spygate, which this reputable source defined as follows: "allegations that the FBI had spied on his 20116 campaign team." You are completely wrong about the definition of "Spygate," you have been proven wrong already in this talk page, and nevertheless continue to double down to the point of absurdity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SIPPINONTECH (talk • contribs) 14:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC) @Objective3000: - I believe you are mistaken. [2] WaPo says that Spygate is new and that the wiretapping allegations predated Spygate. I would ask that you strike your comment. starship.paint ~ KO 13:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC) However it's framed, WaPo does not claim there was any conspiracy of any kind against the Trump campaign. O3000 (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC) @Objective3000: - I didn’t say that. I was referring to this quote of yours: Spygate was the Trump claim that Trump Tower was wiretapped. this is inaccurate in light of the WaPo source. That is what I am requesting you strike. starship.paint ~ KO 13:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC) No one in any reliable source uses 'spygate' for the narrow claim that Trump Tower was wiretapped. Indeed, the wikipedia article currently characterizes spygate as the claim that there was a conspiracy to spy on the campaign. If you want to use 'spygate' for the more narrow claim, you're going to need a source, and the article is going to need to be almost completely rewritten. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC) No reliable source states there was a conspiracy to spy on Trump campaign either. No reliable source says there was any conspiracy against Trump of any kind. O3000 (talk) 12:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC) Objective3000, the article says Spygate was a false conspiracy theory that the Obama administration tried to plant a spy inside Trump's campaign. It does not say (your words) the Trump claim that Trump Tower was wiretapped. According to the article it had nothing to do with the Trump Tower wiretapping, and indeed this isn't mentioned. Can't you understand now why some of us think the article is wrong or misleading? Mr Ernie (talk) 12:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC) That would also be a false conspiracy theory. O3000 (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC) I just provided a WaPo piece above that said four Trump campaign staffers were surveilled and two met with an FBI informant (i.e., a spy). I didn't say that it was a conspiracy, and I didn't say that the WaPo said it was. The point is that reasonable people can disagree about whether this constitutes spying on the campaign. As a result, the title of the article should not take a side. Also, the RSs consistently say that the theory is unsupported, not false. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC) The article in no way supports the concept that there was any conspiracy of any kind against the Trump campaign. Indeed, it concluded that Trump's use of the word "spy" was political in nature. (Which is to say he was pushing a conspiracy theory.) O3000 (talk) 12:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC) Again, I never claimed that the piece supported the idea that there was a conspiracy. The issue is whether a reasonable person could regard surveilling four campaign staffers and sending a spy to two of them as "spying on the campaign". I think it's obvious that a reasonable person could think this. The title of the article should reflect this rather than taking a side. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC) We use reliable secondary sources, not our own opinions about what may have happened, how some have characterized possible events, what actual evidence may exist, and what "reasonable people" might think. This is going nowhere. I'll go edit something else for a time.O3000 (talk) 13:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC) Agreed, as I've indicated, reliable secondary sources state that the FBI surveilled four campaign staffers, including the chairman of the campaign, and sent a spy to talk to two people in the campaign. The current title suggests that it is a conspiracy theory that the campaign was spied on. This is manifestly biased in light of the information about what the FBI did in the reliable sources. We don't write titles of articles to reflect our political opinions, but try to summarize what the reliable sources indicate in a neutral way. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC) You keep repeating the same thing. The parts of what you are saying that are documented by reliable secondary sources are included in the appropriate articles on Russian interference in the 2016 election. But, no RS has stated that this was a conspiracy against the Trump campaign. That is a false conspiracy theory. I realize that there are people that believe in conspiracy theories. That's their problem. This is an encyclopedia. O3000 (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC) Please stop repeating the thing we agree about as if we don't agree. We agree that the RSs do not directly say that there was a conspiracy. What the RSs say is that four campaign members were surveilled and a spy was sent to two of them. These are facts and not a conspiracy theory. And these facts reveal the current title of the piece as biased. I don't expect that you will agree with me at this point, but please stop mischaracterizing my point. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC) -gate means scandal. There was no scandal. That's a false conspiracy theory. The stuff you keep pointing out is in the applicable articles. O3000 (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC) Er, I agree that -gate means scandal. Whether Spygate is a scandal is not under discussion. What is in other articles is not under discussion. The question is whether it is a violation of neutrality to call spygate a conspiricy theory in the title. I have argued that it is a violation of neutrality based on the RSs, and specifically based on the WaPo piece I linked. Again, you won't agree, but please stop mischaracterizing my point. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC) When your key campaign officials talk with people known to be linked to hostile foreign intelligence services, it's not a "conspiracy" or a "scandal" or "deep state treason" when the FBI investigates what's going on. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC) Whether Spygate is a scandal, treason, or a conspiracy is not under discussion here. I agree with you that RSs don't characterize it that way. But RSs show that the FBI surveilled several members of the campaign and sent a spy to talk to several of them as well. And it isn't neutral to characterize people who think that the FBI was thereby spying on the campaign as believers in a false conspiracy theory. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - for the same reasons given in the above RfC. Why do we have two related RfCs at once? The Earth is not flat and Spygate is a conspiracy theory according to reliable secondary sources. O3000 (talk) 11:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Collapse-boxing another long-winded squabble.

The fact that users are comparing this to Flat Earth theories is very telling. No NPOV whatsoever in this article. Revision badly needed. Flat Earth theory, and TDS, and the fact that this article "Triggers Trump Supporters" as was said above, betray an overtly political intent with regard to editing the article in my opinion. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC) Another SPA account with very few edits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC) "Please remember that a comment should not be dismissed merely because it comes from a new account; in itself, this is an argument to the person, considered to be rather weak." I invite you to assume good faith.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 20:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC) Gee, how did an account with just a few edits find an obscure Wikipedia policy so fast?Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC) Is it really so obscure, or is my sarcasm plugin not working? This site has helped me with my research since I have been old enough to do research. I used the search bar. How does an account with so many edits not know how to apply the guidelines of the policies he invokes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 19:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support There is ample and growing evidence that this is not a "conspiracy theory," nor do I think it's fair to say that it's "by Donald Trump" as the underlying accusations have been made and repeated by many people, including the Attorney General of the United States. Part of the issue seems to stem from a misunderstanding by the authors of what "Spygate" is referring to. "Spygate" refers to allegations that the FBI and possibly other Federal agencies were conducting a far-reaching intelligence gathering operation against Trump and Trump's Campaign/Transition team. See the section above, in which several contemporary, reliable sources were provided that define "Spygate" in this way. In point of fact - objectively - there is ample public evidence that spying did occur against members of the Trump Campaign. The FISA warrant against Carter Page has been public knowledge for quite some time, and Susan Rice testified before Congress that she personally read intelligence reports on Trump Campaign/Transition Team members in which she unredacted the names and other personal identifying information of Trump Campaign/Transition members. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 12:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Yeah, no. Article title reflects what reliable sources say. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - As with the other RfC, my !vote here is less about passion for the current way things are worded, but an alternative presented that's much worse. In this case, the full phrase "conspiracy theory by Donald Trump" could be reworded/changed in some way, but not to something as unclear as what's proposed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support especially now that the focus is on whether the spying was legal or not rather than if it really happened. -- That Guy, From That Show! 14:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Counterintelligence happened. No spies were inserted into the campaign. That's what Trump claimed. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support - This article accurately reflects anti Trump fervor of left leaning media from back before the Mueller Report was completed and reported on[3], however is woefully out of date now. It is an embarrassment to Wikipedia, and looks like it could have been written by Adam Schiff. This article needs updating to reflect the truth that any reasonable definition of "spy" or "spying" is perfectly accurate to describe what the FBI and/or US intelligence agencies did to Trump and the Trump campaign[4]. It needs to prominently highlight Barr's admissions[5][6] and his investigation. Wookian (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

And another threaded discussion ...

@Wookian: - #1 is an opinion, #2 is not opinion, but RealClearInvestigations or RealClearPolitics have yet to be established as reliable at WP:RSN or WP:RSP, suggest you get consensus on the reliability on WP:RSN then we can discuss incorporation of this source. #3 does not mention Spygate. #4 is opinion as well. starship.paint ~ KO 14:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC) Wookian, you cited a Fox News opinion piece. And what is "realclearinvestigations.com"? Is that related to "realclearpolitics", another right-wing site? Also, no spies were inserted into the campaign, as Trump has claimed. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC) When did realclearpolitics become a right-wing site? Last I checked they have opinion pieces from both sides of the aisle.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC) Rusf10, when it was founded? It has a right-center bias. It does post opinion pieces by both sides though, you're right about that. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC) What proof do you have that mediabiasfactcheck.com is a reliable source?--Rusf10 (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC) If somebody was murdered by a pickaxe and Trump made the accusation that they were murdered by a garden hoe, it would be absurd for Wikipedia to frame the whole issue as a false conspiracy theory on Trump's part. It doesn't make a big difference whether Trump phrased things perfectly accurately (he often fails to phrase things accurately, per many of our reliable sources). What is significant and carries encyclopedic weight (per AG Barr) is whether this rather unusual spying on political opponents was adequately predicated. Why is it bad for a site to be "right leaning"? The NYT and WaPo are left leaning. What's important is whether we can credibly source facts from a particular source. Wookian (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support Also need to get rid of all of the fake news propaganda and tell what actually happened.Phmoreno (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

And another ...

You're still calling RS "fake news"? That should earn you a topic ban for working against our RS policy. That repeated claim is evidence you are NOTHERE to follow our policies, but to push your fringe beliefs based on unreliable sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC) Perhaps by "fake news" he or she is referring to the idea that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 election. That is a conspiracy theory that has been advanced by a moderator on this very talk page recently, even though any source worth its salt would describe it as "fake news" if advanced today, and some sources credibly point out that it was fake news as pushed for the last two years by disgraced left leaning TDS afflicted news outlets. In light of this, I suggest you back off and recognize that being here to build an encyclopedia can sometimes (shocker!) involve recognizing that top tier, marquis reliable sources sometimes get things painfully wrong. That doesn't discredit everything they say, rather it's a messy world out there and we have to pay attention to how we source things and never do so in blind faith. Wookian (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC) "some sources credibly point out that it was fake news as pushed for the last two years by disgraced left leaning TDS afflicted news outlets" I am still waiting for a conservative source to publish a list of "all the things MSM got wrong." Can you cite any? If not, maybe you and others should stop asserting it. soibangla (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support move. The Attorney General of the United States, who is a subject matter expert on this topic, just clearly said, in Congressional testimony, that spying was done on the Trump campaign. Therefore, by definition, this can no longer be considered a conspiracy theory. It has been confirmed by one of the highest officials in the US government. AppliedCharisma (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

And another ...

This is another account with very few edits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC) That's flatly untrue. Barr, under questioning, hemmed and hawed and then said he thought there was spying. He then backed off that answer repeatedly and said he had no evidence of wrongdoing. O3000 (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC) NorthBySouthBaranoff, who appears to be a regular editor of this article, below just stated that there WAS surveillance on the Trump campaign. So, it doesn't seem to be a matter of debate that there was spying. The only question is if it was legal and/or ethical. That's not a conspiracy theory. AppliedCharisma (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC) No, that's incorrect. I said there was surveillance of people associated with the Trump campaign. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC) Read the AP article (my bold), "The president’s comments came a day after Barr testified at a congressional hearing that he believes “spying did occur” on the campaign, suggesting the origins of the Russia investigation that shadowed Trump’s presidency for nearly two years may have been mishandled." We say what RS have published. Atsme Talk 📧 17:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support move. WP is an encyclopedia and what we have as a title now is more like a news headline. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:RS and WP:V require that a source be independent of the subject; since Barr is not, we cannot treat his personal opinions as facts. We can only treat them as factual if they are reported as fact in secondary sources, which clearly isn't the case yet; absent that, we have to go by what independent sources say, which is that this is a conspiracy theory. Edit: I'd also support "Spygate (Conspiracy theory)" or comparable formulations as long as they mention that it's a conspiracy theory. --Aquillion (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support As per proposal description and Attorney General William Barr's statements on the matter. Aviartm (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

And another ...

Aviartm, you mean how he made an unreliable statement without producing any evidence, and then walked it back later in the hearing? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC) No one should be assuming what contents and contexts Barr was implying. He's knows more than we do and we should go off his recommendations and actions. And I do not recall any backtracking done by Barr. Irregardless, my vote does not wither. Aviartm (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support. The parenthetical disambiguation should not be used in a biased way as it is here. Its sole purpose is disambiguation from other articles of the same name, and should be neutral as to the subject matter. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Atsme & Rreagan007; couldn't have said it better myself. Ideally, the parenthetical term would be universally agreed on. Looking at Spygate (permalink), we don't have to be that specific at all, since the other contenders are in the domain of (American) football and Formula One, so I'd even be fine with a shorter title. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Current title is unbalanced, unencyclopedic, and far too wordy. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 01:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The title you support is no less wordy, and is even longer: (2016 United States presidential election) at 42 characters and 5 words, while the original (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump) is 35 characters and 5 words. starship.paint ~ KO 07:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
• No because of the proposed alternative title. Movig it to simply Spygate (conspiracy theory) would be fine though. However, given that there has been a coordinated off-Wiki effort to brigade and bias the results of this RM [7], this particular RM should be closed and a new one should be opened with a proper alternative title and a semi-protected talk page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support - This title is very biased and inaccurate. We know the spy's name. His name is Stefan Halper. He was sent in by the Obama administration to gather intel from the Trump campaign (no collusion with Russia, per Mueller) but not the Hillary campaign (helped purchase dossier of fake Trump dirt from the Kremlin). It's pretty rich for people to use the No Evidence! excuse after shrieking that the president is a Russian agent for over two years. And no, I wasn't sent by reddit. That's a conspiracy theory. Galathadael (talk) 01:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

And another ...

Another SPA account with very few edits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC) Galathadael is probably a good example of someone who hasn’t read the entire article, or, to be more precise, someone who hasn’t even read until the second sentence of the lede. Trump’s allegation was that there was a spy IMPLANTED into his campaign for POLITICAL PURPOSES. As reliable sources (and this article’s lede and body) report, Halper, the FBI informant, did not join Trump’s campaign, so he could not be IMPLANTED in it. So Trump’s allegation is a conspiracy theory. starship.paint ~ KO 11:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support alternative Spygate (political conspiracy theory). This doesn't mention Trump by name and doesn't hide the fact that it's a conspiracy theory. I believe this is more neutral than either name, and I hope it is a suitable compromise. – bradv🍁 03:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with such a construction, and it's frankly shorter and more elegant anyway. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • That's my preferred title as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I prefer that as well. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • This is better than what is originally proposed. Masem, you were in favour of shortening the title, so I’m alerting you. starship.paint ~ KO 11:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I still think it can be shortened to "(conspiracy theory)" but this works as well and avoids any potential BLP from the name only. --Masem (t) 14:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I support this alternative, especially since others are promoting Spygate now as well. Proposer's version is not NPOV as there's broad consensus among RS it's a conspiracy theory. It also conflates the focus of the article, Trump's unfounded accusations that the FBI was illegitimately monitoring him in early 2016, with the well-known legitimate investigation they were doing on Russian interference in late 2016. I think it's best to keep the "political" part in because the conspiracy isn't about whether the FBI found evidence of criminal activity in the Trump campaign in late 2016 at all, it's about when the investigation started and if it was political. Safrolic (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support. The proposed name is clearly more neutral. As I said below, the way this article is written comes across as politically motivated. This is a part of a broader problem with political editing over the last three years or so in the American Politics subject area. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:00, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support any move in principle as the presence of "conspiracy theory" violates WP:NPOV and is extraneous (a title can be constructed without it easily). Having "conspiracy theory" in titles always limits our available coverage of a topic, because it restricts us to the conspiracy rather than a full treatment. I would also prefer any title which doesn't use "Spygate"+disambiguator and would instead suggest FBI surveillance of Donald Trump campaign. -- Netoholic @ 07:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as suggested. Moving to Spygate (conspiracy theory) would be OK. It is important to clarify in the title what it is about. Otherwise, this might not be obvious for someone unfamiliar with the subject. Clarifying an undisputable majority view here is actually required by WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  That clarification can and should be done in the text of the article, not in a disambiguation phrase. There seem to be aspects of this story emerging that expand the scope beyond the conspiracy theory (Barr's recent testimony, for example), and this title artificially limits our ability to cover it. We must use a title which properly scopes this topic. -- Netoholic @ 21:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support per Atsme. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• SUPPORT move - so long as the body continues to have mention of Trump and negative views, that would be a better title by WP:TITLE - more precise to a specific event (vs there are a number of Trump conspiracy theories... both ways), and as more neutral WP:NDESC. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PRECISE. Adding "by Donald Trump" is unnecessary disambiguation, and ÷"Spygate (conspiracy theory)" is precise enough to identify the same topic. ~Awilley (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC) When I first voted for some reason I thought that the proposed target was Spygate (conspiracy theory). Since that is apparently not the case, and since my initial !vote was mostly a demonstration to make a point elsewhere, I'm just striking it altogether. ~Awilley (talk) 00:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose moved as suggested, although Spygate (conspiracy theory) would be fine. The key reason is that the sources clearly reflect that this is a conspiracy theory, and our title should reflect that. The closing administrator should entirely disregard the army of SPAs and "new" editors that have popped out of the woodwork to offer their policy-free votes. Neutrality^talk 16:39, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support - With second choice being Spygate (conspiracy theory). The current title fails NPOV and is not structured in a way that is consistent with other pages. PackMecEng (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support for neutrality and conciseness. — JFG ^talk 18:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • On conciseness, the title you support is even longer: (2016 United States presidential election) at 42 characters and 5 words, while the original (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump) is 35 characters and 5 words. starship.paint ~ KO 07:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I meant conciseness of subject matter, not word count. The current title uses two disambiguators: "conspiracy theory" and "by Donald Trump"; the proposed title uses only one: "2016 United States presidential election". — JFG ^talk 07:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - However, I'm fine with "Spygate conspiracy theory". That's more concise, and doesn't suggest that it's a scandal, like Watergate, the first of the -gates. O3000 (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

A matter that is resolved.
@Objective3000: You already voted above.[8] PackMecEng (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC) Hah. Damn thing's so long I couldn't find my !vote. Thanks. O3000 (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC) Yeah it is kind of a mess! PackMecEng (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC) I almost did the same thing. "The vote is rigged!" soibangla (talk) 22:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: the name proposed in the RfC is much worse than the original. However, I'm supportive of shorter names such as Spygate (political conspiracy theory) or Spygate (conspiracy theory). --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support – The newer, proposed title is more neutral than the current title, not to mention being a more accurate description of the subject it pertains to. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 04:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose proposed title, support "Spygate (conspiracy theory) Per Muboshgu I oppose the proposal that we replace the parenthetical description with the title of the election, and per WP:CONCISE I'd be willing to just shorten it. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 06:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose proposed title - would be fine with alternative suggestion dropping the 'by Donald Trump' so just Spygate (conspiracy theory), or a Spygate theory or Spygate conspiracy theory. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - Ok, look folks, here is the problem. The present title is indeed somewhat POVish and clunky. But the proposed title, in a bit of WP:POINT skews completely the other way so it's also POV. The best thing to do would be to close this RfC and start another one with the proposed title simply Spygate (conspiracy theory) which a lot of the opposes might support. I don't see why we HAVE TO choose between two bad options. Restarting the RfC might also drop some of the meat and sock puppets that have popped up since they're attention span tends to be short.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

  (Conversation moved to Discussion) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs)

"Conversation moved to Discussion" means conversation moved to Discussion.

The proposal is 100% neutral. The phrase "2016 United States presidential election" doesn't offer any opinion at all, so how are you calling it WP:POV? We don't jsut close down a RM because you don't like the way it is going.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC) This is not what neutrality is. Under this definition, we would have to rename pages like 9/11 conspiracy theories so as to pander "neutrally" to the supporters of those theories. It's bunk. The sources say one thing. --Calthinus (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC) I wholly agree with Marek and was thinking along the same lines. "Spygate (conspiracy theory)" solves PRECISE and NPOV and has been mentioned many times by opposers. Compromise is good. O3000 (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC) I think this is a good compromise as well. Although, let's still allow the RfC to run its course, as there may be other good ideas or arguments that arise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 22:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose OP proposal, but Support move to Spygate (conspiracy theory) as per Volunteer Marek and Objective3000. This is a fundamentally WP:POINT based RfC with an undercurrent of IDLI -- you present sources justifying this, or you don't, but what you don't do is call for "neutrality" when the RS do not give both sides anything close to equal weight. If you then want to complain about alleged media bias, start a blog, Wikipedia is not the place for you to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. --Calthinus (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose OP proposal but suggest move to either Spygate conspiracy theory or Spygate (conspiracy theory). The inclusion of Trump does see bizarrely WP:POINTy, but referring to it as a conspiracy theory is solidly supported by reliable sources. SnowFire (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. Recently there have been some editors suggesting that we move this article back to Spygate (conspiracy theory). This is not currently up for discussion and would run against a March 2019 consensus obtained after a move request. (See the talk page archives.) If there's critical mass to overturn that consensus, then it should be done in a dedicated discussion and participants in the prior discussions should be notified. R2 (bleep) 16:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Do you mean Talk:Spygate_(conspiracy_theory_by_Donald_Trump)/Archive 1#Requested move 20 February 2019 ? That RM had smaller attendance than this one and made a nitpicky, WP disambiguation rules centered decision that missed the forest for the trees - that including "by Donald Trump" is a terrible disambiguator that probably helped kick up all the naming fuss you see above. Per WP:NOT#BURO, there shouldn't be any problem with considering all options in this requested move. More seriously, even if the NFL confusion is considered an ironclad problem with just "conspiracy theory", then literally any other extra words would be better than what was picked, including just plain nothing and a hatnote to the NFL article, or "2016 conspiracy theory", or "Spygate conspiracy theory (politics)", or whatever. SnowFire (talk) 23:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support Spygate (conspiracy theory) per WP:PRECISION. There is no need for disambiguation to go beyond what is necessary. feminist (talk) 11:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per much of the above, and all this obvious meatpuppetry. But mostly because the OP doesn't understand how WP:Disambiguation works. Spygate is not a "2016 United States presidential election", so that cannot be a disambiguation for it. Prefer the current title; there is nothing faulty about it, though "Spygate (Donald Trump conspiracy theory)" would be shorter and thus better comply with WP:CONCISE policy. Weakly okay with the short alternative proposal, "Spygate (conspiracy theory)"; weakly because removal of Trump's name from it is whitewashing, and it really is a Trump conspiracy theory, not someone else's. Not okay with longer alternatives, like "Spygate (political conspiracy theory)", per WP:CONCISE.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's a conspiracy theory. Maybe delete the "Donald Trump" bit, but it's a conspiracy theory. --Calton | Talk 07:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - this is a conspiracy theory, per the article's text, noting that the RfC has yet to change it. There is no need to make the title neutral, as this is exactly what it is. I'm not going to comment on mid thread alt suggestions as that is pointless. If there is a better option, wait for this RM to finish and present the case for it in a more readable way. --Gonnym (talk) 07:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support Suggested new name is clearly more encyclopedic.--MONGO (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support. While Spygate is verifiably a conspiracy theory, that doesn't mean we're obligated to use that as a parenthetical. The proposed title is clearer, more descriptive, and less controversial. R2 (bleep) 19:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose proposed title, support Spygate (conspiracy theory) - It is a conspiracy theory and should clearly be classified as such, but including the creator seems unnecessary. StudiesWorld (talk) 09:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support. The suggested adapted title "Spygate (2016 United States presidential election)" is closer to both neutral and to Department of Justice's statement. On April 10th, 2019 Attorney General William Barr declared that he thinks "spying did occur" against Donald Trump's campaign. Francewhoa (talk) 09:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support, largely per Netoholic. I'd also support FBI surveillance of Donald Trump campaign as a new title, although it changes the focus and scope. It is not entirely clear that the conspiracy theory originates with Trump, so a more NPOV title is needed. That could be Spygate (conspiracy theory). I'm surprised nobody has pointed out yet that Vast right-wing conspiracy does not have Hillary Clinton's name in the title. Srnec (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Oppose removal of conspiracy theory because it is one. Oppose removal of "by DT" because that leaves it ambiguous with the NFL one[9]. --В²C ☎ 00:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

ALERT - possible meatpuppetry for this page and thus maybe this page move also [10] There is a big argument between Wikipedia editors on "Spygate" here. Clearly some of them suffer from TDS. [11] - less than a day ago, 5000+ upvotes, 280+ comments. starship.paint ~ KO 08:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

ALERT - possible meatpuppetry for this page and thus maybe this page move also [12] "Any further editor input on Talk:Spygate (Donald Trump conspiracy theory) would be appreciated. It seems that as a result of the Barr letter, many on the Right are trying to reopen the debate about the validity of counterintelligence on the Trump campaign or whatever they claim was going on. I have a busy day today IRL." — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 19:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:POINT by one of the SPA accounts.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTPOINTy. I have no problem with this policy and I am not trying to discredit it. I believe equal evidence should be equally applied. What I have done here in no way resembles the examples given in WP:POINT and is not intended to be disruption, but rather the introduction of what I believe to be genuinely useful and relevant information in a format consistent to that of the information which has already been introduced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 21:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, although its wording of that notice isn't ideal, WP:APPNOTE allows notifications on related Wikipedia articles without violating WP:CANVASS (on the premise that a related article is by default going to have a "representative" or otherwise typical group of editors rather than ones biased towards one point of view, so posting it there isn't likely to unbalance a debate.) A key part of WP:MEAT and WP:CANVASS is that you're trying to attract editors to present one particular point of view; notifications on a neutral, high-traffic venue are therefore allowed. --Aquillion (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

My issue was with the wording, yes. "A key part of WP:MEAT and WP:CANVASS is that you're trying to attract editors to present one particular point of view; notifications on a neutral, high-traffic venue are therefore allowed." The RfC I cited was a legitimate call for editor involvement, but was not neutrally worded. The Reddit thread in question was not neutrally worded, but never called for editor involvement. A case could be made for each to have attracted an imbalanced or misrepresentative sample of editors. I do not think either has necessarily caused much damage, but I think if one is to be noteworthy, then they both are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 01:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

"Scandal" (Discussion moved from Survey) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs)

It seems that other articles that cover this sort of topic usually refer to a "controversy" or a "scandal". See, e.g., IRS targeting controversy or ATF gunwalking scandal or Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy or White House travel office controversy. So how about something like: "FBI Surveillance controversy (2016 election)"?Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, those things you mentioned aren't "conspiracy theories". See John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories and other articles in {{Conspiracy theories}} that do include the phrase in the title. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu, consider this piece: [13]. It calls several of the cited controversies "conspiracy theories". Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, I don't subscribe to WaPo, so I can't read the article. Can you provide quotes, or more context? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, I read the article and, sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about. O3000 (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@Objective3000 and Muboshgu:, here's the relevant quote from the piece I linked: The other images on that illustration and the text are broadly prominent conservative conspiracy theories that were popular during the Obama administration. There’s a reference to “Fast & Furious,” an effort to track illegal gun sales early in Obama’s first term that was the subject of a sweeping conspiracy theory. There’s an image of former Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner (between Al Sharpton and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)), the centerpiece of an effort at the IRS to scrutinize groups that claimed tax exemptions while engaging in political work. (Many tea party groups were singled out for scrutiny, prompting another conspiracy theory.) Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, I still don’t understand your point as they were, indeed, conspiracy theories. In any case, this is other stuff. O3000 (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

O3K, I don't know how much clearer I can be. The Wikipedia articles I linked on these other scandals call them "scandals" in the titles, and do not call them conspiracy theories in the titles. And yet here is what we are in this context counting as an RS--an "analysis" piece by Bump in WaPo--that calls these scandals "conspiracy theories". So consistency requires that we either change those articles to title them "Conspiracy Theories" or we change this article to call it a scandal. My own preference would be to call everything a scandal. But something has to give. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Argue what you wish on other articles. But, A→B is not the same as B→A. O3000 (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Wut. I'm looking to similar articles, which are not currently so politically hot, to see if there is any insight into how to handle the present case based on what consensus has been reached elsewhere. I see that there is in fact some insight to be had. Articles like this one are usually called "scandals" in their titles. I'm suggesting on this basis that perhaps this is how the present article should be titled as well. Muboshgu's reply was that those other articles are not on anything that RSs describe as conspiracy theories. I provided an article that is being counted as an RS in the present context, and that does call the subjects of those other articles conspiracy theories. So Muboshgu's reply, which was intelligible and on point, is in fact mistaken. Then you showed up, and I frankly can't understand anything you're saying, and for some reason you seem also to be unable to understand anything I'm saying. As a result, it seems that our dialogue is not productive, so I propose that we stop. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

There is zero evidence that this is a scandal. Please keep in mind BLP. O3000 (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, the other articles like this are titled "scandal" even when some RSs call them Conspiracy Theories. That's the point. And, although this was not my original point, the NYT calls spygate a scandal here [14]. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Please strike this. It is clear that the NYT was quoting Trump when using that word. O3000 (talk) 01:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't find that clear; they said Trump "gave the scandal a name: SPYGATE". That seems to be using 'scandal' in NYT's voice. Also, it is called a scandal in the Axios source cited elsewhere on this page. No doubt also in other RSs, since 'scandal' is a pretty neutral word. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The NYT article used the term scandal four times, three times in direct Trump quotes. They missed using the scare quotes once directly after a Trump quote using the word. Claiming that the NYT called this a scandal is beyond the pale. There is simply no way that the NYT was calling this a scandal in their own voice. Again, I suggest you redact a claim that is behind a paywall. O3000 (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Would either of you mind if we move this thread down to the discussion to keep it going? Shinealittlelight you bring up a good point but I get the sense we are talking past each other here. It seems O3000 is saying along the lines that the other "conspiracy theories" (Fast & Furious, etc) did not become scandals until after they were proven correct, before which they were unproven conspiracy theories. If anything this weakens the claim that conspiracy theories are always false, but we may have to wait until Barr's investigation concludes to use the word "scandal", at least in the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 02:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

For all the people who support (conspiracy theory) - @BrendonTheWizard, WikiVirusC, SK8RBOI, and Objective3000: - actually that was a previous name of the article. However, are you aware that the page was moved due to a request - Talk:Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump)/Archive 1#Requested move 20 February 2019 - due to editors arguing that Spygate (NFL) also had conspiracy theories and thus there would be ambiguity. As such, I would ask that you consider bradv's suggestion of (political conspiracy theory). Please CTRL-F for bradv on the page to find it. starship.paint ~ KO 01:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

"(political conspiracy theory)" is better for the reason you've provided. I'd accept either to close this. O3000 (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

"Spygate (political conspiracy theory)" is unwieldy to my eye. I prefer it to the current title, but not the proposed title, "Spygate (2016 U.S. Presidential election)", which would satisfy the same concern about ambiguity. I think a better compromise is to reinstate "Spygate (conspiracy theory)" and include a disambiguation link to the NFL scandal, which would be a consistent and elegant solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 01:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of it til now, but that discussion had very small participation, and I wouldn't have agreed with that move location if I had participated in it. The NFL Spygate wasn't a conspiracy theory it was an actual incident that occurred, so I don't believe it can be confused with this one. Despite the sources that were posted in that discussion which all refer to a conspiracy theory about destroyed tapes from the Spygate incident. The incident itself wasn't a conspiracy theory, nor is that article about one. Either way, a lot of options are available for the name, such as the ones I suggested, but the one suggested in this request, which doesn't label it as a conspiracy theory, I don't think is viable so long as it is just a conspiracy which I believe it will remain. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

edit: As also suggested, a dab between the two articles would also help. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Reference citations in this discussion

References

Alternate proposal: Spygate (conspiracy theory)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There were a fair number of comments in favor of this alternate proposal to move the article back to Spygate (conspiracy theory); however, given how the numbers play out, and the fact that a move request in March produced a consensus to move the article from Spygate (conspiracy theory) to its current place at Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump), I think it makes sense to confirm that consensus has in fact changed before making a move back. (To be clear, I oppose this alternate move, so my proposal of it shouldn't count as a !vote in favor.) R2 (bleep) 21:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Pinging participants in March discussion: In ictu oculi Fourthords Old Naval Rooftops Red Slash Born2cycle R2 (bleep) 21:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. My rationale for proposing the move away from Spygate (conspiracy theory) had nothing to do with American politics. It was simply because the parenthetical dismbiguator "(conspiracy theory)" didn't do its intended job of disambiguating this Spygate from the other Spygates. Specifically, the most notable Spygate, as measured by reliable source coverage, is Spygate (NFL), a 2007-2008 controversy about the New England Patriots. That Spygate scandal involved a conspiracy theory. (Examples of sources describing the Patriots scandal as involving a conspiracy theory: [15][16][17]) Therefore, there needed (and still needs) to be a way to further distinguish the subject of this article from Spygate (NFL) to avoid confusion. R2 (bleep) 21:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Here's a relevant source that explains the confusion between these two Spygates. R2 (bleep) 21:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• Improper RFC, but if we're really going to start all over based on this, then support. The confusion appears implausible, since the other Spygate is both far less well-known and hasn't really been termed a conspiracy theory; any hypothetical confusion could be clarified with a disambig notice at the top in any case. Either way, I feel this new RFC is improper; all the issues raised here were already raised above, so I don't think there's a valid argument for stopping implementation of the above RFC and starting the entire process over again. The original RFC got very little attention, had very little participation, and has clearly already been overturned by the far-higher participation rate in the one above, which mostly dismissed its concerns. "We had a previous RFC on this" is absolutely not a reason to try and ignore, overturn, or delay implementation of a newer RFC, especially when the newer one had far higher participation and therefore represents a stronger consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

A few responsive points here: (1) This isn't an RfC. (2) There are actually more reliable sources about Spygate (NFL) than there are about the subject of this article. Regardless, that doesn't make sense as a reason for opposing. (3) Spygate (NFL) has in fact "really been termed" a conspiracy theory, as evidenced by the sources I provided in my !vote. (4) We have no clarity on whether most of the editors who participated in this move request would support a move to Spygate (conspiracy theory). I suspect that many of the editors who !voted to support the move to Spygate (2016 United States presidential election) would not support the move to Spygate (conspiracy theory), for the reasons stated in their !votes. R2 (bleep) 22:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose move. I've stated this in the past; even if Spygate (NFL) is not itself a conspiracy theory, reliable sources have referred to it as such, and it can reasonably be said to contain a conspiracy. That makes the proposed title ambiguous. ONR (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

  ONR, we're going in circles here, but I proposed Spygate (political conspiracy theory) above, for precisely this reason. Would that satisfy your objection? – bradv🍁 23:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, it would certainly work as a good disambiguation. (And for future reference, I don't get notifications for the shortened form of my username.) ONR (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

  Old Naval Rooftops, the talk page link in your sig is a redirect, which is confusing the reply-link script. – bradv🍁 23:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

  Fixed. ONR (talk) 00:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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.

Requested move 2 May 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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved - please see commentary below at #Closure — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

---

Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump) → TBD – Making this "Fresh start" restart of the discussion an official RM. В²C ☎ 16:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Let's see if we can make a fresh start here. The above discussion is a complete trainwreck, because the proposed new title was changed partway through, so that it's pretty much impossible to tell what version people are referring to when they say "support" or "oppose". By my count at least seven titles were proposed here. I'll list them and we can discuss them by number: what we support and how strongly, what we oppose and how strongly, and what we could at least accept. If people prefer they could rank their preferences. The whole idea is to have one section where it is clear what people are supporting and what they oppose. Some titles were proposed by one person but not taken up by anyone else, and I have omitted them, but people could add other proposals here if they choose. R2 mentioned and linked an RM discussion in February,[18] saying it obtained consensus to add "by Donald Trump". That brief discussion had four supports, one oppose, and two comments; not exactly overwhelming. I am hopeful we may be able to get a broader consensus here if we can stay on topic and be clear what we are talking about. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The original discussion above has been closed, as there was no clear consensus, multiple other options were being suggested, and it was unclear what change people were supporting or opposing. The purpose of this multiple-choice format is to make it clear exactly what title people are supporting. Pinging original discussants who have not yet commented: @Rusf10, Muboshgu, PackMecEng, Wingedsubmariner, BullRangifer, and Soibangla: @Volunteer Marek, Starship.paint, Periander6, Moefuzz, and Rhododendrites: @SJCAmerican, Shinealittlelight, SIPPINONTECH, NorthBySouthBaranof, and That Guy, From That Show!: @Wookian, Phmoreno, AppliedCharisma, Atsme, Rreagan007, Enterprisey, Torchiest, and Masem: @Safrolic, Thucydides411, Netoholic, My very best wishes, Sir Joseph, Markbassett, Awilley, and Neutrality: @JFG, BrendonTheWizard, Calthinus, SnowFire, Feminist, SMcCandlish, Calton, MONGO, and StudiesWorld: @Francewhoa, Srnec, Born2cycle, and Old Naval Rooftops: -- MelanieN (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed titles for this article

1. Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump)

2. Spygate (conspiracy theory)

3. Spygate conspiracy theory

4. Spygate (political conspiracy theory)

5. Spygate (Donald Trump conspiracy theory)

6. Spygate (2016 United States presidential election)

7. FBI surveillance of Donald Trump campaign

People's choices

Please list ONLY your choices or rankings here, and discuss them separately below. Otherwise we will never be able to tell who supports what.

• First choice: 6. Spygate (2016 United States presidential election) - specific and neutral

Second choice: 4. Spygate (political conspiracy theory) - not as specific, but still an effective and neutral disamiguation

Third choice: 1. Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump) - a little misleading since Trump isn't the only person who holds the theory

Fourth choice: 5. Spygate (Donald Trump conspiracy theory) - more misleading because it could be read as meaning the theory is about Trump

Fifth choice: 2. Spygate (conspiracy theory) - fails to disambiguate from Spygate (NFL), which also involved a conspiracy theory

Sixth choice: 3. Spygate conspiracy theory - same as #2, but also doesn't reflect reliable sources

Seventh choice: 7. FBI surveillance of Donald Trump campaign - fails WP:FRINGE

R2 (bleep) 23:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC) (modified 21:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC))

@Ahrtoodeetoo: - it may be more helpful if you explicitly write which options you oppose. Based on how editors have responded below you, this is to synchronize with them. starship.paint (talk) 03:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to dictate to the future closer how to handle rankings (mine or anyone else's), but my personal suggestion is that all choices ranked above option 1 (the status quo) should be treated as yes !votes, and all choices ranked below option 1 should be treated as !no votes. If that's how it's done, then I oppose options 5, 2, 3, and 7. (Future closer, if you want me to explain why I think this is the best approach, please hit me up on my user talk.) R2 (bleep) 16:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support Spygate (political conspiracy theory). I know it is uncommon for me to !vote in an RM I've relisted; however, this is an uncommon RM, so I feel justified. There is no problem if the closer chooses not to count my rationale. I thought the title to which this article was previously moved, Spygate (conspiracy theory), was incomplete disambiguation for reasons given by another editor in this discussion. It needed more qualification, and "political" serves this purpose while maintaining a neutral balance. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  00:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• 1. Spygate (political conspiracy theory), 2: Spygate (conspiracy theory), per my !vote above. – bradv🍁 01:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• 2, 3, 4, 1, 5 in that order based on brevity, accuracy, and properly reflecting the sources per my comments above; given the nature of the topic, "conspiracy theory" is central to the topic and cannot be omitted from the title without implicitly endorsing a position that the sources are near-unanimous in dismissing. No support for 6, which implicitly gives the impression that it was a genuine scandal. Oppose 7 in strongest possible terms, since it falsely gives the impression that the surveillance Trump described took place, a position the sources are near-unanimous in dismissing. --Aquillion (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support Spygate (conspiracy theory) as 1st choice; Spygate (political conspiracy theory) as second choice. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support 7 from among these choices. I think the scope of the article should be broadened to include all the facts and controversies concerning the pre-Mueller Crossfire Hurricane FBI investigation, for which there is currently no wikipedia article. I think that "Spygate" should be a single section in the article, and it should discuss Trump's unsubstantiated claims about the investigation, and should make it clear that 'spygate' has been used for various aspects of the investigation, from Trump's unsubstantiated claims to the mere fact that the FBI investigated the campaign. I'm working on a revised version of the article to this effect. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I want to add that RSs conflict about what 'spygate' refers to, and only some of them (e.g. NYT and Vox) claim that it refers to all of Trump's unsubstantiated claims, which they call a conspiracy theory. Other RSs use 'spygate' differently, sometimes (NBC News for example) just for the true claim that the FBI sent an informant to the campaign. See the section of this page that discusses 'spygate' being ambiguous. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Option 6 and 7 are the only NPOV options. Disambiguators should be concise and used strictly for the purpose of distinguishing articles that are otherwise of the same name. There is a bit of editorializing going on here. As Barr said, "spy" is a perfectly good English word. A properly constructed disambiguator would be Spygate (U.S. politics). Slithytoad (talk) 03:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I see editors citing Vox and and other media publications to determine whether or not spygate is a conspiracy theory. I do not think this approach is valid. On the issue of word usage, dictionaries should be considered authoritative. According to Merriam-Webster, a conspiracy theory is "a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators." The usage comes from the Kennedy assassination where there was a dispute concerning whether there was one or multiple assassins. Even if we determine that spygate is a conspiracy theory, it does not follow that we should put this phrase in the disambiguator. Disambiguators should be generic classes and and proper nouns should be avoided, according to WP:NCDAB. Slithytoad (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

    Note: Slithytoad has made only 20 edits to Wikipedia as of this post, none before this year. starship.paint (talk) 03:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• 3, 2, 4 are all good, in that order (so Spygate conspiracy theory, Spygate (conspiracy theory), and Spygate (political conspiracy theory). Far beneath them, 6 and 7. Beneath even them are 1 and 5 which are strongly opposed as asking for trouble (the "Donald Trump" variants). For 3 & 2 vs. 4, I really don't buy the partial disambiguation argument; first off partial disambiguation isn't completely horrible, but even if it was, NFL spygate is called an "incident" or "controversy" first, and its Wikipedia disambiguator is (NFL). Ergo there's no problem with just using the concise and simple (conspiracy theory) here for this article, and at absolute worst throwing on a hatnote. SnowFire (talk) 06:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support 2 3 6 7 Per my arguments given above. Option 7 is my personal preference for the direction of the article (with a Spygate subsection, ty Shinealittlelight) but 2, 3, &6 also satisfy my concerns. Slithytoad also makes a good argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 06:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Not sure yet what I do support, but I absolutely oppose 6 and 7 for being POV pushes (see also RfC on lead which supports this claim) that try and change history and the narrative. --Gonnym (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Also oppose 2 and 3 as incomplete disambiguation and ambiguous title as Spygate shows that the other 2 can be described to some extent as conspiracy theories. As a title should be clear without any need to read the article, those 2 fail at this. Support 4, 1, 5 in that order. --Gonnym (talk) 10:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
    • @Gonnym: Please clarify: are you opposing 6 or supporting 6? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Just noticed why you asked, fixed it. Thanks for pointing that out. --Gonnym (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• 4 in that order. OK, if not 4: 3, 2, 1. This is a conspiracy theory as amply documented in RS, and brevity is the soul of wit. However, prefer 4 to disambiguate from the NFL and F1 articles. 6 suggests perhaps not. 7 sounds like it came from InfoWars. Let us not legitimize a conspiracy theory. (And thanks Melanie for trying to get this back on track.) O3000 (talk) 11:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support 3, 2, 4 in that order. Oppose 1 and 5, as including Trump's name isn't needed in title whether he is or isn't the origin, and oppose 6 and 7 until their is evidence of it actually having happeneded WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Option 6--MONGO (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• 2, 4, 6, 3 in that order. No mention of the name in the article, please, due to BLP issues and other concerns. feminist (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• 2, 4, 3, 7 2 is the most concise while accurate disambiguation term, with hatnotes to distinguish from any potential confusion with the NFL situation. At the state this story is at, specifically naming Trump in the disambiguation is potentially a BLP issue. --Masem (t) 16:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• 6 seems to me the most neutral and factual of what the article is about. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• 7 - Of the list, its the only one that doesn't over-inflate Trump's colorful, attention-getting "Spygate" twitter term. The broader issue is about claimed or real FBI surveillance of his campaign and should be stated in a more NPOV and Verifiable manner. -- Netoholic @ 16:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• This is my order of preference, with numbers in original list in parentheses:
  1. (5) Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump)
  2. (1) Spygate (Donald Trump conspiracy theory)
  3. (3) Spygate conspiracy theory
  4. (2) Spygate (conspiracy theory)
  5. (4) Spygate (political conspiracy theory)
  6. (6) Spygate (2016 United States presidential election)
  7. (7) FBI surveillance of Donald Trump campaign

  --В²C ☎ 16:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support 2, 4, 3 as clearest and most accurate; Weak oppose 1, 5 based on substantially better alternatives; Oppose 6, 7 as misleading (especially 7 -- it's like moving September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories to George W. Bush's responsibility for the 9/11 attacks). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support 6 or 7' and Strongly oppose all others- When there is an ongoing investigation by the Justice Department about surveillance of the Trump campaign, it is really disingenuous to label it a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories don't get serious investigations.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Option 7 is neutral, has a wider scope, and refrains from emphasizing the controversial "Spygate" term. — JFG ^talk 17:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

  Update: Oppose all titles including "conspiracy theory" – Now that the New York Times has published this: "F.B.I. Sent Investigator Posing as Assistant to Meet With Trump Aide in 2016"[19], there is no basis for calling this affair a conspiracy theory. — JFG ^talk 05:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support Spygate (political conspiracy theory), okay with Spygate (conspiracy theory), per my concurrence with Bradv above. Okay with other options which specify "conspiracy theory". Spygate (2016 United States presidential election) is completely unacceptable, as it gives legitimacy to a completely unsubstantiated conspiracy theory. Safrolic (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support 2, 3, 4 in that order as supported by sources and in compliance with the article title policy, which directs us to be both concise and accurate; oppose all others for the reasons stated above (because we don't need Trump's name in the article, and because we have substantially better alternatives); strongly oppose 7 because, even under the most generous reading, it conflates lawful investigations with the unsubstantiated conspiracy theory that Trump and allies have promoted. (I think we already have (several) articles on the actual investigations into Trump; if someone wants to add more well-sourced information to those articles, they are welcome to do so; but we absolutely owe it to our readers to do what the reliable sources do, which is clearly separate fact and fiction.) Neutrality^talk 18:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support 2,3,6,4 I stand by what I said in the previous discussions. I think that moving it to 7 would be significantly broadening the scope of the article, while 1 and 5 are unnecessarily specific. Added: I don't necessarily oppose 6 as other users do, but I agree that it may cause confusion. StudiesWorld (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC) (moved and edited: 18:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC))
• 5, 1, 4. Option 5 is accurate and WP:CONCISE. Opt. 1 is accurate and less concise. Opt. 4 isn't wrong but seems to whitewash; this really is about Trump and what Trump says and allegedly thinks (though most people I know are convinced Trump doesn't believe what he says, but just depends on FUD tactics to confuse the public). The outright failures: Opt. 3 isn't viable because it's not how WP disambiguates (a WP:NATURALDIS has to actually be natural, and the phrase "Spygate conspiracy theory" isn't because sources don't use it with any frequency). Opt. 6 isn't viable, because Spygate is not a 2016 US presidential election; that's blatantly false and confusing pseudo-disambiguation. Opt. 7 isn't viable because we can't state in Wikipedia's own voice that there was FBI surveillance of his campaign (especially since the truth appears to be the opposite; and because of Neutrality's point, just above). Option 2 also seems to fail, per Ahrtoodeetoo's arguments in the discussion section below; RS have also frequently described Spygate (NFL) as a conspiracy theory.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC); rev'd. 21:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Option 6 is appropriately neutral. It doesn't matter whether the "spy" was "inside" the campaign just as it doesn't matter whether someone was murdered with garden hoe versus an axe. The point is that undercover informants (plural - see NYT[20]) were spying on the Trump campaign - asking questions about the Trump campaign, and not merely about individuals who were associated with the Trump campaign. The Attorney General of the US calls it "spying," and everyone in political commentary who is not carrying water for the Democrats use the term "spying" as well. Note that the NYT article ties itself back to Trump's Spygate tweet. Wookian (talk) 01:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• 4 first, then 1, 2, 3 - with the same rationale for Oppose 6, that the majority viewpoint of reliable sources is that Spygate is a conspiracy theory. Strong oppose 7, broadens the article beyond the majority reliable sources viewpoint. Oppose 5 on BLP concerns against Trump. starship.paint (talk) 03:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Option 6 In light of the New York Times article published May 2 2019 confirming that the FBI's Counterintelligence Division was using a human asset operating on foreign soil under an assumed identity to solicit information from Papadopolous, I no longer believe it is accurate to call this a "conspiracy theory." In fact, it appears that the New York Times has all but confirmed that there was indeed spying on members of the Trump Campaign. The article more or less vindicates Trump's "conspiracy theory." SIPPINONTECH (talk) 03:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4, then 3, and definitely not 7, as general surveillance is a much broader topic worthy of its own article, with one section about Spygate. Spygate is about one historic event where surveillance happened. Trump made several false claims about it and ONE informant without providing evidence. (He has never provided it.) RS called his claims false (or the equivalent) and a conspiracy theory. We document the whole story. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• 2 > 4 > 5 > 1 > 3 > 6 > 7. "Conspiracy theory" generally implies that there is insufficient evidence to prove a conspiracy, making it an inaccurate and unlikely term for the NFL scandal. Therefore Spygate (conspiracy theory) is the best and most concise way to put it. There is nothing POV in calling a spade a spade when established in reliable sources, and to downplay the fact that this is a conspiracy theory would be inappropriate, hence my opposition to 7 (and 6 to a lesser extent). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• 6 or 7 - complies with NPOV - it's not a theory, spying by the FBI on the Trump campaign did occur; see NYTimes. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 05:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• "Conspiracy theory" does not refer to the fact that surveillance by Halper occurred. It refers to Trump's false claims about that surveillance. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• 2 > 3 > 4 >1/5. 2 and 3 are the only sensible options, 4, 1 and 5 contain unneccessary words, and 6 and 7 sort of embrace the conspiracy theory. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• Operation Crossfire Hurricane proposed, is neutral, concise, and actually the operation that everyone on either side is talking about. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• I'd support that. — JFG ^talk 10:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Ummm...no. That's about the entire Russian interference investigation, not Trump's specific Spygate claims about Halper. Halper's work was a tiny part of that investigation. Stay on-topic. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

  Note: I've since created Operation Crossfire Hurricane as an article from a redirect. starship.paint (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• 7. "Spygate" is an outdated term and we aren't Trump's PR. Some editors believe that 7 is fringe but that is false. See this recent bombshell. wumbolo ^^^ 12:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I don’t know why people keep calling this a “bombshell”. We’ve known for a long while that the FBI was investigating Russian influence on the election, in particular related to the Trump campaign. But, there is still no evidence that the investigation was an FBI plot to influence the election or that any general surveillance of the Trump campaign existed, or spies were planted by Obama into the campaign. O3000 (talk) 12:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose all others. Option 6 is POV because FBI director Christopher Wray has now denied the spying claims [21]. Options 1-5 are wrong because AG Barr made a spying claim that does not involve conspiracy [22]. wumbolo ^^^ 17:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• 'Support 7' -- That Guy, From That Show! 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
• 4 or 2 should be used as supported by sources, definitely not 6 or 7. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 07:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• 2 seems WP-natural. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• 2 then 6 then 4 in that order. Those seem to be the best options for NPOV and how it is generally described. PackMecEng (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

New Discussion

• I hope editors will remember that the purpose of a parenthetical is to disambiguate from other topics of the same name, i.e. other Spygates. As such, please bear in mind that Spygate (NFL) has actually received more RS coverage than the subject of this article and has been described as a conspiracy theory by various sources (ex: [23][24][25]). Also, although this Spygate is verifiably a conspiracy theory, there's no requirement that our article be labeled as such its title. As far as I know the practice of putting "(conspiracy theory)" in the article title is a purely Trump-era phenomenon. We have dozens of articles on conspiracy theories that don't have titles like that. R2 (bleep) 23:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• We have many articles called conspiracy theories that predate Trump. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Spygate (NFL) wasn't a conspiracy theory, it was an event that actually happened and was named/refereed to as Spygate afterwards. That was from a incident at a game in 2007, the "conspiracy theories" are allegations that the league destroyed the tapes/notes to cover up that the scandal might have been worse then the league wanted to public to know. Those sources you posted are talking about that specific conspiracy, not the Spygate itself which the article is about. The conspiracy is only one small section of the article. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Alas these days, if you sneeze, some site will claim a conspiracy behind it. O3000 (talk) 13:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

  As well as put "gate" behind it. PackMecEng (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

  It's true that Spygate (NFL) wasn't solely about an alleged conspiracy between the Patriots and Roger Goodell, but that was a very important part of it as indicated by hundreds if not thousands of reliable sources. Hence the sources I listed describing Spygate (NFL) as a conspiracy theory. R2 (bleep) 17:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

  Even if you say it again, as I said, not one of those sources you listed called Spygate a conspiracy theory, please read the sources rather than just link the ones that show up when you google Spygate NFL conspiracy theory. The NFL Spygate incident was the taping of the Jets game in 2007, and investigation, which resulted in fines and other punishments. That was not a conspiracy theory and no source you provided, or any other out there calls that a conspiracy theory. During the investigation Goodell had tapes at the Patriots office destroyed. The conspiracy theory is saying that there was evidence that the NFL was trying to cover up by destroying the tapes, which no source cites as fact, just as a [conspiracy] theory. What you are trying to say is like saying JFK's death was a conspiracy theory, just because their are countless conspiracy theories out there about it. WikiVirusC^(talk) 17:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

That's an interesting interpretation of the sources. Take, instance, this source that I linked to. The title of the article is The 15 biggest NFL conspiracy theories that may be true and it says, Check out 15 of the biggest NFL conspiracy theories that may have some truth to them: Number 3 on the list is SPYGATE. But, I guess interested editors will have to make this determination for themselves. R2 (bleep) 16:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not doing any kind of "interpretation" I am just reading it. Yes #3 is about Spygate, not stating Spygate itself was a conspiracy theory, it simply describes the conspiracy theory. The Spygate conspiracy theory vs simply Spygate I already explained twice above. Regardless I'm done going in circles with this argument. WikiVirusC^(talk) 17:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• It seems to me that Aquillon is factually incorrect in saying that the campaign was not surveilled. All sources agree that the FBI sent a paid informant to four members of the campaign, and, under a FISA warrant, was surveilling Carter Page (after he left the campaign). There is disagreement and controversy about whether anything improper was done, of course. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

  No sources I'm aware of support the idea that Stefan Halper was a paid informant (a central element of the conspiracy theory), nor that he was inserted within the Trump campaign or that his purpose was to "surveil" the campaign as a whole rather than to investigate specific leads on Russian interference. Since Halper falls under WP:BLP and the idea that he was a "paid informant" is a serious accusation which absolutely no evidence supports, I've struck the relevant part of your comment. The fact that you brought up Page while admitting that he was not part of the Trump campaign at the time shows, I think, that you recognize the problem. As I said above, the sources are nearly unanimous that no surveillince of the sort Trump described occurred, and that his accusations were a baseless conspiracy theory; that is not something about which there is any "disagreement or controversy." (Nor, for that matter, are there any serious, independent sources alleging wrongdoing on Halper's part, so your assertion that there is "disagreement or controversy" about that are also groundless.) In short, I stand by my description and ask that you provide reliable, independent sources to back up your WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims - especially if you intend to keep saying things about Halper, who, again, falls under WP:BLP. --Aquillion (talk) 04:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

  I'll thank you not to edit my comments. If you want me to strike something, you can ask me to do so. I've removed the strike you placed in my comment. Halper was paid by the DoD, as reported here: [26]. He certainly was an informant, and he certainly was paid under the Obama administration, and that's what I meant by 'paid informant'. The repeated claim that 'spygate' refers to a conspiracy theory is out of step with the RSs, which conflict on this matter. Some RSs (NYT and Vox, for example) say that 'spygate' refers to all of Trump's unsubstantiated claims, which they characterize as a conspiracy theory. But other sources do not use 'spygate' for the conjunction of all Trump's unsubstantiated claims, but just for the broader claim that there was spying on the campaign, or for the claim that Halper was sent to surveil the campaign. See the discussion about 'spygate' being ambiguous. Barr is concerned enough about possible wrongdoing to investigate the matter, a fact that is widely reported. So there is obviously disagreement and controversy about whether there was wrongdoing. Finally, you said that there was no surveillance. Now you've backed off to claim that there was no surveillance "of the sort Trump described". These are different claims. I was taking issue with the former claim. There was surveillance, because four members of the campaign were surveilled by Halper, who was an informant for the FBI who received payments from the DoD under the Obama administration. The Halper affair was part of Crossfire Hurricane, the investigation which Comey himself described before congress as an investigation of the Trump campaign. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

  Also, this edit [27], which you made after I criticized what you said, and which made my criticism look off target, but which was not noted here, is completely outrageous. Editing my comment, and then covertly editing your comment to make my remarks appear to be in error, is really beyond the pale. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

  WP:BLP is policy; it applies to talk pages as well as articles, and you still haven't provided any sources whatsoever to back up your baseless accusations against Halper. ( In fact, you seem to be backing down by hemming and hewing about how he was "paid" in that he had an unrelated job?) Nothing in that source suggests that Halper was paid to spy on the Trump campaign. Nothing in that source suggests that Halper was "surveilling" the Trump campaign (in fact, it specifically notes that he didn't make any effort to join it.) Nothing in that source supports any of the accusations you are making against him, nor does it lend any credence to the conspiracy theory Trump pushed back in 2018. The source, on top of that, does not even mention Spygate; your handwave about how it's all connected somehow isn't supported by the sources. The article itself has extensive sources detailing the nature of the conspiracy theory and its near-universal rejection by reliable sources; trying to answer that by changing the topic to the unrelated investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election or into some vague ball of every accusation Trump has ever made against his political opponents is silly and is part of the reason the title needs to stay at its current location to maintain precision rather than a vague wall-of-madness conspiracy-theory web of connections made by overeager editors. Finally, it's natural that I'd want to use an argument that would convince as many people as possible, including people (like you) who I disagree with and whose arguments I don't really find convincing myself, and would therefore update my comment to address even points I feel are pedantic or off-base; if you think my edits rendered your complaints moot, then you should acknowledge that you agree that at least the current version of my argument is correct. --Aquillion (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

  I didn't wave my hands and I didn't say "it's all connected somehow". You apparently made that up. And your covert edit of your previous comment had the effect of making my original statement in this exchange look like a mischaracterization of what you said. That's out of line in my view, and so was your striking of part of my comment. But this is off topic at this point, so let's stop, ok? I will say this, by way of hopefully ending this exchange: your altered comment, which now claims that only that Trump's specific account of the surveillance is incorrect, is much less objectionable. Trump's specific account is certainly unsubstantiated and implausible. So thank you for taking down your previous comment, which I thought was false. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Can someone please ping the participant in the previous discussion(s) so that they are aware that they may need to re-!vote? Abecedare (talk) 03:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

  I'll do that tomorrow. It's bedtime here. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Procedural note: Since this is basically a 2nd round of RM if everybody needs to repeat themselves to be counted, it should be listed on RM again as well, in my opinion. 06:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

   Listed at WP:RM. --В²C ☎ 17:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• SMcCandlish, regarding your position on Option 6, WP:NCDAB makes clear that a parenthetical disambiguation can be the subject or context to which the topic applies, as in Union (set theory) or Inflation (cosmology). I believe that's the concept behind Spygate (2016 United States presidential election). R2 (bleep) 19:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

  That only works when it's clear that's what's being done, which isn't the case here. It also badly fails WP:CONCISE in being a long string of blather, and it fails WP:PRECISE and WP:RECOGNIZABLE in being an awkward construction that doesn't actually address the scope of the topic (a recent and ongoing political controversy that has grown way beyond the bounds of its original temporal context; i.e., this is an issue now, and the election was a long time ago.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Good points. It might be too late for this, but another option that's been tossed around is Spygate (United States politics). Similar concept as Spygate (2016 United States presidential election) but it might address your concerns. R2 (bleep) 21:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

If 6 wins, then another requested move to Spygate (United States politics) then. starship.paint (talk)

Slithytoad I see editors citing Vox and and other media publications to determine whether or not spygate is a conspiracy theory. I do not think this approach is valid. - you seem to be new here; this approach is called following the majority viewpoint of WP:Reliable sources. starship.paint (talk)

You have cropped out the most substantive part of my argument, so I will repeat it: Something is a conspiracy theory if it meets the definition given in a major dictionary, not if Vox says so. WP:RS does not say what you are claiming that it says. It directs us to make "sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered." I ask that all parties to this discussion refrain from "attacks on the characteristics and authority of the writer," per WP:TPNO.[28] Slithytoad (talk) 04:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Slithytoad: - saying you seem to be new isn't an attack, at least in my point of view. It's just so that you might be less familiar with policy if you are new. WP:RS says Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources. A dictionary will not tell you if Spygate is, or is not, a conspiracy theory, because I expect a dictionary not to have an entry on Spygate. In Wikipedia, something is a conspiracy theory if reliable sources say so as the majority viewpoint, of which, Vox is one of them. starship.paint (talk) 04:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

You are repeating a claim that I just finished debunking: No, there is no guideline that says the "majority viewpoint," whatever that means, should be treated as infallible truth. In fact, the guideline says exactly the opposite, that significant minority views must be taken into account. Revelations of the Obama FBI spying on the Trump campaign have been coming in fast and furious in the last few days. The IG report will be out soon, so there is more on the way. I would have thought the view of the presiding attorney general would count as “significant” under WP:RS. Slithytoad (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Rusf10 When there is an ongoing investigation by the Justice Department about surveillance of the Trump campaign, it is really disingenuous to label it a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories don't get serious investigations. - your vote does not refer to Wikipedia policy. On the contrary, if the majority viewpoint in WP:Reliable sources is that Spygate is a conspiracy theory, then it is not disingenuous to label it a conspiracy theory. starship.paint (talk) 04:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint:This reliable source says the spying happened. Your sources that call it a conspiracy theory are opinion pieces written over a year ago. Find sources published in the last few weeks.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Rusf10: Does your New York Times source really say the spying happened? Here's a quote could also give ammunition to Mr. Trump and his allies for their spying claims. - not quite at the level that they said the spying happened. They didn't say validated / proved right Trump and his allies for their spying claims. Provide me with a direct quote, please, or you're talking about original research. starship.paint (talk) 07:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Also Rusf10 Your sources that call it a conspiracy theory are opinion pieces written over a year ago. - which ones of the 60-75 sources in the article are opinion pieces that have not been attributed to the author? Please inform me. Thank you. starship.paint (talk) 07:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@JFG, Mr Ernie, Shinealittlelight, and WikiVirusC: - you guys have mentioned Operation Crossfire Hurricane. It's not apparent to me that Operation Crossfire Hurricane is the same as Spygate. The claims Trump made in May 2018 and June 2018 are still baseless (no spy within the campaign, no start of investigation in December 2015) So why can't we just create a separate article for Operation Crossfire Hurricane and go to town there? Is anyone preventing you from doing that? starship.paint (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I guess if you'll indulge me a little OR, I think what Trump was calling Spygate was the frame of Operation Crossfire Hurricane, but without the correct details. Halper's attempts to contact Page, Papadopolous, and others in the campaign are referred to by one of Trump's earliest Spygate tweets - "If the person placed very early into my campaign wasn't a SPY put there by the previous Administration for political purposes, how come such a seemingly massive amount of money was paid for services rendered – many times higher than normal ... Follow the money! The spy was there early in the campaign and yet never reported Collusion with Russia, because there was no Collusion. He was only there to spy for political reasons and to help Crooked Hillary win – just like they did to Bernie Sanders, who got duped!" I read this as a clear reference to Halper, but not the exact details of what Halper was doing. The issue, of course, is that we would need RS to make that connection. So what I think makes more sense is to somehow scrap this article, which really is disjointed and not very direct or clear, and re-create it as Operation Crossfire Hurricane, that details what prompted the operation, how the operation was carried out, and how Trump and his campaign interpreted it. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: - even in your own OR, you admit Trump got it wrong - without the correct details. He did get it wrong, that's why sources called it a conspiracy theory. That's no reason to scrap this article. Trump said something wrong and reliable sources called him out of it. You don't get to say anything you want and mean literally anything, but this is what Trump does, and it's wrong. Example: [29] "I don’t know if you remember, a long time ago, very early on I used the word ‘wiretap,’ and I put in quotes, meaning surveillance, spying you can sort of say whatever you want," If Operation Crossfire Hurricane had misconduct, so be it. It can have its own article, doesn't have to encroach on this one. starship.paint (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

You can even go with FBI surveillance of Donald Trump campaign. No one is denying that that happened. Surely there are enough sources to make that notable. starship.paint (talk) 13:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

This seems to be what you're talking about:

• Surveillance of the Trump campaign (disambiguation)

BullRangifer (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

It is also of my opinion that Operation CH wasn't/isn't Spygate, but also have noticed that people are trying to say that it is. There is a broader issue of what is the scope of Spygate exactly. Based on what Spygate originally was defined as, the operation is something completely different. No one is preventing anyone from creating an article. I personally don't want to split/move that information from here to a seperate article without a discussion, since even though I know it isn't accurate, people are trying to use that information as "proof" or evidence of Spygate. Me just moving that there without a discussion or consensus would just turn into a POV pushing argument, hence why I said below we should discuss it in future. I'm also not sure how notable the operation is on its own, rather than including the details that we have available in one of the many articles we have that it could fit it, just probably not this one. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@WikiVirusC: - I don't agree with your concerns, nothing in the article needs to be deleted and moved out into Operation Crossfire Hurricane or FBI surveillance of Donald Trump campaign. Some stuff in the Background could be copied. As for Trump's Spygate conspiracy theory, probably summarized in a section, not a big focus. I'm sure either of these articles will be notable, with the amount of fuss and focus from the right, there will be a lot of sources. starship.paint (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, it was reason I wasn't doing it, my concerns aren't stopping anyone else who wanted to do it. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, he got some of the specifics wrong, but the thrust of his comment clearly refers to what we now know as O C H. I guess I could liken it to getting into a car accident with a blue car, but I report that it was a black car. Yes I got a key detail wrong, but I was still involved in a wreck. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: - but the reliable sources focused on the claim that it was a black car and rebutted that. So to remove the confusion, instead on focusing on "Shrimp accused a black car of hitting him, and people proved a black car didn't, but a blue car did", just create a new article, "Shrimp was hit by a blue car". Problem solved and you are free to do that. Then we don't need to prove that Operation Crossfire Hurricane is Spygate. We don't need to prove that FBI surveillance is Spygate. And if anyone argues that, then well, the topics will be merged, and Spygate is the smaller topic, it will be merged in. starship.paint (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The thing is, the key detail is what this is all this fuss was about. We already knew about FBI investigating/looking into links between the Trump campaign and Russia, before he was even sworn into office. And we definetly had significant knowledge of it by the time Trump started tweeting "Spygate". So was he just saying "You know that investigation by the FBI you all already know about, it happened", or did he say, "FBI put a spy into my campaign early on to help Clinton win". Cause your saying he said the latter, but meant nothing but the former. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@JFG, Mr Ernie, Shinealittlelight, and WikiVirusC: - actions speak louder than words. I've created Operation Crossfire Hurricane from a redirect. Go ahead, expand it, add all the Carter Page stuff. Add the recent NYT article. I won't do a lot, and it might end up at AfD. I'm busy. starship.paint (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Starship.paint, I think this is a great idea to start a CH article. I'll try to contribute, though I'm busy too. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: As I am busy off-wiki, and for the time being, I do not intend to respond on-wiki unless someone pings me or alerts me via my talk page. starship.paint (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Closure

I am currently reading this discussion with a view to closing it. The result of counting votes is as follows. For those people who listed multiple options, I generally took your best 4 as "supports" for this purpose. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

1. Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump) - 10 supports

R2, bradv, Aquillion, Gonnym, O3000, В²C, Safrolic, SMcCandlish, starship.paint, King of hearts

2. Spygate (conspiracy theory) - 20 supports

bradv, Aquillion, K.e.coffman, SnowFire, SK8RBOI, O3000, WikiVirusC, feminist, Masem, В²C, Rhododendrites, Safrolic, Neutrality, StudiesWorld, starship.paint, King of hearts, Hob Gadling, Ratatosk Jones, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, PackMecEng

3. Spygate conspiracy theory - 15 supports

Aquillion, SnowFire, SK8RBOI, O3000, WikiVirusC, feminist, Masem, В²C, Rhododendrites, Safrolic, Neutrality, StudiesWorld, starship.paint, BullRangifer, Hob Gadling

4. Spygate (political conspiracy theory) - 20 supports

R2, Paine Ellsworth, Aquillion, K.e.coffman, SnowFire, Gonnym, O3000, WikiVirusC, feminist, Masem, Rhododendrites, Safrolic, Neutrality, StudiesWorld, SMcCandlish, starship.paint, BullRangifer, King of hearts, Ratatosk Jones, PackMecEng

5. Spygate (Donald Trump conspiracy theory) - 6 supports

Aquillion, Gonnym, В²C, Safrolic, SMcCandlish, King of hearts

6. Spygate (2016 United States presidential election) - 12 supports

R2, Slithytoad, SK8RBOI, MONGO, feminist, Sir Joseph, Rusf10, JFG, Wookian, SIPPINONTECH, Atsme, PackMecEng

7. FBI surveillance of Donald Trump campaign - 10 supports

Shinealittlelight, Slithytoad, SK8RBOI, Masem, Netoholic, Rusf10, JFG, Atsme, wumbolo, That Guy, From That Show!

Based on the above, I think we can rule out 1, 5, 6 and 7, which leaves 2, 3 and 4. Indeed there were several editors who supported these particular titles and no others. I will read the discussion again to see if anything else stands out. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

We might need a runoff between the top 2. R2 (bleep) 20:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Having read the discussion again, I find I am unable to assign extra weight to any particular argument. There are few policy-based reasons; most were subjective personal opinion. Therefore I am back to counting votes. The three choices with the most support (2, 3, 4) are all very similar: they exclude a person's name and contain the words "conspiracy theory". So in the end I think it matters little which of these is chosen. Of the editors who voted for a combination of these three, and looking at their order of preference, I find that choice 2 was a clear winner.

---

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.

Reaction to the closure

Thank you, Martin, for a very thorough and thoughtful analysis. This was a very well-attended RfC - 38 commenters by my count - and this result should be accepted as definitive. I had also concluded that 4 and 2 were the top choices. They not only had the most supports, they also had the fewest opposes. I noted a separate issue in this discussion and I will start a new section about it below. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@MSGJ: - you didn't count bradv and Hob Gadling for option 4. I counted 22 for option 4, 20 (correct) for option 2. starship.paint (talk) 03:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

You're right, I missed bradv. But Hob Gadling said "2 and 3 are the only sensible options" and was opposed to 4. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• Many thanks to Martin for slogging through a difficult survey, but I think in the end he misapplied WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. If we're strictly vote-counting, then 4 was the winner. Martin was correct to drill down and consider the top-three vote getters. But then he completely ignored the policy-based reasons for one of those versus another and fell back on counting votes. And he didn't even count correctly. There were 13 preferences for #2 over #4, and 9 preferences for #4 over #2. That's not a "clear winner." I think he might have forgotten that "no consensus" is a common outcome of these sorts of surveys. No offense to Martin, just some constructive criticism. Ok, I've said my bit and I don't intend to press this further at WP:MR or anywhere else. Cheers. R2 (bleep) 16:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• As the original author of this article, I have pretty much always had the feeling that it aught to exist at just Spygate, as that is really the primary topic here (greatly outweighing the NFL incident in terms of likelihood of readers entering search terms), but failing that, Spygate (political conspiracy theory) would at least have distinguished it from the NFL conspiracy theory. But I realize that discussion is now over, and I didn't want to enter the fray/ quagmire that it looked like it was becoming. I also certainly do not WP:OWN the piece, and it has been expanded so many times over by Starship and others whose opinions I consider more important now than mine. But there's my 2¢, belatedly, and FWIW. A loose necktie (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory, again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Spygate is not a conspiracy theory. If there was surveillance of any kind on anyone associated with the campaign then it was spying. The fact that people want to redefine what spying doesn't change the normal language used by virtually everyone (spying) when someone is surveiled. This title (and the fact that there is a debate about this) is just more evidence that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of factual information. A conspiracy theory is a theory (an unverified hypothesis) that someone has conspired to do something. Spygate is something that actually took place and is verified. People associated with the Trump campaign were spied upon by government agencies. The former agency heads have themselves said that there was surveillance under oath. Donald Bowers (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Your opinion doesn't trump reliable sources. WP:RS WP:OR O3000 (talk) 16:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Donald Bowers, you're missing the point. Nobody denies that surveillance occurred. This article isn't about any and all surveillance that included Trump and his campaign. It's about specific, limited, and false claims made by Trump. He engaged in conspiracy theory creation and mongering. Yes, Halpern did contact three campaign members, but it was later in the campaign, and he never joined the campaign.

Yes, other surveillance also occurred, whether Trump (and you) misleadingly call it "spying" or not, but it was legal, not for political purposes, and was part of the necessary and proper investigation of the Russian interference in our democracy and elections. If Trump and his campaign hadn't had over a hundred documented, secret, and lied about contacts with Russians, for no legitimate purpose, but mostly proven to be about the election, then Trump wouldn't be involved in this at all. It's his own fault. Now the Mueller Report contains many proven instances of collusion with Russians, but apparently not quite enough to meet the standard of "beyond a shadow of a doubt" necessary for a court case. Mueller deliberately didn't try to create an impeachment case, but instead collected plenty of evidence and passed it on to Congress. Now we'll see whether they take that evidence of collusion and try to impeach Trump. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

That's a bit notforum-y, but Donald Bowers, I think BullRangifer's main point is that there are reliable sources saying that Spygate is a conspiracy theory, and there are reliable sources saying that the surveillance that's known to have occurred was not "spying." To complicate matters, different reliable sources describe Spygate in different ways. This is why we're struggling. But to insist that spying did occur and that editors here are trying to "redefine" spying, all without pointing to any reliable sources, isn't very helpful. R2 (bleep) 16:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Editors here are not redefining anything. We are maintaining the original definition of terms. Halper was an "informant", not a "spy". The ones claiming a "redefinition" of terms should be looking at Trump, his followers, and some sources. Legitimate investigations of foreign nationals are "spying", but not of Americans. That was legitimate, non-political, national security work, and, in this case, involved ONE informant who asked three campaign members a few questions.

Trump admitted he was rebranding (redefining) "informant" when he chose to call Halper a "spy". Ever since then, accusations that legitimate investigations have been "spying" are misuses of the term for political propaganda purposes. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Aside from (Personal attack removed) spin, it was clear that the Trump campaign was spied on, and the grounds for which (a phony dossier) are likely to be investigated/prosecuted if AG Barr has anything to say about it (hint: he does). Why is Nellie Ohr being referred to the DOJ for prosecution by a Congressman? Why is Barr adamant that "spying" did indeed occur?66.141.235.58 (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Attorney General statement

April 2019

I suggest to add a paragraph about the April 24th, 2019 statement from the AG. How about the draft paragraph below? I tried to include both point of views (POV), with their respective sources.

On April 10, 2019 Attorney General William Barr declared that he thinks "spying did occur" against Donald Trump's campaign. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she didn’t trust Barr.

Sources

Francewhoa (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

---

We have discussed this quite a bit above. Because it's off-topic, it has engendered some controversy. The question is: Should we expand the article to include any and all later mentions of "spying" by Trump that are not directly related to his original, false, Spygate conspiracy theory about Halper? We're still discussing that issue. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: I believe this is in response to @Volunteer Marek: removal of the material citing per talk.[30] I have not been following the page closely lately, is there consensus on talk for removal? PackMecEng (talk) 13:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

From the timing, it appears this was written immediately before Francewhoa added the content to the article, which was removed by VM the next day. There is no consensus for including this content yet, at least not that I know of. We are still discussing whether to add such material, which would radically change the scope of the article.

When I commented above, I hadn't noticed that it had been added. I saw his comment as a proposal ("suggest") for discussion, not an announcement he would do it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Almost every discussion on this TP focuses on the word "spygate" rather than the broader scope of what spygate entails. Dismissal of the Attorney General's statement as being off-topic doesn't make any sense to me or quite a few other editors, and has taken on the appearance of stonewalling to keep a particular POV out of the article rather than encouraging productive NPOV discussion. At the very least, it's splitting hairs to push a single interpretation of what "spygate"is supposed to mean, especially since it is an incorrect interpretation. Articles are improved and expanded by adding relative information. Per a May 2018 BBC article titled 'Spygate': The facts behind President Trump's conspiracy, the following explanation summarizes what spygate means in general terms: "He even coined a term for it - "Spygate" - a reference to the Nixon-era Watergate break-in, a scandal he insists is dwarfed by what he alleges was politically motivated surveillance of his campaign. More recently is the April 11, 2019 USA Today article, Spygate: Did American intelligence agencies spy on Donald Trump? Barr says we'll find out. - which begins with On Wednesday Attorney General Bill Barr startled Senators when he said during a budget hearing that he believed that “spying did occur” during the 2016 presidential race, and that “spying on a political campaign is a big deal." The aforementioned does not imply that it is/ever was about a single informant as what is stated in the lead; rather it tells us spygate is about the entire surveillance of the Trump campaign and those connected with it, much the same way Watergate was about a series of events. We should not have to call an RfC for every single piece of material that should be included in this article. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Watergate was a scandal as it started with an illegal act for political purposes and continued with a coverup of WH activities. Spygate was a conspiracy theory that an illegal act for political purposes (planting a spy in the Trump campaign) occurred. There is no evidence that this happened. Now, under questioning, Barr hemmed and hawed and said he though spying did occur. He then backed off of that statement. We don’t know what he meant. He says he’s looking into it. If and when he investigates and reports, we can decide what if anything to add. O3000 (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, with the possible exception of BullRangifer, I think there's agreement on this talk page that different reliable sources have described Spygate in different ways. The question is what to do about it. Your comment here suggests that we should treat it as broadly as possible, but I don't quite understand that logic. The fact that Barr said "I think spying did occur," doesn't mean he was referring to Spygate, nor would I think should it influence the scope of this article, since the Spygate theory was around well before Barr made that comment. In any case, in a discussion above, Shinealittlelight has agreed to draft some language that will attempt to accommodate all of the different ways sources have described the theory--not just the narrowest and not just the broadest. I think we should see what they come up with. R2 (bleep) 17:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

R2 and Atsme.

Quote: "with the possible exception of BullRangifer, I think there's agreement on this talk page that different reliable sources have described Spygate in different ways."

Actually, there is no exception from me. I agree that Spygate has been "described in different ways" and also that the use of the term has morphed and strayed from the original use by Trump, ergo the original Spygate claims by him, which were about ONE informant (Halper) he chose to label a "spy" to make it seem more odious, who never joined the campaign, contrary to Trump's false assertion. RS still describe that original claim as false and a conspiracy theory.

Quote: "The question is what to do about it." Full agreement. Indeed, the question we are trying to decide (and I'm onboard with seeing a consensus on this) is whether to broaden the inclusion criteria. I am not totally against including later and diverse mentions in some sort of "Other uses" section(s), but only on condition we keep the original historical context and definition as is. It is that origin which made this article notable enough to even create. We don't change history here, but we often document later developments, including deceptive historical revisionism, but they must have some connection to the original scope. They must be on-topic.

Later/other uses/misuses of the term "spying", applied to any and all legitimate investigations that touched on the Trump campaign's widespread and proven involvement in Russian interference, are an extreme broadening of this article's scope, especially since most such uses are totally unrelated to the original Spygate claims.

A disambiguation article would be the best solution. Take a look at what I have written here: Spying on Trump campaign (disambiguation). What do you think of that? -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I like it! At least as a short-term solution. Getting consensus on the dab page language might be challenging. R2 (bleep) 20:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh yes! It definitely needs work and improved wording. I'd welcome any help. It might even become suitable for use here, instead of as a separate disambig page. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

It's what RSes say in compliance with NPOV, but that is not what is happening. It's actually quite simple - we use updated RS and attribute it per our PAGs. We include all relevant views per NPOV. And we use common sense without splitting hairs for such statements as "spying did occur". Everything in this article is based on interpretations of evidence and what the Mueller team thought about that evidence - none of it is science-based fact anymore than what Barr stated in his report. It's Barr's interpretation (what he thinks) after reading the report and various information he has gathered the same as the Mueller Report is about what the Mueller team thinks after reviewing the evidence - high likelihood, not that it did happen matter-of-factly which is why there were no indictments based on the collusion illusion or conspiracy theory, which is exactly what it was from day one. That is where noncompliance with NPOV comes into play. None of this should be stated in WikiVoice, particularly in the lead, "Trump's claims have been shown to be false." No they have not, and that statement should be removed. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

...collusion illusion. Good grief. O3000 (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

It's what RSes say in compliance with NPOV, but that is not what is happening. What is what which sources are saying? Links and quotes please. R2 (bleep) 18:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

It was in response to your question...I think there's agreement on this talk page that different reliable sources have described Spygate in different ways. The question is what to do about it. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't follow. Maybe you misread what I wrote? I didn't say that sources are saying that Spygate has been described in different ways. I said that sources are describing Spygate in different ways. To my knowledge there's no source that addresses any discrepancies in how Spygate is described by other sources. I don't understand what that has to do with sources being "compliant with NPOV" (which is kind of a weird thing to say, because reliable sources can be biased). R2 (bleep) 18:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to feed the stonewalling. Read NPOV. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Not a helpful or good faith comment. Please AGF. We are working toward a solution. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree with BullRangifer. We're here to improve the article, not to share our rants. R2 (bleep) 20:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

NPOV applies to article content, not your views of RS, which belong elsewhere. The only “stonewalling” I see is that required by RS. O3000 (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

If it's true that the wall of text above is not stonewalling/filibustering, then (a) stop the PAs against me, (b) restore the Barr material that was wrongfully reverted or provide a logical explanation why it shouldn't be restored, (c) update this article to reflect what the Mueller Report revealed, (d) stop referring to the DOJ's spying/surveillance/intelligence as a "conspiracy theory", and (e) change the lead to reflect a NPOV. If you don't understand what I mean by NPOV, then by all means, read WP:NPOV which explains it exactly the way I interpret it. As for my views about WP:RS, I'm not the one with the problem. My views/interpretations are spot-on so put the gaslights away. My concern begins with the sources cited to improperly use WikiVoice to state opinion (that has since been debunked) as statements of fact using the following four cited sources:

• A news analysis in the NYTimes. See WP:NEWSORG: Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.
• The second source cited source is The Intercept, which describes itself as "adversarial journalism". They have a left bias, their use of anonymous sources is questionable, and then there's the Juan M. Thompson scandal. Ironically, they reported on the The Ten Worst, Most Embarrassing U.S. Media Failures On The Trump-Russia Story, including several cited in this article.
• The third source is Paste Magazine, again left bias, primarily a monthly music and entertainment magazine.
• The fourth source is LA Times, which has had its share of chaos and is considered center left.

Now let's see some productive discussion about changing the lead, citing better sources or properly using the sources that are currently cited. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Rather than perpetuating the conduct discussion here I'm going to leave a note on your user talk explaining how this comment is disruptive. As for content, those seem like reasonable arguments... however at base they seem to be contrary to WP:BIASED. That is, just because sources may be biased doesn't mean their content isn't reliable. As for the New York Times analysis piece, I believe there's broad consensus that sometimes they can be cited without attribution, and sometimes they can't be. The bottom line is, what's your substantive argument for why these sources aren't reliable? Have they not been fact checked and do they not have a reputation for accuracy? Please answer without accusations of stonewalling, gaslighting, or other types of bad faith. R2 (bleep) 15:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Lead Discussion

• Suggestion: Spygate is a term coined by President Trump in May 2018 with reference to Watergate, a scandal that occured during the Nixon presidential campaign; "a scandal he insists is dwarfed by what he alleges was politically motivated surveillance of his campaign." (cite BBC}. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Only there is no evidence of "politically motivated surveillance of his campaign". We cannot suggest that a conspiracy theory is true. O3000 (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

And terribly undue emphasis on Watergate. R2 (bleep) 16:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

And Spygate is a theory, not a term. R2 (bleep) 16:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Its more like a Hypothesis.--MONGO (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

It isn't up to us to determine what it is or isn't - UNDUE is not even an issue - it's what a RS has stated, and we cite what RS say. Reword it to fit better but that's what the RS says. As for politically motivated surveillance - wasn't the entire Russian collusion allegation based on theory - NO VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE - and it had to be investigated for nearly 2 years based on nothing more than allegations? Yet the lead says in WikiVoice that Spygate is a conspiracy theory? Did I miss something? We have RS available with updates to correct the article now that the Mueller Report is published stating no evidence of collusion or whatever it states verbatim - if published in RS, include it. There are ongoing investigations - just like there were when the allegations of collusion were made. The Barr summary along with some secondary sources do confirm surveillance and intelligence (spying) into the Trump campaign, right? We simply cite the RS. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

"Collusion" is a word that Trump keeps using. The investigation was about interference in the 2016 election by the Russians, and it detailed rather a huge amount. That is not a conspiracy theory. It also is WP:OTHERSTUFF. O3000 (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Trump was for sure investigated for collusion, I can't even count how many times Rachel Maddow said the term. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47688187, https://www.ft.com/content/42c1913e-4e48-11e9-b401-8d9ef1626294, https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/03/24/trump-putin-russia-collusion-226110 Sourcerery (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Not relevant to this article. This article is about a conspiracy theory that there was "politically motivated surveillance of his campaign". There is no evidence of this. O3000 (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

But why say it wasn't about collusion when it clearly was?Sourcerery (talk) 21:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with O3000, this is a nitpicking distraction for the purposes of this discussion. Please let it go. R2 (bleep) 22:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. No.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

To address the "terribly undue emphasis on Watergate"(R2), Atsme's suggestion could be reworded, because we don't mention Trump's comparison to Watergate, and it should be mentioned. Here's an alternate wording:

• Trump tweeted that the use of an informant by the "Obama FBI" was "bigger than Watergate". Anthony Zurcher referred to this claim as a conspiracy theory and noted it as an apparent reference to the Watergate break-in by the Nixon administration.

I'm not sure where it would be best to include this, but it would improve the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

We might be getting our wires crossed. I'm pretty sure Atsme was proposing a new first sentence. I have no problem with mentioning Watergate somewhere in the article, assuming the secondary sources merit it. R2 (bleep) 19:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Good point. I definitely think mentioning Watergate in the first sentence, or even close to the top, would be "terribly undue emphasis on Watergate", but I think it deserves short mention, hence my proposed wording. The sources are good enough, so it can just be included somewhere. I'll take a look. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I have now added it to the Background section in chronological order. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources

I'm ok with whatever you decide is appropriate per my suggestion to update the article. It's all about what RS say, and that's what we have to live with when dealing with NEWSORG and RECENTISM rather than the higher quality academic sources. That will happen over time as it always has with US presidents. I simply look for ways to accommodate a wide-based readership while at the same time adhering closely to NPOV. I also consider things we need to include in an effort to keep an article stable. Stability is/should be a priority. We don't want to constantly fight trolling which forces us to grow our watchlists and consumes a great deal of our time. I realize it's impossible to stop it completely but we can at least try to reduce it somewhat. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree. At the same time we should avoid feeding the trolls by making concessions to them. Therein lies the rub. R2 (bleep) 20:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• It's definitely not due for the lead. One sentence somewhere in the article, perhaps, but his comparison of Spygate to other things he's talked about is basically a minor bit of trivia, not a defining aspect of the subject. This isn't a matter of WP:RS or recentism, it's a matter of focus - he's specifically talking about unrelated conspiracies he has theories about in your quote; obviously we can't put it in the lead just because he mentioned his previous conspiracy theories in passing. Again, this page is for his debunked May 2018 accusations, not whatever new and unrelated accusations he's decided to level against his political opponents since. --Aquillion (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• Spygate is a term coined by President Trump in May 2018 with reference to Watergate, a scandal that occured during the Nixon presidential campaign; "a scandal he insists is dwarfed by what he alleges was politically motivated surveillance of his campaign." - regarding this suggestion .... it's vague and unhelpful. Doesn't get to the point. Oppose. starship.paint ~ KO 03:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theory" in title

Duplicative and unlikely to lead anywhere constructive. R2 (bleep) 18:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Is a shame that given the information which is emerging, including but not limited to misleading of the FISA Court to obtain authorization, this article still has the (conspiracy theory) as part of the title. It makes Wikipedia look REALLY BAD!!! I want to make clear that I am a great admirer and user of Wikipedia when I am saying this, but is not the first time when I see this kind of problems, and I am starting to question what is going on more and more. And if I am doing this, for sure there are LOTS of other people who are starting to questions this. I post it here for whatever is worth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HykL-5CMhQU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.115.6 (talk) 04:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC) That's not a reliable source. As for your apparent request to remove "conspiracy theory" from the title, you probably should have skimmed the rest of this talk page before posting. A proposal to change the title to Spygate (2016 United States presidential election) was recently proposed. There were many votes going both ways. In the end, there were not quite enough votes to establish a consensus supporting the move. (FWIW I personally supported the move.) R2 (bleep) 16:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC) But there sure was an easy "consensus" when it came to biased and partisan leftist Wikipedia editors falsely claiming Spygate was a "conspiracy theory", rather than an conspiracy fact, which the Attorney General and the Special Council has now confirmed it to be. Funny how that happens, eh? It's like magic!!174.112.31.231 (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC) venue.rocker The reason for that is because at least initially a number of reliable sources have called Spygate a conspiracy theory, and our core policies require us to follow the reliable sources to avoid these very sorts of accusations of bias and bad faith. There is currently an active discussion on this topic, and you are invited to participate, provided you remain civil and assume good faith. Our editing policy may be different than wherever you're coming from. There has been a lot of snark and other unpleasant conduct on this page and I respectfully ask you not to contribute to that. R2 (bleep) 17:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

There is no controlling admin here. Come back after you find a reliable source saying that Spygate is a proven fact. Some reliable sources can be found at WP:RSP, which also lists unreliable sources that should not be used. starship 05:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The controlling admin here clearly has an unshakeable agenda and he will never properly admit this is now a proven fact and not a conspiracy theory. Expect him to continue moving the goalposts on what a reliable source is, and how "spying" is defined, and what "Spygate" is about. Until and unless Colbert tells him to think differently, I'm afraid Wikipedia is stuck with his partisan activism as "fact". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.217.119.197 (talk • contribs)

F.B.I. Sent Investigator Posing as Assistant to Meet With Papadopoulos in 2016

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/us/politics/fbi-government-investigator-trump.html soibangla (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended content

Unreal. So now we find out that the Obama/Comey FBI sent in a "blonde bombshell" to covertly gather intelligence from Papadopolous, an employee of the opposing party's campaign, to support the Stefan Halper operation. It's like something straight out of The Americans, except instead of Russians spyi...excuse me, "performing a perfectly legitimate secret intelligence gathering operation without the target's knowledge" on Americans, it's Americans targeting Americans. Authorized by the FISA court, based on a collection of disinformation outlined in a dossier, written by a former MI-6 agent, who got the disinformation from the Russian government, and was paid for by the campaign of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee. And the New York Times admitted this? This is pretty seismic. Obviously lead-worthy. I'd add it myself but the article is locked. Do you have time to put this in, soibangla? Also why is the article still calling this a “conspiracy theory”? The events in question aren’t in dispute. The FBI says they secretly sent people in to gather intel on the Trump campaign with the reason given being “to make sure he wasn’t colluding with Russia.” It’s not a theory. They did it. The only question now is 1) was it illegal, 2) who ordered the operation, 3) and did Obama know, and if so, when did he know it? 2600:1012:B02B:443B:D516:B506:FBF0:C8E0 (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC) Edits by site banned User:Hidden Tempo stricken per WP:DENY I have no idea what you are talking about, why you are quoting “blonde bombshell” which I can’t find, what this has to do with Obama, not mentioned in the article, or your other odd extrapolations. One thing: You have clearly displayed why we should use the words "conspiracy theory" as you are clearly promoting such. Someone else fold this. O3000 (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC) New York Post confirms that Ms. Azra Turk, the woman sent in by the FBI in a covert op to gather intelligence on the Trump campaign and other Americans, is in fact a "blonde bombshell" (https://nypost.com/2019/05/02/fbi-sent-a-blonde-bombshell-to-meet-trump-aide-papadopoulos-report/). We have no idea yet if any of this involves Obama or if he was even aware of the operation. All we know at this point is that the operation was performed during his administration. Let's wait for the two ongoing Inspector General investigations to conclude before we even THINK about implicating Obama in any of this. Facts and evidence only. No, we're not going to "fold," bury, or erase this New York Times breaking news. It's a huge piece of the puzzle that's coming together. We don't yet know if there was a conspiracy, which is why we shouldn't be using the term. Nobody disputes that Stefan Halper and Azra Turk were sent in by the FBI to gather intel on Americans. The three questions I listed above are what we still don't know, and we should be discussing the content, not the editors who are working to get this right. 2600:1012:B02B:443B:D516:B506:FBF0:C8E0 (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC) The New York Post is a tabloid and we should not be looking to them for any serious analysis. We know the FBI investigated Papadopoulos. This news doesn't seem to change anything that we know about Trump's conspiracy theory. soibangla, in the future, please don't just put a link down here without context. Use the talk page to discuss what you think should be done with the link. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC) It's easy to track down the "blonde bombshell" comment. The NY Post was quoting Papadopoulos's book. R2 (bleep) 23:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC) With all the sources available to us for related stories, I hope we don’t stoop to using a tabloid like the NYPost, or using tabloid terms like “blonde bombshell”. Unless you can prove that Jean Harlow was the person referenced. O3000 (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

When the dust settles, let's make sure that it's noted that the Spygate theory was universally regarded as a conspiracy theory. It'd be a shame for all these RS sources that have just been obsoleted to be forgotten entirely, and it's definitely a notable aspect of Spygate. Maybe it could be an example of how occasionally a conspiracy theory turns out to have substantial elements of truth on the Conspiracy Theory article too, but that's another discussion SeanusAurelius (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like WP:OR to me. In general, articles are about their topics, not the the media coverage of those topics. The media coverage of the topic can occasionally become noteworthy, but only when there are additional reliable sources covering the media coverage. In this case I haven't seen any reliable sources about the media coverage of Spygate--yet. R2 (bleep) 18:41, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• This New York Times article admits that spying occurred and specifically mentions Spygate. From the article "The American government’s affiliation with the woman, who said her name was Azra Turk, is one previously unreported detail of an operation that has become a political flash point in the face of accusations by President Trump and his allies that American law enforcement and intelligence officials spied on his campaign to undermine his electoral chances. Last year, he called it Spygate." So either Spygate is not a conspiracy theory or the New York Times is promoting conspiracy theories. Which is it???--Rusf10 (talk) 02:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • It was a law enforcement operation. This is one of the techniques they can use. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
    • With all due respect, you seem a bit confused about what the article is actually saying. This was not a traditional "law enforcement operation," it was a counterintelligence operation against a member of a political campaign. It says it right in the article. Although I fail to understand what your point is in calling it a "law enforcement operation," I surmise from your other comments here that you aim to downplay the significance of what happened to George Papadopolous in London. Let's be absolutely clear about what this article is saying: the FBI's counterintelligence division was running an active operation against a campaign worker on foreign soil using a spy. Yes, spy. She was using an assumed identity operating outside of US soil. That is pretty major news even on its own, and would completely destroy the notion that this was somehow a "conspiracy theory" when the NYT is corroborating it. It is very obvious that you are having problems judging critical source material for this article in NPOV. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 02:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
      • The FBI was following up on credible allegations of Russian interference and cooperation from the Trump campaign. Again, nothing shady about that. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Papadopoulos has said that Azra Turk was working for the CIA. Even if she was FBI, it'd be counter-intel, not law enforcement. FWIW Spygate is obviously not a conspiracy theory as by definition a conspiracy theory has no evidence for it except supposition. It was a basically true allegation that was widely dismissed as a conspiracy theory, "shady" or not. SeanusAurelius (talk) 03:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
      • SeanusAurelius, you're supposing that the Trump campaign was spied upon, when really there was a valid investigation. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Calling a legitimate and necessary investigation of foreign meddling and potential treasonous activity "spying" is... well, it's gaslighting. THAT is the "conspiracy theory". That FBI doing it's fucking job was somehow a nefarious plot rather than... FBI doing its job.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

"This New York Times article admits that spying occurred" - it does nothing of the sort. It confirms that after getting wind of Papadapolous attempts/bragging about his contacts with the Russians (in March) the FBI (in September)... investigated! Oh my fucking god how dare they??? Gimme a fucking break.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Source: "'HE called it Spygate"

Rusf10: "New York Times is promoting conspiracy theories"

Last I checked the NYTimes wasn't a "HE". Stop misrepresenting sources Rusf10.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I already provided the full quote above. The title of the article is "F.B.I. Sent Investigator Posing as Assistant to Meet With Papadopoulos in 2016". Do you know what an investigator posing as an assistant is? that's a spy! Spy: "1. a person employed by a government to obtain secret information or intelligence about another, usually hostile, country, especially with reference to military or naval affairs. 2.a person who keeps close and secret watch on the actions and words of another or others. 3. a person who seeks to obtain confidential information about the activities, plans, methods, etc., of an organization or person, especially one who is employed for this purpose by a competitor" [31] If she wasn't a spy, she would have just told him who she was and not pretended to be someone else.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Source says Trump called it Spygate. You claim that the NY Times is supporting a conspiracy theory. See the problem? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

He called it spygate, you can call it something else if you want. But it is not a conspiracy theory because the spying actually happened. See the problem?--Rusf10 (talk) 05:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

There was no "spying". There was an investigation. The problem was Russian interference and Trump campaign cooperation. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Are you serious??? The investigator sent by the FBI was spying by definition. The only question is whether it was legal or not. The problem was Russian interference and Trump campaign cooperation. And after two years of investigation, Bob Mueller came to the conclusion that the Trump campaign did not cooperate with the Russians but you still believe that it did? You need to accept the facts. The Trump campaign did not collude with the Russians.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

You we can all benefit from bringing down the tension level and sticking with the facts. No one is convincing anyone that so-and-so did such-and-such, nor does anyone need to. If we all remember that our standard is verifiability, not truth then we can focus on what the sources, not on our personal beliefs. R2 (bleep) 19:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The report reads clear in that the Trump campaign was open and receptive to Russian help. It does not say that they violated any laws, potentially due to incompetence, such as Don Jr not knowing his Russia meeting violated law. This is off the topic anyway, the investigation was needed, and as far as we know, conducted appropriately. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

No, this is important because you seem reluctant to accept the underlying facts which are that the Trump campaign did not collude with Russia. And now you're putting your own spin on it saying that the wanted to collude but were too incompetent to do so.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The truth is pretty clear. I know this is an op-ed, but the title should make it clear it's not "my" spin: "Mueller’s findings: Too stupid to conspire. Too incompetent to obstruct." – Muboshgu (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

As you said its an op-ed (and a poorly written one too). 100% spin in that piece, the writer is cherry picking the report. Mueller never called anyone incompetent or stupid in the report. He only quoted part of Meuller's reasoning which also included a lack of evidence. What the Mueller report actually says about the decision of whether to charge anyone with a crime: The Office considered whether this evidence would establish a conspiracy to violate the foreign contributions ban, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; the solicitation of an illegal foreign-source contribution; or the acceptance or receipt of "an express or implied promise to make a [foreign-source] contribution," both in violation of 52 U.S.C. § 3012l(a)(l)(A), (a)(2). There are reasonable arguments that the offered information would constitute a "thing of value" within the meaning of these provisions, but the Office determined that the government would not be likely to obtain and sustain a conviction for two other reasons: first, the Office did not obtain admissible evidence likely to meet the government's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these individuals acted "willfully," i.e., with general knowledge of the illegality of their conduct; and, second, the government would likely encounter difficulty in proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of the promised information exceeded the threshold for a criminal violation, Doing something willfully has nothing to do with intelligence. Willful is a legal term, it means intentional. For example, when someone is charged with murder it must be proven they did so willfully (ie. not by accident).--Rusf10 (talk) 00:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

In light of the NYT article, it is becoming increasingly clear that the title of this article needs to be changed immediately. It is entirely reasonable to assert that opening a counterintelligence operation against a member of a Presidential campaign based off of hearsay is equivalent to "spying." The accusations against Papadopolous were solely based on a single offhanded conversation Papadapolous supposedly had with a foreign national (according to the article.) Whether you personally are troubled by the fact that the FBI was using spies on foreign soil to actively gather potentially incriminating material in secret against a member of a political campaign means absolutely nothing in terms of this article - it is, as a matter of fact, spying on a Presidential Campaign. The FBI was using a spy specifically to figure out if the Trump Campaign was collaborating with Russia on the release of the Clinton emails. In other words, they were spying on the campaign. Of course partisans will continue to downplay and minimize this ad nauseam but that is literally what the New York Times article is saying. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

No, that's not what the Times is saying. The Times is detailing the FBI doing a legitimate investigation. Which is not spying. And the article title requires consensus to change. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

You and the other fellow are confused. Spying can be legitimate or illegitimate. It's only necessary attributes are secrecy and an information gathering or sabotage motive, in this case information gathering. Trump was ridiculed because the actual allegation of spying was considered baseless. Whether it was legitimate or not, spying occurred. ::Whether the spying was for nefarious political interference or legitimate counterintelligence is unknown by the public as the original unredacted FISA warrants have never been issued. You don't know, and nor do I if the investigation was legitimately premised. It's certainly not a conspiracy theory, as a) it is falsifiable and b) there is some circumstantial evidence that the White House was involved (e.g. Strzok's texts) and c) Prominent, well placed individuals such as Bill Barr regard it as an open question. Speculative material doesn't belong in an encyclopedia; and unfortunately, the motives for the spying are now speculative on both sides.

The article should reflect that the spying (call it surveillance if you like) did occur.

WP:UNDUE requires that the article represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. SeanusAurelius (talk) 09:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@SeanusAurelius: - Wikipedia can state it is spying only if reliable sources call it spying. Wikipedia can state this is Spygate only if reliable sources call this Spygate. We're not going to use your definition of spying, my definition of spying, your definition of legitimate etc. We use reliable sources, period. starship.paint (edits | talk) 10:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The NYT article in question refers to it as Spygate:

"The American government’s affiliation with the woman, who said her name was Azra Turk, is one previously unreported detail of an operation that has become a political flash point in the face of accusations by President Trump and his allies that American law enforcement and intelligence officials spied on his campaign to undermine his electoral chances. Last year, he called it Spygate." This RS refers to the body of accusations by Trump as Spygate, and this is a part of it. *You* may not think it's part of Spygate, but the RS does, and as such the article is required to cover it.

And as you quoted spied on his campaign to undermine his electoral chances. Whether you call it spying or any other term, it is a debunked conspiracy theory. There is no evidence that anyone spied on his campaign to undermine his electoral chances. O3000 (talk) 12:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@SIPPINONTECH: - It is entirely reasonable to assert that opening a counterintelligence operation against a member of a Presidential campaign based off of hearsay is equivalent to "spying." - if a reliable source does that, it's okay. If a Wikipedia editor does that, without a reliable source saying that, that is WP:Original research. starship.paint (edits | talk) 05:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

A legitimate investigation would be members of the FBI knocking on Mr. Papadopoulus' door, showing their badges, and asking the proper questions in person with legal counsel available. It could have and should have ended there. Using informants, the FISA court, and CIA assets is not the most appropriate way to investigate the opposite party's campaign. But here we are, 3 years later, with animosity between Republicans, Democrats, the media, and the DoJ at an all time high. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Mr. Trump calls it spying and the Obama administration / FBI call it a counterintelligence operation. They each used different words to describe the very same thing. Our article does a very poor job of actually describing what happened. Additionally, Papadopoulus said the woman had poor English. Using foreigners to gather intelligence in such a way does not seem to me how normal domestic operations are supposed to go. I wonder if we need to fundamentally change this article - change the title to Operation Crossfire Hurricane and add a very large section devoted to Trump's characterizations of it as spying. Ultimately that's what everyone seems to be talking around. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Basically Spygate originally was claims of a spy being implanted into the campaign early on. But now an undercover agent talking with a member of campaign who was already under investigation in September of 2016 is being used as "confirmation of it" by some. Still nothing to show a spy being implanted into campaign, which a conversation at a bar is not. Still nothing "early on" since September was a year after he announced candidacy, and 4 months after he became presumptive nominee(or roughly in middle between official nomination and election). It has evolved to the point where any action by FBI that invovled trump campaign is going to be lumped into it. Might need to decide in future(after current MR is finished, whether the article needs to be renamed(and severally rescoped) to Operation Crossfire Hurricane with just one section on the conspiracy theory, or the Operation to get split to its own page and the conspiracy theory parts mostly remaining here. WikiVirusC^(talk) 12:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the SpyGate article should be about SpyGate. I think a follow up section can be added which adds all the subsequent accusations of spying on Trump, none of which were "politically motivated surveillance of his campaign".O3000 (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@WikiVirusC: The supreme irony of you trying to dictate the definition of "Spygate" is that it is completely at odds with how the New York Times article defines it. Here how the article defines Spygate: "accusations by President Trump and his allies that American law enforcement and intelligence officials spied on his campaign to undermine his electoral chances. Last year, he called it Spygate." According to the article, Spygate is the accusation that American law enforcement and intelligence officials spied on his campaign. Where are you even getting the idea that it was specifically about a spy literally being planted inside the Trump campaign? I see elsewhere in the talk page that people want to define it like that but the NYT itself does not agree with that definition as of 5/2/2019. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I have not at any point tried to dictate the definition of Spygate, I simply stated my opinions about it. In the comment you replied to, I said what it was originally described as, and what it has now evolved to now. I get the idea about it specifically being about a spy implanted into the campaign from when the original story about Spygate came about. This Wikipedia article has been up long before yesterday's NYT article that you quoted, and my definition of Spygate's origin come from roughly a year of coverage on the story. Read the lead sentence in the lead paragraph Spygate is a conspiracy theory initiated by President Donald Trump in May 2018 that the Obama administration had implanted a spy in his 2016 presidential campaign for political purposes. It has four sources included with it, including one from the NYT as well[32]. Last week, President Trump promoted new, unconfirmed accusations to suit his political narrative: that a “criminal deep state” element within Mr. Obama’s government planted a spy deep inside his presidential campaign to help his rival, Hillary Clinton, win — a scheme he branded “Spygate.” Stop acting like I am making stuff up out of nowhere. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Soibangla, Objective300, SeanusAurelius, and Muboshgu: @Rusf10, SIPPINONTECH, Volunteer Marek, and Ahrtoodeetoo: - I personally think this article is more suitable for Operation Crossfire Hurricane, which I have created from a redirect. I invite you editors to insert it there, if I didn't ping you here, it's because I already pinged you about that article above. 13:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC), and re-ping due to typo @Objective3000: 14:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC) and @AppliedCharisma: - forgot you since you started a new section. starship.paint (edits | talk) 14:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Considering there is no connection between this story and the "Spygate" allegation, yes. But, I expect that reliable sources will, if they haven't already, connect the story to the conspiracy theory. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

If they do we add it. If they don't we don't. starship.paint (edits | talk) 14:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: "There is no connection between this story and the "Spygate" allegation" - this is intentionally mischaracterizing the article; you are completely wrong. Did you even read the article? Here is a quote directly from the New York Times article: "The American government’s affiliation with the woman, who said her name was Azra Turk, is one previously unreported detail of an operation that has become a political flash point in the face of accusations by President Trump and his allies that American law enforcement and intelligence officials spied on his campaign to undermine his electoral chances. Last year, he called it Spygate." It has everything to do with Spygate. It is literally a confirmation that Spygate is not a conspiracy theory. It is very obvious what you are doing here and I think you should take a step back and assess whether you are capable of coming at this from NPOV, because it is apparent that NPOV is not important to you at all. You are intentionally mischaracterizing what the article is saying because you don't like the idea that it completely vindicates Trump's allegations of spying on his campaign, which it absolutely does. You are embarrassing yourself. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

SIPPINONTECH, I'll say this again: the NYT is reporting one new detail of an FBI investigation. They did not confirm that the FBI did anything inappropriate. As far as your comments about my supposed POV, pot meet kettle. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: This is beyond ridiculous at this point - it is spying whether or not it was conducted appropriately. You continue to create strawman arguments to deflect from the central issue with the Wikipedia article, which is that there was actually spying on the Trump campaign. Whether that spying was conducted appropriately (which remains to be seen as it is the subject of an ongoing investigation by the Attorney General of the United States) is completely irrelevant in terms of characterizing the behavior of the FBI as spying. It absolutely was spying, and this is pretty obviously no longer just a "conspiracy theory." SIPPINONTECH (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you, Starship,paint. And the aspects of Crossfire Hurricane that are relevant to Spygate can be mentioned in this article, summary style. There's clearly a connection between the two, as evidenced by the fact that sources like the new NY Times story discuss both in combination, but it should be made clear somehow that Spygate and Crossfire Hurricane are separate things and that the argument that the existence of Crossfire Hurricane proves Spygate to be true is still a fringe theory. R2 (bleep) 15:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Yep. Too many editors ate conflating the two, which is making for all of these circular conversations. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ahrtoodeetoo: Where are you getting the idea that these are "separate things?" According to the NYT article, Spygate refers to "accusations by President Trump and his allies that American law enforcement and intelligence officials spied on his campaign to undermine his electoral chances. Last year, he called it Spygate." Crossfire Hurricane is part of Spygate, it is absolutely not a "separate thing." Crossfire hurricane was literally "law enforcement and intelligence officials spy(ing) on (Trump's) campaign." SIPPINONTECH (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

If you're going to say that Spygate and Hurricane Crossfire are the same thing, then you need to find reliable sources that say that expressly. Just because two things are mentioned in the same source doesn't make them the same thing. (Please don't ping me, since I'm watching this page.) R2 (bleep) 15:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

SIPPINONTECH, you state: According to the NYT article, Spygate refers to "accusations by President Trump and his allies that American law enforcement and intelligence officials spied on his campaign to undermine his electoral chances. Yes, that is what SpyGate is -- a hoax. Nothing in that article says that any gov’t agency was spying on Trump’s campaign to undermine his electoral chances. It’s a conspiracy theory. O3000 (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• As more information comes out about Hurricane Crossfire, I'm actually starting to lean toward the position that we should expand that new article that Starship.paint has created -- focusing primarily on the verifiable facts about it, rather than the fringe allegations -- and then, after that, merge this article into it as a section. The final product would look something like Murder of Seth Rich. Like this topic, it's about a real, non-fringe event that has a section about a notable fringe theory about the event. R2 (bleep) 15:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this. We'll no doubt have to discuss just what to include. But I'm on board with the basic idea. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. Please get back on-topic. Stay focused. "Conspiracy theory" does not refer to the fact that surveillance by Halper occurred. It refers to Trump's false claims about his surveillance. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course. SpyGate is a debunked conspiracy theory that is still being pushed by Trump and alt-right sites. There is zero evidence that the FBI, CIA, MI6, or KAOS was spying on the Trump campaign to harm him. The fact that the FBI was investigating leads about the numerous Trump campaign folks meeting with Russians is separate. O3000 (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Tons of text here discussing this article. None at Operation Crossfire Hurricane on it. Pro-Trump editors, hello...? starship.paint (edits | talk) 02:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended content

It really is rich to listen to Adam Schiff's "Trump colluded with the Russians!!!" thoroughly debunked conspiracy theory get parroted by The New York Times, The Washington Post, and by anyone else sympathetic to the Democratic Party for over two years straight, a whopper of a theory that would all be revealed by the venerable Robert Mueller, get completely shut down by Mueller and his team of Hillary and Obama donors, and then watch these people have the temerity to haughtily label undisputed spying operations as "conspiracy theories." Operation Crossfire Hurricane should be merged with Spygate. When people use the phrase "Spygate," they are referring to any efforts by the Obama administration to covertly gather intelligence on the Trump campaign, on our soil and overseas, whether or not YOU personally think it was justified and proper. This includes Manafort getting wiretapped, Susan Rice/Samantha Power unmasking all kinds of Trump folks (which Rice denied with an eloquent retort: "I didn't do nuthin' to nobody"), CIA veteran Stefan Halper and a woman using the assumed identity "Azra Turk" attempting to gather intel on Trump folks, and everything else we don't know yet that the IG investigations are looking into. This probably also includes Peter "We'll stop it" Strzok's actions as well. So, why is this title so controversial? Lay the facts out, let the reader decide if all this amounts to a "conspiracy" or not. Adam Schiff and James Clapper would have us believe that all of these actions are completely legal. Many others believe that all of these actions are tantamount to a coup attempt, and we can expect indictments to start getting handed down as early as June. We just don't know yet. If you can honestly look at the first paragraphs of this article and say that it's neutral, you're either being disingenuous or are letting your biases override your judgment. If you're attacking CNN as "alt-right," you're doing it wrong. If you are engaging in a FUD campaign against MSNBC because even they are now waking up to the facts, you are certainly doing it wrong. “The Trump campaign was improperly spied on” is an opinion. We shouldn’t be pushing any opinions, which is why this article is embarrassing and makes all of us look terrible.2600:1012:B02B:443B:D516:B506:FBF0:C8E0 (talk) 05:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC) When people use the phrase "Spygate," they are referring to any efforts by the Obama administration to covertly gather intelligence on the Trump campaign, on our soil and overseas Seriously, instead of typing 350+ words here in a talk page, why don't you contribute 350 words to the article that obviously needs expansion? And if that page is to be merged with Spygate, isn't it in your interest to work on that page anyway? starship.paint (edits | talk) 05:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC) As I mentioned earlier, the article is locked to prevent anyone with less than 500 edits from making the article neutral. The ludicrous "Conspiracy by Donald Trump!!!!" title is in stone. You could have Stefan Halper give a press conference tomorrow, say: "I spied on Trump for the FBI, and I was wrong for doing so" and that title wouldn't change. How do I know? Because "Russian collusion!!!" is not labeled correctly as a conspiracy theory anywhere on Wikipedia. I couldn't find a single instance correctly describing the absurd conspiracy theory that Trump or his associates worked with the Russian government to help his campaign. It's always given great gravitas and loaded with links to newspapers like The Washington Post and magazines like the New Yorker to perpetuate the FUD campaign and further confuse your average person who doesn't have time to follow this closely. Besides. I think we both know that if I started making the article neutral, I would get reverted immediately by someone who gets their "news" from people like Jake Tapper and Paul Krugman, and therefore have been taught that it’s perfectly legitimate to wiretap the opposing party’s presidential nominee’s campaign manager, unmask his staff members, deploy at least two assets into his campaign, and forget to tell anyone about it and forget to give the nominee a defensive briefing to alert them to potential impropriety or Russian collusion. One thing at a time. The building is burning down right now (“conspiracy theory by Donald Trump”) - we can deal the stains in the carpet (the merge) afterward. 2600:1012:B02B:443B:D516:B506:FBF0:C8E0 (talk) 06:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC) This article. Operation Crossfire Hurricane This article. Operation Crossfire Hurricane This article. Gosh. starship.paint (edits | talk) 06:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Gosh is right. Now you see why they should be merged. When “Trump and his allies” use the term Spygate, they’re talking about Operation Crossfire Hurricane, which the left has decided is proper and legitimate before the facts are known, and the right has decided that we need to get to the bottom of it and find out more to make sure it was all on the up and up. Same topic, two different articles. 2600:1012:B02B:443B:BC4F:93BC:DECB:9ACB (talk) 14:19, 4 May 2019 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE O3000 (talk) 11:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC) This won't happen until the majority reliable source viewpoint is that Spygate IS Crossfire Hurricane. Which assuredly, has not been proven on Wikipedia. Simply asserting it does not make it true. starship.paint (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Correct - what makes it true is that it’s true, not the fact that someone’s “asserting” anything or if someone is regurgitating the teachings of NPR and Stephen Colbert. That’s why you go to the facts. Every news article referencing Spygate, whether it be written by left-wing writers or right-wing writers, references Crossfire Hurricane one way or another. Why? Because Crossfire Hurricane is part of Spygate. This whole article is about Hurricane. Halper is mentioned 18 times and his photo is in the article. He is central to the FBI’s operation, and that’s not in dispute. Spygate IS Crossfire Hurricane. What we don’t know for a fact yet is whether everything else that we’ve learned was also part of the Operation, such as wiretapping Americans, unmasking Americans, and the “insurance policy” that now-fired FBI agent Strzok discussed in now-fired FBI acting director McCabe’s office. 2600:1012:B02B:443B:BC4F:93BC:DECB:9ACB (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE O3000 (talk) 11:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• To editors who think this new story on Hurricane Crossfire legitimizes Spygate or proves it true: Last night, PBS Newshour interviewed Adam Goldman, the lead author of the story. During the interview Goldman said, "So far, nobody's provided evidence that it [the operation] was somehow illegal or unjustified." Full clip can be watched here. R2 (bleep) 18:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended content

Thanks for the clip R2. Goldberg did his best to advance the Democratic Party's message, that this was all on the straight and narrow and the Comey/Obama FBI was just taking normal, perfectly legitimate measures in response to "an unprecedented attack on the very fabric of our democracy" (Russians letting Papadopolous know that they have emails). Michael Schmidt, another one of the Azra Turk story's writers, echoed this sentiment on MSNBC, also adding that "it depends on what your definition of 'spying' is" when asked the obvious question: "How is this not spying?"[33]. The big takeaway here is that it's all a matter of opinion, as they both stated. Was the spying improper? That's a matter of opinion, and you're not a proponent of a "conspiracy theory" if you disagree with the people who think it's okay to be sending in ex-CIA operatives into the opposition party's campaign without a heads-up to the nominee. Was it illegal? TBD. The Attorney General is looking into it, and we still have two pending IG investigations. It's much too early to be pushing readers toward one side or the other with blatantly POV article titles, whether that be "Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump)" or "Spygate (illegal Obama administration attempt to install Hillary Clinton in the White House)". Facts first. 2600:1012:B02B:443B:BC4F:93BC:DECB:9ACB (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE O3000 (talk) 11:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC) Sigh. This isn't Democrats vs. Republicans. This is facts vs conspiracy theory. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC) We don't make these determinations. We use reliable sources. O3000 (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC) We can all agree on that. Democrats don't get to have their narrative pushed in their article, and neither do Republicans. What's the conspiracy theory that Democrats and their media corporations say is being pushed, exactly? That Republicans consider the spying that was performed on Trump campaign is improper? That's just an opinion. The legality of said spying is yet to be determined. Many "reliable" sources don't have the integrity to label their opinion pieces as such, so their readers are fooled into believing that the author's viewpoints are indisputable facts. Neither side's viewpoint should be given extra weight, especially not before the investigations are concluded or we know basic information like the details of the “insurance policy” Peter Strzok discussed in Andy's office to “stop” Trump’s election or how many other assets attempted to extract intel from Trump campaign officials. 2600:1012:B02B:443B:BC4F:93BC:DECB:9ACB (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE O3000 (talk) 11:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC) If you have a problem with the reliability of a source, this is the wrong place. Take it to WP:RSN. Also, your last sentence is wild speculation that does not belong here. O3000 (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC) You can take it to WP:RSN if you want, I won't try and stop you. We'll stay here and continue discussing Spygate (2016 election controversy). We need to be really mindful about telling other people what does or doesn't belong on this page. Nobody owns it, and that includes you. If I want to say that we don't have the details about what Peter Strzok, who promised to “stop” Trump’s election with his "insurance policy,” I will say it. It might be relevant to Spygate, and we need to keep in mind that we have very little understanding of exactly what was going on during this operation, who was involved, who ordered it, who knew what, and when. Maybe Adam Schiff and New York Times reporters feel they have enough information to make conclusions, but we have a higher standard here. 2600:1012:B02B:443B:BC4F:93BC:DECB:9ACB (talk) 20:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE O3000 (talk) 11:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC) Wikipedia talk pages are not free speech zones, and no, you may not simply say whatever you want. Specifically, as per WP:BLP, you may not use them to make wild speculation or insinuation about living people, and accordingly I have redacted those comments. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Nobody called the talk pages “free speech zones” and yes, if I want to explain to someone the relevance of (Redacted) and his “insurance policy” that was discussed in Andy’s office, you’re not going to bully me or anyone else into shutting up. Go censor a website you own if you want, not this one. I have replaced my comment and ask that you pick somebody else to battle with. 2600:1012:B02B:443B:BC4F:93BC:DECB:9ACB (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE O3000 (talk) 11:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC) This is the second time that you have placed a derogative nickname on this page for a living person. This is a gross violation of WP:BLP. O3000 (talk) 02:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC) It doesn’t violate policy to put someone’s promise to subvert democracy via text message on a talk page. You can ask a moderator if you want I guess, if that’s how you want to spend your Saturday evening. This Baranof person wants to spend his changing around people’s comments because he doesn’t want people to know who Peter Strzok is, so obviously there’s worse things to expend your energy on. 2600:1012:B02B:443B:BC4F:93BC:DECB:9ACB (talk) 02:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE O3000 (talk) 11:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC) Hey look, it's possible to discuss living people without taking cheap shots at them. Congratulations, you figured it out. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC) I've deleted the last comment in the thread - the IP is pretty clearly Hidden Tempo evading his block. I'll try to find time to strike their edits. User:Doug Weller 10:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC) Just a massive waste of editors' time ... on a talk page. Meh. starship.paint (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Why is latest change visible only when logged in?

I can see this change (removal of "highly paid") reflected on the page text when logged in - but when not logged in the "highly paid" text is not visible. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spygate_%28conspiracy_theory_by_Donald_Trump%29&type=revision&diff=895216580&oldid=895208070

Why does this occur?

Note - Mobile View does show the change with "highly paid" removed. Uncle uncle uncle 19:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I confirmed that this is indeed occurring, but I don't know why. The article isn't PC protected, so I don't think it should be happening. Moreover, the problem appears on the bare page but not when you view the latest version. I think it's some sort of glitch. R2 (bleep) 20:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• I've had this issue with other articles, multiple times, before. starship.paint ~ KO 05:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Straw poll on changing (moving) the article title to be more NPOV based on NYT report

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The New York Times just released a bombshell article which, if true, proves that President Trump was correct when he said that the Obama Administration spied on his campaign: article. Based on the NYT's reporting, should the "conspiracy theory by Donald Trump" be removed from the article's title and it be renamed simply "Spygate?"

• Support: The NYT's reporting is very clear that President Trump was essentially correct when he said that the Obama Administration was placing spies in his organization. Article title will meet WP's NPOV policy by dropping the editorializing from the current article title. AppliedCharisma (talk) 12:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion 2

This is a bit premature, we can't have two move discussion going on at same time. Need to wait on the other one to finish(which has various options already), or propose a change there. Also proves spied on campaign is a stretch. It proves that they investigated Papadopoulos and his claims of knowing that Russia had some of Clinton emails, which we already knew they did. We know now that an undercover agent was used for an interview, which I guess now is the equivalent of a spy. WikiVirusC^(talk) 12:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Barr’s “spying” comments

Did we decide to leave that out? soibangla (talk) 00:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Soibangla: - he never referred to the Spygate conspiracy theory which is what this article covers...? starship.paint (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth (since we're not including it) [34].Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

National Review

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/fbi-official-testimony-surveillance-trump-campaign/ National Review suggests that there may have been other parts of the USIC and/or foreign agents surveilling/spying on the Trump campaign, and that the number of agents may have been much higher than we know.

As NR is a perennial RS, and as per WP:UNDUE, this should be included in the article. Editors may disagree with NR but that is no reason why an RS shouldn't be included. SeanusAurelius (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, though it seems you're misrepresenting the situation in multiple ways. First off, your statement that "NR is a perennial RS" is at odds with WP:RSP, which indicates that there's no consensus as to the reliability of the National Review. I haven't reviewed the underlying WP:RSN discussions, but it bears mention. Second, the relevant source paragraph is:

It’s a curious answer. One would think that if Steele and Halper had been the only Confidential Human Sources used against the Trump campaign, Moffa would have had no difficulty answering that there had been two CHSs, although the second sentence leaves some ambiguity. He was clearly involved in meetings where the use of CHSs was discussed, and he appears to assure lawmakers that he isn’t trying to pretend he’s “not aware of any CHSs.” He just “legitimately can’t tell you the overall number that are engaged.” That he can’t tell “the overall number” of Confidential Human Sources — that “I just don’t know it” — leaves open the possibility that there were more than just a few.

That's pretty clearly speculation and isn't reliable, regardless of whether NR is a generally reliable outlet. R2 (bleep) 22:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) SeanusAurelius, I think you're misunderstanding UNDUE. This is one report, which you suggest isn't definitive ("there may have been") based on a confidential transcript they got ahold of, but aren't sharing. Seems like WP:RSBREAKING is the more appropriate policy. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

That's some nifty conjecture there, with a dash of sleight of hand, to make something of a doc they got exclusive access to. Alas, unpersuasive. soibangla (talk) 22:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Sounds very speculative. Omit for now, review if/when more information emerges, for example in the upcoming IG report. — JFG ^talk 03:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

No wonder Moffa couldn't answer since Steele was never a "Confidential Human Sources used against the Trump campaign." He was a paid CHS used before the Trump campaign, but unrelated to the Russia investigation in any sense. While he was collecting info from his sources for the dossier, the FBI discussed, and intended, to pay him as a CHS, but that status and agreement was canceled and he never received any payment. This is muddied info. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Clapper

See here: [35]. Might want to incorporate, since this is contrary to his earlier statements that are reported in the current version of the article. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Did he say there was "politically motivated spying"? O3000 (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

It is just that our article quotes Clapper saying there was no spying on the campaign, and now Clapper is saying there was. Reguardless of the politically motivated part we should add the clarification. PackMecEng (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, what PackMecEng says. Clapper clearly opposes Trump's view that the spying was illicit. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Comey: 'The FBI doesn't spy, the FBI investigates'. All of this is semantics. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it's all semantics. But words matter. However, aside from that, and more importantly for our purposes, the article is currently inaccurate in light of the provided source. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

If you look at the context, Clapper was saying that it was semantics. Basically, he said it fit a dictionary definition, but was not what is considered spying. English words have many meanings. In any case, the question is whether or not there was a spy planted in the Trump campaign to harm Trump's chances. In that sense, no. Nothing has changed. These are simply examples of people trying to parse words to make the case that SpyGate was an actual scandal. It wasn't. O3000 (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

No, that's not what he said. He said the word 'spy' has a negative connotation, he said that it isn't a word that intelligence people use, but he said that the ordinary word 'spy', as defined by the dictionary, does apply to what was done. Obviously nobody is saying that this validates everything Trump said, so it's surprising that anyone would react as if that was under discussion. But one small thing has changed: the current article says that Clapper denies that there was spying, but the truth, in light of his statements, is that he now agrees that there was spying, but thinks that is not a good way to put the point, as he thinks that the word 'spy' has a negative connotation. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• I agree that it should be added in light of the current content. However it should be added with appropriate context. The first question is whether the source is reliable and should be used to explain the context, or whether we should go back to the primary source (CNN footage). I don't have a firm answer for that. According to WP:RSP, there's no consensus whether the Washington Examiner is generally reliable, but there is consensus that it's a partisan source that requires in-text attribution. In any case, even the Examiner source says, Clapper said that “it’s not a term of art used by intelligence people“ but admitted that “I guess it meets the dictionary definition of surveillance or spying, a term I don't particularly like.” Something like that would be required at a minimum. In addition to that we have Christopher Wray saying he would not describe the bureau's traditional surveillance as “spying”. [36] There may be additional noteworthy (and non-fringe) viewpoints out there. R2 (bleep) 16:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Having now watched the cited CNN video, I think I can safely say that the Washington Examiner cherry-picked Clapper's words and shouldn't be relied upon to provide context. R2 (bleep) 17:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Too many people are dancing around this word. Clapper was the Director of National Intelligence, i.e. the nation's ultimate spy chief. Why would he be so embarrassed around this word? Because Trump used it? The question is not what name we call the "spying" activities, the question is whether any surveillance that occurred was appropriate. From what I've heard, everybody agrees that spying is routine and necessary, whenever there is probable cause of potential harm to national security or suspicion of criminal activity. — JFG ^talk 00:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

How does this relate to the article? SpyGate is about a claim that was false. It is a debunked conspiracy theory. Why would we add semantical arguments that somehow give some sort of credence to a conspiracy that would be accepted by believers in conspiracies? This is an encyclopedia, not InfoWars. Seriously, the word "spy" has scores of definitions in the OED. O3000 (talk) 00:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I was just saying there's too much political debate about the definition of a word. I believe this article should not even be called "Spygate" because it draws attention to this made-up word, but that's being debated in the open-ended move request above. — JFG ^talk 00:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

O3K, I brought this up. And I've said repeatedly that the point is that the article currently gives the false impression that Clapper does not believe there was spying. He does believe that there was spying, as he has now stated. The article needs therefore to be updated. This is not a complicated point. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Look at the source. There is a reason why the Washington Examiner is generally considered a dubious source to use here. It's a hyperpartisan right-wing source and regularly spins things to justify Trump's often illegal and questionable actions. That's what it is doing here.

Semantics mean something. There can be many synonyms for the same action, and native speakers will know which synonym is most appropriate in a given situation, since each one has slightly different connotations, even if they all "fit the dictionary definition." Trump knows that and explained exactly why he chose to call an "informer" a "spy". It was political and misleading rebranding. Clapper, Comey and others strongly oppose use of the word "spying" for what was legal and necessary surveillance. "Spying" is usually illegal and spies get arrested or killed for doing it.

If you will just stick to RS, rather than extremely partisan ones, you won't get out into the weeds, because that's what's happening in this thread. When you start with an extremely partisan source, this is what happens. Pushing this line of thought gives undue weight to a fringe and extremely partisan POV. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, your characterization of WE as "extremely partisan" is not the consensus; the consensus is that WE is generally reliable but partisan. But, in any case, it doesn't matter. I agree we should not rely on the WE in the article for this purpose; it was just a convenient way to raise the issue here on the talk page for discussion about how to incorporate the new information. We can just rely on CNN for the Clapper quote. What Clapper said on CNN is the point, not the WE. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

If it's worth including, then it should get the due weight it deserves, which isn't much at all. Something like "While conceding that surveillance fits the dictionary definition of "spying", he objected strongly to the use of the term because of its misleading connotations." Something like that might work. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe I should have stuck to the source's "hyperpartisan" rather than write "extremely partisan." -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. It's just a little point, and correcting the article won't take much at all. Someone who has access will have to do it. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I like BullRangifer's proposal here. It would seem to satisfy everyone's stated concerns. And the "While conceding that surveillance fits the dictionary definition of "spying" clause should cite the CNN clip, not the Washington Examiner. R2 (bleep) 17:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

OK. O3000 (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Presumptions about surveillance

Bullrangifer above explains why the term "spying" is inappropriate using the phrase "legal and necessary surveillance." Clearly, that is the position pushed by the former IC and FBI brass who ordered such surveillance. It wasn't clear exactly what Bullrangifer intended to communicate by that, but just to be clear, it should not be said in Wikipedia's voice that this surveillance was legal or necessary. That is in serious question right now and is under investigation. If the Inspector General finds that there was not a reasonable predicate for any or all of the multiple surveillance efforts which Bongino/Nunes et alia lump under the heading "Spygate," then some of those former IC/FBI/DOJ brass could very well be in trouble. It would be a shame for Wikipedia to stick its neck out on this issue by adopting Democrat talking points (even if laundered through left leaning "reliable sources") and end up with egg on its face when the facts come out. A cautious, neutral tone is always in order. Wookian (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

That this is just a Democratic talking point is a Republican talking point. Let’s keep this discussion free of talking points from any party. O3000 (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Wookian, you mean Democratic talking points, right? R2 (bleep) 19:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The grammatical shades of wording aren't a debate I'm interested in. My basic point is that assuming good faith in the predication of the surveillance of the Trump campaign isn't the position of the DOJ right now under Barr, so it shouldn't be an assumption on Wikipedia, either. I felt it was obvious that the people advancing such an assumption (not talking on WP, just in the public sphere) tend to have a "D" after their names. If somebody disputes that, I will smile and raise my eyebrows, but that's probably a waste of time debating as well. Wookian (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

R2 was referring to: this. O3000 (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

O3000 is correct. Wookian, regardless of your personal interests, if you want to be taken seriously in the AP2 space then I suggest you say Democratic talking points, not Democrat talking points. Anotehr editor could just as easily start talking about the Repuglicans or whatever. This is why the AP2 DS exists in the first place. R2 (bleep) 20:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Wookian, RS, intelligence agencies, and the myriad dubious, suspicious, and dishonest actions by the Trump campaign have made it clear that the surveillance and investigations have been legal, appropriate, and necessary. There is no evidence they were illegal actions. That's not just some Democratic talking point.

By contrast, it is indeed a GOP, Trump, Limbaugh, Hannity, Fox & Friends, fringe sources (Breitbart, Daily Caller, Drudge Report, etc), RT, Sputnik, and Russian talking point that the investigation was inappropriate, illegal, a witch hunt, and a hoax. This is to be expected as suspected criminals always deny and try to cover-up, and RS do not support their view. If the investigation by the IG shows otherwise, and RS then confirm that such and such is the correct view, only then do we change our articles to reflect that view. It may be historical revisionism and the results of a successful cover-up, but we'll do it. We won't be living in a democratic country by then. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Re: your comment "We won't be living in a democratic country by then" - The American republic is likely to survive the current wave of scandals. It's survived worse. Beyond that, your listing of sources that characterize Spygate as a scandal is defective, as it fails to account for even left leaning sources such as NYT and WaPo that have admitted that questionable surveillance occurred, as well as that even the sources you dislike are performing meaningful journalism when they talk about Nunes, Barr, the DOJ IG and others investigating potential wrongdoing. So once again - it would be wrong for Wikipedia to claim that the various acts of surveillance of the Trump campaign were adequately predicated when active investigations are being performed into the contrary possibility. Wookian (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I think it's safe to rely on standard Wikipedia policies and guidelines just like any other content rather than to cast the issue as a political dispute. We really are in flammable territory here, and given that you're throwing around epithets at some of your fellow editors, I'm concerned about what we're doing here. R2 (bleep) 20:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

"given that you're throwing around epithets at some of your fellow editors" - no, I didn't. Some people misinterpreted a phrase of mine as an epithet against Democrats. However nobody in this discussion is participating as a Democrat, but rather as a Wikipedia editor striving toward encyclopedic neutrality, even if we may disagree on the details of how to accomplish that. Wookian (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Approximately 26% of your fellow editors are Democrats. You can say people misinterpreted you, just as another editor could type "Repuglican" and say there was a problem with their "b" key. Either way, claims of innocence ring hollow when there's no apology or retraction. Until you take such action I have nothing more to say to you. R2 (bleep) 20:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Please AGF. You should take me at my word that no offense was meant to anyone. Not to Democrat Barack Obama, not to Democrat Hillary Clinton, not to Democrat Joe Biden, nor to anyone else. Why not discuss the real topic instead of grammatical minutiae? It would be unfortunate for you to withdraw from the discussion, because I really do want to know what you and others think about whether Wikipedia should preemptively assume the outcome of Barr's and/or the IG's investigations. Wookian (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

It is not grammatical minutiae. There is no such thing as the Democrat Party. It is an epithet. See Democrat Party (epithet). And where have the NYT and WaPo "admitted" that questionable surveillance occurred? O3000 (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

You'll be pleased to learn that I haven't used the phrase "Democrat Party" to my knowledge, prior to this very sentence, nor do I intend to start using it. There is not a "Democrat party," rather there are Democrats and a person may be a Democrat. Exactly when you can follow the English language's extremely common predilection to use a noun as an adjective with the word "Democrat" is ambiguous (I gave you a hint in my previous post of some examples that are in common usage today). And of course the NYT and WaPo have covered the Barr and IG investigations of the predication of the surveillance. It would be beyond weird if they didn't ever mention it. The NYT famously still uses the slogan "All the news that's fit to print." Wookian (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course they mentioned that. But, where have the NYT and WaPo "admitted" that questionable surveillance occurred? I've not seen it. O3000 (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I've not claimed that they either know or have claimed in the non-opinion based reporting the future outcome of the investigations. However by reporting on the investigations, they have properly journaled for the public that the surveillance was questionable -- it is literally now being officially questioned. What will be the result of this questioning? I don't know. It would be unwise to preemptively declare the answer before the investigations are complete. Wookian (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I suggest that you be more careful with your language. The NYT and WaPo that have not admitted that questionable surveillance occurred. If some investigation turns up questionable surveillance, we will add that. But, there is no such evidence at this point. O3000 (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. I agree that additional context is important, since the NYT would be unlikely to frame it that way. However, the statement is entirely true. They've reported that surveillance occurred, and they've reported that the AG questions its predication. So for at least one reasonable definition of questionable, it all checks out. Am I wrong? Wookian (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you are incorrect as far as I have seen. First, the AG said he is checking into surveillance. He has NOT suggested that there has been any questionable surveillance. The Mueller Report provides detailed info behind the need for surveillance. Secondly, the NYT would frame it the way it is. If you think the NYT is not RS, take it to WP:RSN. O3000 (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your reply, however we're clearly talking past each other at this point. And I'm probably starting to repeat myself, so I'll let it go for now. Cheers! Wookian (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The recent Kessler piece here [37] says that the Steele dossier is a "controversial aspect" of the FISA warrant application. For my part, I don't see a lot of difference between the warrant application having "controversial aspects" and the surveillance being "questionable". Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

There’s nothing new in that article. It provides no evidence of questionable surveillance. Only speculation by some folk about the FISA request that those folk haven't seen. O3000 (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Whether there was something new in the article was not under discussion. Whether the article provides evidence of questionable surveillance was not under discussion. What was under discussion is whether the WaPo has affirmed that there was questionable surveillance. And what this article shows is that they have affirmed that there are controversial aspects of the warrant application for the surveillance, which is to say that the surveillance is questionable according to them. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• I propose that we close this thread. I don't see anything constructive coming out of this discussion, and we're deep into WP:NOTFORUM territory in my view. R2 (bleep) 22:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree, my apologies. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Yup. O3000 (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Disagree. It is an entirely legitimate question whether Wikipedia should presume the outcome of the Barr and/or IG investigations into the legitimacy of the predication of the surveillance of the Trump campaign and/or administration. None of our RS's give us a solid basis for such an assumption, except if you (a) look at opinion pieces AND (b) go back in time to the era of the assumption of Trump/Russia collusion, which is obviously out of date now that Mueller's report is out. Wookian (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Only you are the one presuming something. We are based upon RS, and you haven't shown any RS saying that there was questionable surveillance. You just keep claiming the same thing, even claiming that RS agree, without showing an iota of evidence for your claims. If something changes, we'll change the text. Until now, this is pure speculation. WP:RS WP:NOTNEWS WP:RECENTISM WP:V O3000 (talk) 00:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Two articles or one?

While the above move discussion was going on, a new article Operation Crossfire Hurricane was created to describe the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into links between Trump associates and Russia - thus possibly fulfilling the title suggested in #7. Several commenters said there is a difference: the new article is about the known operations, surveillance, FISA warrants, etc., while this article is about Trump’s unproven allegations of “implanting a spy in the campaign”, “wiretapping the Trump Tower”, etc. Without having an opinion myself, I suggest there could be a discussion here about whether this is an appropriate way to handle this subject - as we currently have it, with the “legal” or proven investigations in one article and the unproven allegations of “illegal” investigations in a separate article - or if they should be merged, putting the “conspiracy theory” material as a section in the article about the investigation. I'm not suggesting a Requested Merge discussion; I just wanted to see if anyone has any thoughts about this. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I really like the idea of a merge (as I previously suggested). I think the final product could look like Murder of Seth Rich--an article about a real event with a section devoted to a conspiracy theory about that event. Btw, for your own education, the "wiretapping the Trump Tower" allegation was not part of Spygate. Keep your conspiracy theories straight, woman! R2 (bleep) 22:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

That's hard to do these days... 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I also like this idea, with one caveat. As I have argued before, 'spygate' is used by some reliable sources for Trump's full theory, but it is also used by some RSs for various aspects of Crossfire Hurricane that are not Trump's full theory. Trump's own original use of the term is unclear, and that's reflected in a wide variety of interpretations of the term in RSs. That should be made clear in the envisaged sub-section on spygate in the CH article. In fact, I would prefer that the sub-section have a title like "Trump's unsubstantiated allegations about the investigation" and then clearly lay out all those unsubstantiated allegations, etc., and say something about how he introduced the term 'spygate', which has been interpreted in a variety of ways.Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

This subject qualified as its own article, and nothing has changed in that regard. It is not about the Russia investigation in general (code-named Operation Crossfire Hurricane), but only one extremely small part about the actions of one informant. His actions, without Trump's conspiracy theory, should be mentioned there, but with a hatnote pointing to the conspiracy theory about it, which is this article. This has ALWAYS been the way we do these things. If this gets merged, it deserves its own section where the conspiracy theory is still presented as such. Strike that. That type of extreme reduction/deletionism is something we shouldn't allow. I suspect some would be very happy if it got reduced to a couple sentences when it still deserves its own article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ahrtoodeetoo: - The Murder of Seth Rich is not a good comparison. The murder is mainly notable because of the conspiracy theory. More than 75% of the text (over 3500 words) are on the conspiracy theory. Meanwhile less than 25% of the text (less than 1000 words) are on everything else. This case is very different. Crossfire Hurricane is obviously not notable due to the conspiracy theory, and is far more notable than the conspiracy theory. We can just do a section on the Spygate conspiracy theory in the Crossfire Hurricane article, and link it to here. starship.paint (talk) 02:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint, yes, you're right. That's exactly how we do it per WP:SPINOFF. This article would be a spinoff from the main article where the actual surveillance, without any spin, is described. This would get a short summary in a section with a hatnote pointing to this article where all the detail is found. (Actually, it would be a subsection in the section about Halper's activities.) This article deserves to exist with its current scope. Any developments related to the conspiracy theory belong here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint, obviously nothing is a perfect analogy, but I think it works even better in light of your point. Because there was so little non-conspiracy theory content related to Seth Rich's death, that article could easily have been framed as Seth Rich conspiracy theory. But it wasn't, because Seth Rich really was murdered. Similarly, the FBI really did conduct surveillance on members of the Trump campaign. The difference between the merged Crossfire Hurricane article and Murder of Seth Rich is that the merged Crossfire Hurricane article would simply have more content about the non-Spygate aspects of the investigation. R2 (bleep) 18:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN: - right now the article, after ignoring the Background, is 2,200+ words. Crossfire Hurricane is 2,500+ words. Were we to actually merge them, there would be WP:UNDUE weight on the Spygate conspiracy theory. starship.paint (talk) 02:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Yep, the spygate section would need to be way shorter, which seems appropriate given the fact that available sources that specifically talk about it in any depth are few, and given that the term is highly ambiguous and there is no consensus among the RSs that mention it about what it means. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I have made multiple comments saying that Spygate and the FBI investigation were one and the same, but described differently by both sides. Editors repeatedly told me that Spygate was a very very specific claim that Trump made about the Obama admin attempting to put a spy inside his campaign to help the Clinton campaign. While this may have been true at one point, it is now clear that Spygate is a much larger topic, and is basically Trump's way of describing the entire investigation. Therefore I will again echo what I have said a couple times now - this article should be about the FBI / Counterintelligence investigation into Trump's campaign prior to the official start of the Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019). I can foresee such a new article growing quickly, especially once the IG's report is released about potential misconduct that may or may not have occurred during this prior investigation. There's reporting (albeit currently opinion pieces, which do contain some factual information, see here and here) starting to emerge now that Comey and the FBI could have seriously mishandled things early on in the investigation. In my mind it makes sense to simply have one article to collect all of that in. However now that we have two articles, they should be merged and each topic given the appropriate weight. Thanks for opening the discussion. Mr Ernie (talk) 07:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: - it is now clear that Spygate is a much larger topic, and is basically Trump's way of describing the entire investigation. - if it's so clear, where are your reliable sources? You should have a myriad of them - can you find 10 saying it's Trump's way of describing the entire investigation? You're just stating a claim without any evidence - and don't bring opinion sources for this particular claim. Plus see my comments above on WP:UNDUE. starship.paint (talk) 09:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

What the reliable sources do support is that 'spygate' is highly ambiguous, and has been used from the very beginning with a variety of different meanings--sometimes (NYT and Vox) for a very specific bunch of unsubstantiated and implausible claims that Trump made, sometimes for unsubstantiated but not totally implausible claims (like the claim that there was political motivation in Crossfire Hurricane), and sometimes for things that are known to be true (that informants were used to gather intel on the campaign).Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

There's no definitive report on this topic in the RS. As Shinealittlelight mentions, RS treat this as somewhat ambiguous. The underlying theme is that everyone has reported some aspect of Operation Crossfire Hurricane but called it something else, be it Spygate, spying, or a counterintelligence investigation. I think once the IG's report comes out we should get more RS who try to wade through everything and bring us better clarity. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Mr Ernie so you've declined to source Spygate being basically Trump's way of describing the entire investigation. Alright. Anyway, even if I assume the following is true: The underlying theme is that everyone has reported some aspect of Operation Crossfire Hurricane but called it something else, be it Spygate, spying, or a counterintelligence investigation. - that's an issue with Crossfire Hurricane. It's not an issue with Spygate. starship.paint (talk) 14:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. No one is disputing that surveillance of the Trump campaign has occured, or that it was part of the Russia investigation (Crossfire Hurrican). Spygate just happens to be about some false claims Trump made about Halper's contacts with his campaign, and those claims made enough waves in RS to justify the creation of this article about those claims, not about later claims, or about any and all surveillance (which he calls spying). If we want an article about surveillance of the Trump campaign, it's nearly ready. See if you can improve it: Surveillance of the Trump campaign (disambiguation). -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer, perhaps you will recall our discussion on my talk page, in which, to your surprise, I quoted several people who had denied on this very page that the campaign had been surveilled at all. So some people are disputing that surveillance of the Trump campaign has occurred. I'm glad we're on the same page about this, as I agree with you that it is beyond dispute. But it is disputed nonetheless, and it is important to recognize this. Also, your claim that "Spygate just happens to be about some false claims Trump made about Halper's contacts with his campaign" is unjustified by the RSs. Nobody knows what he meant by 'spygate'. He might have meant the specific claim that there was a spy in his campaign (Halper? Someone else? Who knows?) for political purposes who had been paid a lot of money, or he might have just meant "the whole controversy about how the FBI surveilled my campaign", or who knows what. We don't know what he meant, the RSs all characterize 'spygate' in these and other different ways, and as a result the whole discussion in RSs is garbled and has been from the beginning. The current article cherry picks the NYT and Vox articles, which push a narrative that 'spygate' must refer to the whole of everything he said in the tweets. But lots of other RSs disagree. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Current definitions of Spygate

@Shinealittlelight: The current article cherry picks the NYT and Vox articles, which push a narrative that 'spygate' must refer to the whole of everything he said in the tweets. But lots of other RSs disagree - please provide them. I want to include them in the article, and create an Other definitions section. Don't bother with the two Newsweek articles by one author and the Axios one. I already know of those. They will be included. starship.paint (talk) 01:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Sure, here are the sources I have found. They're mostly from May 2018:

[A] The New York Times (5/2018) says that Spygate is the claim that the Obama administration “planted” a spy “deep inside” the Trump campaign to help Clinton win. It calls this theory a “conspiracy theory.”

Note that this is an "analysis" piece, which seems like a slippery category between news and opinion. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

From WP:RS: Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

[B] The Washington Post (5/2018) says that “Spygate” refers to the claim that the FBI obtained information from Halper, who met with three members of Trump’s campaign. This piece does not characterize Spygate as a conspiracy theory.

[C] NBC News (5/2018) says that Spygate is just the claim that the FBI used an informant (presumably on the Trump campaign). This piece does not characterize Spygate as a conspiracy theory.

[D] ABC News (5/2018) says that Spygate is the claim that the Obama Administration used a spy to “infiltrate” the Trump campaign. This source does not characterize Spygate as a conspiracy theory.

[E] Vox (5/2018) says that Spygate is the claim that Halper was a spy who was “implanted” in the campaign to help Hillary. This source does not call the theory a conspiracy theory.

[F] Vox (6/2018) elsewhere says that Spygate is the claim that the FBI put a spy in the campaign. This piece does characterize spygate as a conspiracy theory. (I speculate that Vox was influenced by the NYT calling it a conspiracy theory a month before, but of course I can’t be sure.)

[G] Newsweek (4/2019) says that Spygate is the claim that the FBI spied on the Trump campaign. This source reports that democrats have characterized the theory as a conspiracy theory, which should surely make us cautious about following this characterization in Wikipedia's voice. But this Newsweek source does not say in its own voice that Spygate is a conspiracy theory.

Almost every single one uses it in a substantively different way than any other. In my view, only the NYT and Vox in my list use 'spygate' roughly as the current article uses it. I do not see why we are privileging them among all these sources. I think that doing so violates NPOV. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

One other source:

[H] The Washington Post (5/2018) here characterizes it as the theory that the FBI, under Obama, put a spy in the Trump campaign to undercut his candidacy. This source also does characterize Spygate as a conspiracy theory. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Note however that this is an "analysis" piece, which seems like a slippery category between news and opinion. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

From WP:RS: Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

And another:

[I] NPR (5/2018) says that spygate was "the story" that Halper had been an informant sent to the campaign and had received a lot of money from DoD. This source does not call it a conspiracy theory. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm splitting this into its own section. Could you just label the sources, [A], [B], [C], etc. starship.paint (talk) 06:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: - you may have missed my last message since I didn't ping you. Labeling the sources makes it easier to discuss them together. Plus I didn't want to edit your comments directly. starship.paint (talk) 06:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

[J] Axios (4/2018) - says that Spygate is a so-called scandal which is uncorroborated, and it relates to alleged FISA abuses by the intelligence community. starship.paint (talk) 06:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Note that [J] quotes Democratic senators Chuck Schumer and Mark Warner as calling spygate a conspiracy theory, but does not call it that itself. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

[K] Newsweek (4/2018) - same author and publication as [G] - refers to allegations the FBI spied on his 2016 campaign. starship.paint (talk) 06:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Note that [K] also says that Democratic Senator Mark Warner and NBC Host Chuck Todd have called Spygate a conspiracy theory, but the article presents the question whether it is a conspiracy theory as a matter of controversy. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I should also note that [L] AP, [M] BBC, [N] CBS, [O] Reuters, [P] Bloomberg, and [Q] USA Today also reported on spygate in May of 2018. But none of these sources directly said exactly what the term meant: certainly a responsible approach given that it isn't clear exactly what Trump meant by it. And none of these sources called it a conspiracy theory. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint:: In the above list, there are 13 news sources that either do not call Spygate a conspiracy theory or that say this is what Democrats call it. There are three "analysis" pieces--[A], [F], and [H]--that call it a conspiracy theory. But policy states that analysis pieces should receive in-text citation. Is there any news report that calls it a conspiracy theory? I know of none. Do you know any? Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

[R] [38] (5/2019) simply - Spygate conspiracy theory

[S] MSNBC (4/2019) the conspiracy theory went through a couple of iterations, but Trump was nevertheless delighted to tout what he called “Spygate.”

[T] GQ (4/2019) Spygate ... is another right-wing conspiracy theory with Donald Trump as the central victim. Its adherents believe Clinton-friendly saboteurs within the American intelligence community illegally spied on the 2016 Trump campaign, and then, when that effort failed, fabricated a "Russian collusion" narrative to cover up their coup attempt.

[U] Esquire (5/2019) Trump was referring to the Spygate conspiracy theory alleging that a Democrat-backed FBI plot installed a mole in his campaign.

[V] [39] (5/2019) claims that the FBI spied on his 2016 campaign ... Dismissed by critics as an outlandish conspiracy theory, so-called “spygate”

This is what I found for recent sources. starship.paint (talk) 14:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Seems to me that Rachel Maddow's blog, GQ, Esquire, and Rolling Stone can't really be placed alongside the sources I cited; they're clearly partisan sources that don't normally get weighted like AP or NBC News, etc. The Independent and WaPo sources are good, though. So that brings the count up to 13-2 for pure news coverage that calls it a conspiracy theory. And none of the news reports from 5/2018 do.Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

This is highly misleading. Your 13 sources do not state that this is not a conspiracy theory. It is not 13-2. O3000 (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Not trying to mislead. You are correct that the 13 mainstream news sources I cited do not say it isn't a conspiracy theory. They just don't call it that, and some say that this is what Democrats call it. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: - your scoring method needs to be adjusted. First category (win): states that it is a conspiracy theory. Second category (draw): does not mention conspiracy theory. Third category (lose): states that it is not a conspiracy theory. starship.paint (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

As I see it, there's no win or lose. There's just what the reliable sources say, and what they give weight to. We have relatively few sources calling it a conspiracy theory, and we have some sources stating that 'conspiracy theory' is the language Democrats have preferred. But we've totally headlined that language. It's obviously POV. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: - I'm not saying there is win, draw, or lose. It's just a sports reference to help people understand what I'm saying. Not mentioning whether it is a conspiracy theory is not equivalent to it being not a conspiracy theory. We headlined that language because in 2018 it was called a conspiracy theory. Now we can write that in 2019, many sources do not mention if it is a conspiracy theory. starship.paint (talk) 02:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: I agree that not calling it a conspiracy theory is not equivalent to saying that it is not a conspiracy theory. I never said otherwise. The point I'm making is that the May 2018 news reports--as opposed to the quasi-opinion "news analysis" pieces--never called it a conspiracy theory. If you want to count "analysis" pieces as news (contrary to what seems to me the plain language of the relevant RS policy), then we have a couple of those sources calling it a conspiracy theory in May 2018. Relying so heavily on those sources, and giving them such significant weight in the piece, is POV. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: - are we going to put this aside for now and instead analyze the 2018 sources then? Sorry, I'm a bit busy and can't keep up. starship.paint (talk) 02:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: I'm not sure what you're saying in this last comment, and of course you don't have to reply to anything I say. You seemed to be suggesting that Spygate was originally (in 2018) called a CT and that later sources strayed from that. But the truth is exactly the opposite. It was originally not called a CT except in "analysis" (i.e. opinion) pieces in NYT and WaPo. Then the seeds of that narrative grew, and now you can find a lot of partisan like Esquire and GQ and Rolling Stone and, well, Wikipedia calling it that. I think it's just obvious that this is POV. It's surprising to me that you can't see that. We even have reliable sources saying that 'conspiracy theory' is the language preferred by Democrats. I could call for a RfC, but if I can't persuade a seemingly reasonable editor like you, then there's really no point. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: - I'm not saying I'm unpersuaded, I'm just wanting to do one thing at a time. Either 2018, or 2019. I'm sorry it's a bit too much brain power for me to tackle both at once. My view is that if you want to analyze 2018, let's go ahead, but let's put 2019 aside for now. We can keep in mind that we have many 2019 sources that do not mention if it's a conspiracy theory while analyzing 2018 again. starship.paint (talk) 02:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: OK, sure, 2018 first then. But I've got to go right now! Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

That's alright, let's not rush. If we do this methodically and thoroughly, I believe it will be more persuasive to other editors. starship.paint (talk) 02:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

"What’s the evidence for ‘spying’ on Trump’s campaign?" WaPo article

While this isn't specifically about the topic of this article, but about the larger issue of surveillance on the campaign and the misleading claims it was "spying", I figure it would be of interest to editors here:

• What’s the evidence for ‘spying’ on Trump’s campaign? Here’s your guide. Glenn Kessler, May 6, 2019, The Washington Post

BullRangifer (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The obvious takeaway from you posting that link is that if the WaPo publishes that it is no longer Trumps conspiracy theory but his well founded observation.Batvette (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Additionally lets look at the caveat provided by WaPo.

• "It’s clear the Justice Department was investigating possible ties between Russia and Trump campaign officials. The question is whether the investigation ever crossed a line into spying on the campaign itself — and that so far has not been proved."

You can say thats moving the goalposts for starters. But lets look at that from the Presidents viewpoint. Its never been proven that he himself ever conspired to collude with the Russians at least to the level of anything illegal. So if he had information that government agents had people in his campaign under surveillance whether that investigation was legit or not has no bearing on whether Trumps allegations were conspiracy theory or not. If he didnt commit a crime why would he think an investigation would be legit instead of assume they were spying for political reasons?Batvette (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Your comments above are reasonable, however I am sure the question will be asked about whether a reliable source considers the facts the same way. The challenge in this discussion has been getting recognition for journalistic sources who have been doing the most significant digging and analysis on the legitimacy of the predication of the investigations, e.g. Solomon and Carter. On a side note, the question of 'whether the investigation crossed a line into spying on the Trump campaign itself' appears to be answered by the NYT[40], which reported that the undercover agent "Azra Turk" asked direct questions about the campaign and Russia. That is spying on the campaign, not just on "Trump campaign officials" as individuals. Wookian (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I still don't see how your cite suggests that there was general spying on the campaign. The claim is that this is a scandal (-gate), that Obama spied on the Trump campaign to help Clinton. What RS has said anything along these lines? It's still a conspiracy theory with no evidence. O3000 (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

One of the problems with the argument that the Azra Turk story is evidence of wrongdoing is that even the reporter who wrote that story says there's no evidence of wrongdoing. R2 (bleep) 02:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. The surveillance was necessary under the circumstances. It was not politically motivated but related to national security. On both counts Trump made false statements which RS called a conspiracy theory. The existence of surveillance was true and not a false part of the conspiracy theory, but when Trump called that legitimate surveillance "spying" he crossed a line into woo woo land. He was engaged in political rebranding to reframe something legitimate as something wrong. That was deceptive, a common trait of conspiracy theories. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

What is and is not part of the conspiracy theory? The fact that there was surveillance on the Trump campaign is not a false part of Trump's Spygate conspiracy theory. That one part was true. It was several of his false claims about Halper's actions as an informant that are the parts that qualify it as a conspiracy theory. Those claims were false and RS called them a conspiracy theory. That had nothing to do with the fact that Trump's campaign was surveilled as part of the investigation into Russian interference in the elections.

For more about surveillance on the Trump campaign, here is something I'm working on:

• Surveillance of the Trump campaign

I hope you'll find the necessary information there to help you understand this subject. Spygate is only a very small part of it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC) (Underlined words added later to clarify my clumsily written comment. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC))

Of course the fact that there was surveillance on the Trump campaign is part of the Spygate conspiracy theory. Just like the fact that the World Trade Center collapsed is part of the 9/11 conspiracy theories. R2 (bleep) 05:26, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, it's the one true thing around which a bunch of whooey is attached. That's typical of conspiracy theories. Not every element is false. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

R2, I just realized that you were responding to my clumsily written comment. I have added underlined words which hopefully make it clearer. All conspiracy theories contain true elements, often many true elements, but it's the false parts that get the whole thing called a conspiracy theory. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Of the seventeen sources listed above, three of them call spygate a conspiracy theory: NYT, and then Vox (plausibly following the NYT), and Philip Bump in an "analysis" piece. The other thirteen sources listed either do not call it a conspiracy theory or say that Democrats call it a conspiracy theory. Continuing to call it a conspiracy theory is therefore out of step with RSs, it cherry picks the NYT among all other sources, and it is POV. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Just looked over some of these articles. The claims made by Trump, like multiple spies were put in his campaign by the criminal deep state in the biggest spy scandal in history, are so wildly off the wall that there is simply no reason for the articles to use the words conspiracy theory. If an article was written documenting claims that Mexico paid Martians to infiltrate the Clinton campaign, it mightn't bother calling it a conspiracy theory either. O3000 (talk) 11:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Also: the NYT piece is an "analysis" piece. So if you look just at the pure news pieces in major mainstream sources, literally none of the thirteen listed call it a conspiracy theory, or they say that this is what democrats call it. The article is therefore obviously in violation of NPOV. O3K makes the point here by saying how we're cherry picking based on our opinion of what's reasonable to interpret as a conspiracy theory rather than what the news sources actually say. And just to add my opinion, since that's what we're apparently going to be going on, I don't think that Trump's claims that the spy was placed "into" his campaign, or that this was done for political purposes, rise to the level of claims about Martians. But of course my opinion should not matter any more than O3Ks should matter. We should go on what the news sources say, and they say nothing about it being a conspiracy theory.Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Ummm....Shinealittlelight, "analysis" pieces are the highest level of opinion pieces and rate close to straight news articles, as well as often providing more information than straight news articles. We use them all the time, as well as other opinions pieces. You may do better to start looking at the "attribution" angle to solve this. When opinions are very controversial, we attribute them. That Trump made several false and misleading claims about Halper's actions is not even slightly controversial, so that puts the "conspiracy theory" opinion into a controversial/not controversial limbo land. It can be discussed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: it hurts my feelings a little when you say "ummm" like that :). The policy I quoted about not relying on opinion pieces for unattributed facts seems to be talking about analysis pieces too--it does mention "analysis" pieces. Do you agree with that reading of the policy? Not that this would totally settle the issue, especially since Starship.paint offered a couple of straight news reports (see above) that did call it a conspiracy theory recently. But I am trying to get consensus on what the policy is saying about "news analysis" and whether it can be relied upon for facts, or whether it should be attributed. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It is now stricken. News analysis can generally be relied on for facts unless it is controversial, in which case it's safest to still use it, but with attribution. That's what I'm suggesting elsewhere here. News analysis articles do contain the factual news and can be used, without attribution, when only using the source for the "news" part. When using the source for the "analysis" part, then attribution may or may not be necessary. Does that make it more clear? -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh geez, you didn't have to strike it, I was only joking. Yes, this makes sense to me. It's pretty tricky to apply, though, both in general and especially in this particular case. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Some use the term conspiracy theory, some describe a conspiracy and use the term clearly worthy of Four Pinocchios, others describe conspiracies and use other terms. If someone repeatedly makes claims without evidence of a conspiracy, that's a conspiracy theory. We don't just copy text from RS. WP is allowed to use its own wordings as long as they accurately reflect RS. O3000 (talk) 12:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any news report on Spygate that calls it a conspiracy theory. I am aware of thirteen news reports (see above) that do not call it a conspiracy theory, or that say that Democrats call it a conspiracy theory. If you want to argue that I'm wrong, you're going to need to be more specific about which news sources call it a conspiracy theory, or use a term synonymous with 'conspiracy theory' for it. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Two questions: 1.) Is SpyGate about a conspiracy? 2.) Is SpyGate a theory? O3000 (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, I'm advocating that we base the article on the information in reliable sources, not on my opinion or your opinion. So to reply to me, you need to find a news report that calls Spygate a conspiracy theory, or calls it something synonymous with that. My opinion about whether it is a conspiracy theory is not relevant, and neither is yours. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, you have invented a new guideline that news analyses from RS are not RS; and these are the types of sources for terms like conspiracy theory. In any case, you didn't answer my two questions. O3000 (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Nope, not inventing anything. Here's the policy: Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. You can find it at WP:RS. I did answer your question: my answer is that our opinions are not relevant, so I don't care what opinion either of us hold on whether Spygate is a conspiracy theory. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

These are neither op-eds nor editorials. And, I was asking about the English language. If it's a conspiracy and if it's a theory, it's a conspiracy theory. We don't just copy text. O3000 (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. They are analysis pieces. You'll note that the policy explicitly covers those too. Agreed, we don't just copy text--when did I suggest that we should just copy text? I'm basing my view that we should not be calling it a conspiracy theory in Wikipedia's voice on the 13 news reports I provided above. Of course a conspiracy theory in the sense of this article is not just a theory about a conspiracy. There are lots of legitimate theories about conspiracies--e.g., theories about the conspiracy to murder Philip of Macedonia are legitimate historical theories, not "conspiracy theories" in the sense of the illuminati, etc. But again, this is beside the point. If we are going to call it a conspiracy theory, we need to find an RS that calls it that or something synonymous with that. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

You need to read all of that section at WP:RS. For example, the Maggie Haberman analysis is not by an "editor" or "outside author". Also, experts in a field are given more credence. Since we are talking about the Trump campaign, and Haberman received the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting specifically about the Trump campaign, I'd say she qualifies. O3000 (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Even if you're right that it's important whether the editors wrote the analysis piece--something which I do not concede, and which makes little sense to me--that would mean that the count is 13 pure news reports that do not call it a conspiracy theory, and some of which say that this is what Democrats are calling it, vs. 3 sources that call it a conspiracy theory. I don't see why we would cherry pick those three and use language that is reported to be the language that Democrats prefer. But, in any case, you're surely wrong that analysis pieces have the same weight as news pieces. I'd be interested to hear what others say. @Starship.paint:, @Ahrtoodeetoo:, @JFG:, @BullRangifer:. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinealittlelight (talk • contribs) 13:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, in addition to a Pulitzer prize winning journalist who received her prize for reporting on the Trump campaign, we have: [41][42][43][44][45][46][47] And, a source that doesn't directly call it a conspiracy theory in its own voice is NOT a !vote that it isn't. And, we also have the English language. This is a theory about a conspiracy. O3000 (talk) 14:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I answered your argument about "english language" above, but maybe you didn't read it. There are many theories about the conspiracy to murder Philip of Macedonia. Those obviously aren't conspiracy theories in the relevant sense. So "conspiracy theory" in the sense of this article means something more than "theory about a conspiracy". Obviously we should not weight esquire, politico, vox, and vice the same as we weight the sources I listed: NBC News, AP, Reuters, and so on. You're listing partisan sources here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Why don't we just attribute it? The judgment of whether something is a conspiracy theory or not has not absolute criteria which apply in all situations. It's an opinion and a judgment call. We can just solve this by attributing it. That many RS don't label it a conspiracy theory has no bearing on whether or not it is, and they are not disputing that labeling. They just aren't saying it. It's so obviously false that it doesn't really need to be mentioned all the time, and only fringe and unreliable sources would really dispute that it's a conspiracy theory. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

But isn't it also important that some of the sources attribute the "conspiracy theory" language to Democrats? I mean, that suggests that those sources, at least, regard that language as partisan. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Just because a source attributes language to one party doesn't mean the source regards the language as partisan. R2 (bleep) 16:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• I'm responding because I was pinged. Shinealittlelight, is this about whether we should call Spygate a conspiracy theory, or something else? Because I see arguments all over this talk page from you all basically saying the same thing, that we shouldn't call it a conspiracy theory, just taking it from different angles. I don't think we're getting anywhere with this. Why don't you start a single RfC on the subject and put forth your best arguments in your !vote? R2 (bleep) 15:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, R2, I was unclear. I was primarily pinging you because I wanted to know if you thought the RS policy was talking about "news analysis" pieces when it uses the word "analysis". Here's the policy again: Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Should "news analysis" be treated under this policy, or as akin to straight news reports? Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

You weren't unclear. The community generally treats NY Times and WaPo stories marked as "Analysis" as reliable. But what's the point of this inquiry? Isn't your point that the source is unreliable and therefore shouldn't be used to say that Spygate is a conspiracy theory? I'm suggesting that you lay out all of the points of your larger argument in a single RfC, rather than taking this piecemeal approach which is getting us nowhere. R2 (bleep) 15:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

News analysis allows a reporter to take factual news and add opinionated spin to it. It should be treated as op-ed.Batvette (talk) 01:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

This reference supports that. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/our-journalism-explained/news-vs-opinion Batvette (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Right Ahrtoodeetoo, news analysis can be reliable. The question is whether, according to the policy I quoted, they can be reliable for statements of fact. As I read the policy, it directly says that although analysis pieces are reliable for attributed statements, they are only rarely reliable for statements of fact. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The pieces marked “Analysis” in The NY Times and the Washington Post are not what that paragraph in WP:RS is referring to. There is consensus at RSN and indeed, all over the encyclopedia that such sources are generally reliable. But you seem to be ignoring my broader response. R2 (bleep) 00:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

When you say "generally reliable" do you mean "reliable for statements of fact"? Because clearly I agree that they are "generally reliable" in the sense that they are reliable for attributed statements. I'm asking whether they are regarded as reliable for statements of fact. If there is RSN consensus of this, I could not find it. But maybe I did not look in the right place. I would appreciate it if you were able to direct me to such consensus--that would be extremely helpful. However, irrespective of whether there is a consensus, I would suggest that the policy is terribly unclear on this point if it isn't intending to state that analysis pieces are not reliable for sources of fact, since that's exactly what it says (lol). Moreover, "news analysis" clearly is trying to blur the lines between news and opinion; to my way of thinking, it should clearly be treated carefully, if not exactly as an Op-Ed. As for your more general point, I am not ready to post a RfC. Maybe once I get to the bottom of the relevant issues. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes I mean they’re considered generally reliable for statements of fact and do not require attribution. I have seen this consensus all over Wikipedia. If you wish to press this particular issue then I suggest you do so at RSN. R2 (bleep) 00:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

You will have to cite a section of written wiki policy to prove that. I'm afraid to say but assurances that its consensus "all over" aren't very convincing in the face of literally endless RS equating analysis with op-ed. Did you read the furnished reference?

"News analysis: An interpretation of news events using context, trends and data often seen in other media. Because they cross into opinion, these are not used in the Union-Tribune." If you care to google news analysis vs opinion there are a number of authoritative sources which come to the same conclusion. The term news analysis was invented to allow opinion and agenda to creep into news reporting.Batvette (talk) 10:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

From the wiki article on RS. "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Not sure why this is even up for debate.Batvette (talk) 10:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Probably because you're not reading all of that section. When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. Someone with a Pulitzer prize in the exact subject area would seem reliable. Also, as previously pointed out, the author is not an editor or outside author, but a NYT journalist. O3000 (talk) 11:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I interpret that to mean that the identity of the author may help determine reliability for attributed statements, and specialists and experts are more likely to be worth including with attribution. It's hard to see why the policy would treat a "news analysis" piece by an editor differently than it treats a "news analysis" piece by a journalist who works for the relevant paper. I think that's not a plausible interpretation of the policy. Rather, I think that what the policy is more plausibly trying to say is that it does not matter whether the author is inside or outside the organization in question. I've opened a discussion of this at RSN if anyone would like to weigh in. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

By "editor", I believe the policy is talking about editorials. Editorials are specifically opinion pieces, and in good newspapers, there is a firewall between the editorial board and news editor. Generally, the editorial page editor reports to the publisher, not the newspaper editor. News analyses are not editorials and not under the editorial board. You could argue that any analysis is opinion, including scientific analyses. You could also argue that nothing is fact – it’s still called the theory of gravity. But, news analyses from reliable sources are based on fact. And yes, we do look at the author’s background in the area discussed. O3000 (talk) 12:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

"significant viewpoint" is not a statement of fact. There is really nothing to interpret here when WP clearly puts the term analysis there.Batvette (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Regulations applicable to FBI investigation

There are a lot of arguments floating around here about what was or wasn't appropriate for the FBI to do. I think it would be helpful for everyone to have a better understanding of the applicable regulations. Here is a handy fact sheet that summarizes what investigators are allowed to do at various stages of an investigation. Here and here are helpful news stories explaining how these regulations were changed in relevant ways by the Bush and Obama administrations, long before Trump ran for president. R2 (bleep) 21:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Potential wrongdoing by FBI or CIA; John Solomon

Another consideration that may have bearing on this could be the distinction between counterintelligence work[48][49] and criminal investigations. The former is done in service of the White House and the president, and the latter for the DOJ and criminal court system. Mixing the two probably makes things very muddled and a gray area. If there is a criminal scandal here (putting the -gate in Spygate), sources point to it likely being related to having submitted false or misleading claims to the FISA court, or illegally leaking classified information. The latter obviously did happen[50], and the former is what John Solomon has been focused on in his recent articles[51]. So much of DOJ work seems to involve prosecutorial discretion that it seems likely that even if investigations were initiated or conducted in a questionable way, most of the allegations of Spygate, even if proven, would result in no more than the firings and public obloquy over the politicization of the DOJ (like we've already seen), rather than rising to the level of prosecution of the DOJ and FBI players who were responsible. Wookian (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

As for false info in the FISA request, there is zero evidence. As for, illegal leaking, please don’t use the The Daily Caller. It is a deprecated source, something highly unusual here. O3000 (talk) 22:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Is that you're own personal analysis, or something you've read or heard? I've never heard anyone say that scandal of Spygate was that the FBI "mixed" criminal and counterintelligence investigations, or that someone leaked classified information. I thought it had something to do with illegal or at least improper spying. R2 (bleep) 22:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand. If anything, I am suggesting that the ambiguity of the two investigations (counter-intel versus criminal) may make it harder to untangle and ascribe blame (hence arguably less "scandalous" if anything). In regard to the two aspects of potential criminality of leaking classified info and of allegedly misleading the FISA court, these topics are covered by Solomon and Carter, not to mention Nunes, Bongino and others. There are investigations ongoing, and allegedly the IG report will shed light on some of it. Wookian (talk) 02:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

"Solomon and Carter, not to mention Nunes, Bongino" are not RS. They push fringe views and conspiracy theories. That's why they are found writing in sources that are not RS. They will just mislead you. The Daily Caller is also not considered a RS here. Solomon's opinion/political spin columns are at The Hill, but are not RS for facts. They should only be used in an article about himself. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Please document where John Solomon has pushed "fringe views and conspiracy theories" per your claim above. Wookian (talk) 15:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, then I don't understand what that has to do with Spygate. R2 (bleep) 07:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The WaPo[52] thinks that the active investigation into the origins of the Russia probe is relevant to Spygate. Forgive the groaner of a pun in the WaPo article headline. Somebody just couldn't resist, I suppose. Wookian (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

No, it's just Trump making money. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

BR, I'm asking you now to stop disparaging conservative politicians and reliable journalists/sources whose political views you oppose, and use RS to support your statements. There actually are ongoing investigations into the origins of the dossier, and whether or not the Trump campaign was being surveilled with legal predicate and so on. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, I don’t understand your comment, particularly the part where you accuse BullRangifer of disparaging “reliable journalists/sources whose political views you oppose.” That doesn’t seem to have anything to do with BR’s last comment. R2 (bleep) 00:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps it was in reference to my as-yet-unanswered question just above regarding John Solomon. Wookian (talk) 03:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't clear there. When one reads the narratives pushed by Solomon, Carter, and Bongino, and then compares them to the narratives from RS, one notices a very marked difference, and experienced editors will always choose to follow the RS narrative. Those three, and often Nunes, are pushing views which ignore many facts and spin everything to support Trump's counterfactual views and statements. We don't use partisan opinion columns for statements of fact, and when they are extremely partisan, we don't use them at all. Those writers fall in the latter category. We don't use them here. You can always try to use one of their specific claims which is being rejected here and take it to WP:RS/N and see what they say.

The Nunes memo demonstrates how far off Nunes can get. He made false claims about the start of the investigation and then his own Nunes memo investigation proved him wrong, showing there was no wrongdoing in the beginnings of the investigation. Did that stop him from continuing to push that view? No. And now they want to restart an investigation based on their own false and disproven claims. Are they now going to find something which undoes the results of their own previous investigation so they can come to a different conclusion?

These are new, politically-motivated, investigations into the origins of the Russia probe. Such investigations have already been done some time ago by both Democrats and Republicans, and they found no wrongdoing. Let's see what happens now.

Keep in mind that the findings in the Mueller Report have zero bearing on this. There were enough suspicious actions by Trump campaign members to warrant an investigation. It was necessary and legal.

That's what I meant. You don't have to believe it, and this is not the place to get into a long discussion about it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

There is a lot of vagueness and oversimplification in your remarks above. To be frank, your opinions would be very unconvincing even if we restricted ourselves to left leaning sources, especially given that Barr has assigned a US Attorney from Connecticut to this active criminal investigation. Your denigration of perfectly legitimate sources that happen to lean right is similarly unconvincing, and I will have to agree with Atsme about that. When it comes to sources that carry either leanings or opinions, Wikipedia editors should certainly observe "caveat lector" however it is a fallacy to reject a source because it has a political leaning. In a two party system, political animus from a source is actually a strong impetus for accountability. The right wing hammered Obama, the left wing hammer Trump, and so forth. It would be a mistake not to (cautiously, encyclopedically) benefit from such accountability. The views expressed here are consistent with WP:RS, by the way. Wookian (talk) 04:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

We don't "reject a source because it has a political leaning". We reject a source if it's consistently inaccurate and/or is counterfactual. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm still waiting to hear specific citations/quotes of inaccuracies or counterfactual reporting John Solomon has engaged in. To his credit, he hasn't pushed the false narrative that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to influence the election. That would have been inaccurate and/or counterfactual, so fortunately he's in the clear there. Wookian (talk) 06:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

You'd have to propose a specific edit citing Solomon. Then we can compare him to RS. I get myriad Google alerts on these subjects every day and Solomon is one of those cited, so I often check out what he's writing. He fares badly when compared to RS, which is why I'm skeptical. His columns are clearly opinion, and very strongly partisan. Even you would have to admit that. That being said, we do use opinion articles for attributed opinion, but when they are counterfactual, as his often are, we tend to ignore them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I've never read anything by Solomon, but the source you (Wookian) pointed to definitely isn't reliable. Solomon's factual reporting has been slammed by CJR, as well as Eric Wemple. That's enough for me to know his work product isn't reliable. That being said, I don't think you were proposing using any Solomon articles as sources, so I don't know why we're having this discussion. If this is about BullRangifer's conduct then it belongs on their user talk, not here. R2 (bleep) 16:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Looks like you've identified two opinion pieces that express dislike of Solomon's reporting as published in WaPo and The Hill. So what? John Solomon's reporting and analysis from original sources is relevant to the article. His opinions, of course, are probably not relevant. However he is one of relatively few who are digging into some interesting and highly relevant documents and sources related to Spygate. Wookian (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• The federal prosecutor tapped to scrutinize the origins of the Russia investigation is conducting only a review for now and has not opened any criminal inquiry, a person familiar with the matter said on Tuesday.[53] Which is to say, Durham is running a review, not an investigation. O3000 (talk) 14:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• We can only judge whether Solomon's findings are worth citing by comparing them to RS. If they get coverage there, we would cite them, and not Solomon.

That's a principle I use all the time. I am aware of certain factoids which are (sometimes first) found on both left- and right-wing websites and sources, and sometimes they look like they are worth including here, but how am I to know? I search for RS to pick them up. If they are used by several RS, then I cite the RS, not the partisan sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

That CJR piece slamming Solomon might have some merit if it wasnt filled with such stupidly insulting arguments as this. "there was no fire beneath Solomon’s smoke — no malfeasance or misdeed to expose, and no real hook that warranted its inexplicable front page placement." I guess the CSJ started teaching its students that reporters are now editors and get to place their own pieces wherever they see fit? The editor in chief put that article there not Solomon, obviously it had more merit than he portrays. Wookians point is exactly correct, the news coverage of this is going to be talking about how a line was crossed. That line is easily blurred but its not likely that many people in an official capacity other than direct accusers are going to call it "spying".Batvette (talk) 18:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course you're entitled to that view, but when your arguments start relying on discrediting the CJR, that's a pretty good sign that your view won't be held by the WP consensus, e.g. at RSN. In any case, we are again back to, why are we arguing about the reliability of Solomon pieces when literally no one is proposing that we use them in our article? I'm inclined to hat this discussion as pure WP:NOTFORUM. R2 (bleep) 18:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Batvette is correct in his critique of the CJR opinion piece. It makes no sense to say that Solomon is a bad journalist because he wrote a factual report which was published prominently in the Washington Post even though some deemed it non-newsworthy. You need something a little stronger than that to substantiate BR's accusation that John Solomon "push[es] fringe views and conspiracy theories."

I would like to include content written by John Solomon in the article, so your categorical refusal to allow him as a source seems relevant to discuss here. Can you justify your hard line stance against Solomon with anything stronger than the weak material you've provided so far? Wookian (talk) 19:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

John Solomon is never a reliable source. Never, ever. He is a Hannity sidekick. He makes stuff up. soibangla (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Being interviewed on Hannity does not imply he's not a reliable source. Please provide a citation of what precisely he has "made up." Wookian (talk) 19:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The Hill names him an "opinion contributor". Not sure what that means. Wookian, Batvette, do you regard this as an opinion piece? Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• Wookian, now that you've said you want to include content written by Solomon in our article, you need to identify what content, and identify the specific source you wish to cite. Otherwise this proposal is basically unactionable. R2 (bleep) 20:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Sure. I think the following articles would be useful as sources:[54][55][56]. The content would be a brief summary of how the FBI used the Steele Dossier in their FISA application(s) for Carter Page, even though State Dept had previously become aware of inaccuracies and partisan motivation of Christopher Steele, and had actually reached out to Strzok's team about the interview. As Solomon documents, the State Dept secretary who met with Steele and then wrote to the FBI discovered that Steele wanted to get his material out before the election to damage Trump (partisan motivation), and that he claimed there was illicit activity at the Russian embassy in Miami - when no such embassy even exists. (Surprisingly, there are still conspiracy theorists who claim that Steele's Dossier is credible.)

No definitive conclusions should be stated from this material, because we are an encyclopedia, and the investigations are ongoing. However, I suspect most readers will conclude that some aspects of the predication of the Russia collusion narrative, including the justification given to the FISA court for Carter Page surveillance - are questionable. This background information will surely help readers understand why the Barr/IG/Durham reviews are happening. Wookian (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Now that you've let us know why you think these sources are usable, please propose some exact wordings and exactly which sources you'd use to back them up, IOW create the content here and see if you can get a consensus for inclusion. BTW, your "conspiracy theorists who claim that Steele's Dossier is credible" is very telling about your POV. BTW, the dossier is more credible than not credible, and only conspiracy theorists posit the opposite. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

We talk about content on this page, not other editors, right BullRangifer? Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Good point. Stricken. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

You want to add a paragraph summarizing the FBI's activities based on 3 opinion sources? Seriously? R2 (bleep) 20:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. We'd want much better sources for anything so controversial. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

If you read the articles linked to, you will discover that they are not really opinion pieces. As far as I can tell, The Hill gives Solomon a slot to write whatever he wants, and he chooses to publish his investigative journalism there. I am not making this up, read it for yourself, and I think you will agree about its flavor. 2601:5C7:100:1515:9E0:7D1D:C816:3981 (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC) (This is Wookian - was the wrong browser)

They actually are opinion pieces, as The Hill decided last year that all his stuff would be labeled as such. He was once a legit reporter, but he wandered into the wilderness years ago and now he's among this crowd. soibangla (talk) 23:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that they read more like reporting than opinion. But it seems to me very unlikely that you will get consensus on including Solomon's work here. The reason is that RSN says that these "contributed" pieces in the Hill are published without much editorial oversight, and that they should therefore be treated as self-published material (like a blog), which means that they're basically deemed non-RS. I don't know the basis on which that conclusion was reached. Perhaps it was an absurd and partisan basis. I have no idea. But it is the currently stated consensus at RSN, which is the authority about this sort of thing here. So you'd have to start by challenging that consensus at RSN. But, frankly, I doubt you'll be successful. If you want to improve the article, I recommend trying something else. I empathize with your frustration, but there have to be rules, or else this place cannot function. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree in general with your remarks. However, nothing should prevent us from using a secondary source that (1) deals heavily in original materials, (2) documents his research, (3) writes for the most part in a cautious, journalistically conservative style, (4) has a solid background in investigative journalism. This is quite far from a random opinion blog. Of course, each editor here is entitled to their own take on the matter. Wookian (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I think his "investigative journalism" falls in the same class as that done by Louise Mensch. There are lots of interesting factual dots, but the connections are his own opinion and often contradicted by other facts found in RS, factoids he chooses not to mention. That would mess up the picture he is trying to paint for his readers. If he has some interesting factoids worth including here, then the same ones will be found in abundance on other, much more reliable, sources so we would prefer them. If they aren't found there, then they don't deserve mention here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Wookian, the problem with your take on reliability is that it has little to do with whether Solomon's pieces have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. R2 (bleep) 21:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I grant you that the post publication correction posting aspect is a question I don't know the answer to. I will try to find out more about whether and how Solomon has a process for that. Wookian (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

That's only one aspect for determining a source's reputation. In this case we have clear evidence of unreliability. It starts with the fact that the source is marked as opinion and that The Hill doesn't stand behind Solomon's reporting. It also includes the fact that CJR and Wemple, two leading media watchdogs, think very poorly of him. Solomon enjoys a pretty shitty reputation after so many years doing Beltway reporting. R2 (bleep) 21:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Those opinion pieces are sufficient to demonstrate that the writers dislike Solomon. However, without any tangible and specific examples of wrongdoing, they aren't evidence of errors in his work. Casual use of profanity is also not a replacement for a rational case being made. Wookian (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah you clearly haven't read those pieces. And reliability isn't a requirement for such purposes. In fact, when we get down to brass tacks, the burden is on the editor seeking inclusion of content to establish it's supported by reliable sources. So it really isn't on me to prove that Solomon has a poor reputation. R2 (bleep) 22:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Have you read them? The complaints are pedestrian and yawn inducing. What I saw truly did boil down to "I dislike his work, and I don't see why anybody else likes it." It's actually a little humorous given that one thing the CJR opinion dislikes about him is that some of his factual reporting was promoted by the paper to high visibility when in their opinion it wasn't anything that big. As far as I can tell, the same thing is happening in this conversation. There's no "there" there. No specific examples of erroneous reporting have been cited (that I have noticed) here, merely abstract and meta level generalities. Wookian (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Wookian, you say nothing should keep us from doing that, but what I'm trying to say is that in fact the RSN consensus about The Hill stops us, and would have to be changed if you were going to include this material without violating the rules of this place. What you've got here are arguments that you could make over at RSN. But that would be the place to make them. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe I am misunderstanding you, Shinealittlelight, but there is no consensus at RSN against use of The Hill for US politics. The question is about whether some of Solomon's work can be interpreted as investigative journalism and cited as such. Wookian (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

See the entry for The Hill at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources: The publication's contributor pieces, labeled in their bylines, receive minimal editorial oversight and should be treated as equivalent to self-published sources. Solomon is a contributor at The Hill, as indicated in his bylines. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Shinealittlelight. It has nothing to do with partisan politics. It's a principle that's applied across all of our current events content. If you're confused about the reasoning, consider that editorial oversight goes to the very core of WP:RS. I agree with you that if Wookian really wants to press this they should do so at WP:RSN. R2 (bleep) 21:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• I started a discussion about this at WP:RSN#John Solomon, since I feel we're unlikely to reach a consensus here. R2 (bleep) 23:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Wow. American journalism is in a deep mess. Therefore, so is Wikipedia's current affairs content. User talk:shtove

Change Title to “Spygate (2016 US Election)”

A decision was made on this subject on May 9. The decision can only be challenged at WP:MR. R2 (bleep) 23:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

With the discovery of new information from the Attorney General, the conclusion by Robert Mueller that no American colluded with Russia in 2016, the assignment of a US Attorney to investigate spying on the Trump Campaign widely reported today, May 14th, 2019 along with articles addressing the mistakes made in reporting about the spying on the Trump campaign, it is safe to conclude that any reasonable person reviewing the partisan news sources from left to right, from the N.Y. Times to the Washington Examiner, from CNN to Fox News that while the President of the US was widely mocked at the time that he claimed he had been spied upon during the 2016 campaign that indeed his statement from that time now merits some credibility. This has moved from the suggestion of “conspiracy theory” where partisans view the activities differently to the very reasonable conclusion supported by reliable sources that as the Attorney General has said, “There was spying. The question is whether it was adequately predicated.” So while in 2017 this topic may have reasonably been considered a “conspiracy theory” (if one simply accepted the US partisan left media at its word) it is no longer reasonable to consider it a theory. Wcmcdade (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC) Good God, I ran out of breath. Can you say that again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shtove (talk • contribs) 19:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC) I have seen no RS that says Trump was spied on, as claimed. O3000 (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC) You are trying to reduce this to a semantics debate. Spying. Surveillance. Investigation. Whatever. You are asking for a unicorn because nothing the FBI does is spying, ever. Not even for political purposes. The whole purpose of this article has always been to portray the President as a conspiracy theorist, a liar and a kook. You people will continue to cling to the most specious of arguments to preserve its existence with silly wiki lawyering behind facades of innocent faces. Claiming news analysis is accepted as factual. Look at your references, how many of them are calling spygate a conspiracy theory now? They are all 2 years old and no journalist is sticking their neck out to ridicule reality today. This article will disappear soon just like the credibility of the editors who tried to preserve it. Batvette (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC) I have no idea what you are talking about. WP:AGF O3000 (talk) 23:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC) I think it's pretty obvious what they are talking about. The New York Times article is rather obviously RS that "says Trump was spied on, as claimed." It literally admits that is the case in the article - the exact quote is that the FBI planting a spy in Europe to entrap Papadopoulous using a fake identity ("Azra Turk") "could also give ammunition to Mr. Trump and his allies for their spying claims." I would also add that recent RS are significantly at odds with the very narrow definition of Spygate used in this article. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC) That is not at all what the Times reported. Not even close. soibangla (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC) No, it does not say that Trump was spied on. It clearly states that the FBI was alarmed at the ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, as well they should have been. We have known this all along. The claims made by Trump that a spy was planted in his campaign to harm his campaign is a debunked conspiracy theory. O3000 (talk) 18:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC) You're not arguing with me, you're literally arguing with the article. The RS article itself says this information could give ammunition to Mr. Trump and his allies for their "spying claims." They specifically use the word "Spying," and they specifically state that the use of a confidential informant (i.e. a spy) to gather information on Papadopolous lends credence to claims of spying. This isn't me saying this, it's an RS article. I am trying my very best to assume good faith here, but that you would so misconstrue the information provided in the article strains credulity at this point. Azra Turk was a spy, she was engaged in spying against the Campaign. I would invite you to visit the Merriam Webster dictionary and look up the definition of "Spy." None of this is hard to understand. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Other popular conspiracy theories such as Bigfoot, the Roswell UFO, etc do not have "conspiracy theory" in the title. The fact that "conspiracy theory" is in the title and not just in the body of the article betrays the partisan motivations behind this Wiki entry. I second the request to remove "Conspiracy theory" from the title. Evidence has surfaced that makes it seem very likely that the FBI did indeed surveil the Trump campaign and worked against his election. At the very least, the idea that the FBI spied (or surveilled) on Trump is open for discussion and discovery -- it is not merely a conspiracy theory. So besides the title being obviously partisan, it is also incorrect to label Spygate as a conspiracy theory at the moment. AnonElectricSheep (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC) AnonElectricSheep, no one seriously disputes that there was surveillance of the Trump campaign. It is not that aspect that got this called a conspiracy theory. It was several false claims about Halper made by Trump. That has never changed. Those claims are still false. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC) You need to be specific about which claims exactly you are referring to with respect to Halper. Because at the very least there is RS material that indicates that, in fact, Halper was spying on members of Trump's campaign. The use of a covert government agent to collect information on people under an assumed name is spying. The FBI did use a covert government agent to collect information on Papadapolous, via Halper. So I'm not understanding which claims made by Trump, specifically, you claim are false... SIPPINONTECH (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Sources We just got through a months-long series of debates about the title of this article. I was opposed to the current title, and I was opposed to the process that led to the current title; nevertheless, the current title is where we landed. We are not going to reopen the debate for at least a few months. R2 (bleep) 02:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Totally agree. No need for another change so soon. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Support name change as proposed. Only question is why is it taking so long to NPOV this article's title? AppliedCharisma (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Because it is NPOV. Trump made several false claims about Halper's surveillance, and RS labeled that narrative a conspiracy theory. Trump's followers still believe his false narrative. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Well, actually, it's mostly "news analysis" pieces--one by NYT, one by WaPo, one by Vox--that labeled his claims a conspiracy theory. Hard to find a news report that labels it that way. So what you said is debatable. Such pieces are currently being discussed at RSN. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC) It's not "debatable," it's flat out wrong. The definition of Spygate being used by these commenters you are responding to is overly-narrow, as has been very thoroughly demonstrated in other sections of this talk page. Not only that, but the New York Times published an article which confirmed the FBI was using a spy - likely using a false identity - to try to gather intelligence on George Papadopoulous. It is only through a very selective and inconsistent use of now-outdated sources that someone could even pretend to make the case that Trump has "false" claims about the very real spying that did in fact occur against his Campaign. It is only by redefining the word "spying," or intentionally mischaracterizing what "Spygate" actually is, that these commenters continue the farce that somehow Trump was incorrect to allege that spying did take place. The only real ambiguity concerning Spygate is whether that spying was done legitimately. Even using the incorrect, extremely narrow definition of certain bad-faith editors, it is still incorrect to say that Trump's claims were "false." If anything, Trump's claims concerning attempts to use spies against members of his campaign appear to be true. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC) References What I meant was debatable is specifically the claim that "news analysis" pieces can be relied upon for unattributed factual content. I agree with you that it isn't debatable that the current article cherry picks sources and defines "spygate" in an accordingly narrow way. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC) (removed per WP:BE R2 (bleep) 18:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)) I think the above commenter is correct. Any objective reading of the talk page of this article, not to mention the article itself, shows that a handful of editors with an extremely obvious political agenda have maliciously constructed and edited this article in such a way as to turn it into anything but a neutral, factual accounting of "Spygate." Perhaps the most egregious abuse is the intentional mischaracterization of "Spygate" as being limited only to the accusations against Halper/Mifsud - that definition of Spygate is both outdated and incorrect. In other sections of this article, I have shown these malicious editors RS material that explicitly defines Spygate as the broader counterintel operation against the Trump Campaign that involved FISA warrants (that we know for a fact were issued against Page and possibly against others involved in the Campaign.) Despite providing them with good sources, they're still maliciously misconstruing the definition Spygate. It is absolutely shameful that Wikipedia would allow this to happen. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 16:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC) This is but a string of personal attacks. PAs convince no one.O3000 (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC) I disagree that it's a "personal attack," it's a general comment about the tone and the tenor of some of the editors here. Quite simply, the fact that there are people still defining "Spygate" as narrowly as they possibly can, and trying to redefine the word "Spy" in order to justify overtly maligning the President of the United States throughout this article implies malicious intent. There is nothing personal about it. The opening of the "Background" section reads: "Trump has been involved in the promotion of a number of conspiracy theories which are lacking in evidence. These have included promoting Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories from 2011, claiming in 2016 that Ted Cruz's father was involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and claiming that he would have won the popular vote in the 2016 election if not for "millions" of illegal voters." That is egregiously, laughably political. The talk page is similarly egregious. This entire article and talk page are an affront to Wikipedia's credibility and a microcosm of everything wrong with its community. This kind of blatant and self-serving partisanship deserves to be called out, and I do not apologize for doing so. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 18:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC) This article is about Trump's specific assertion that a spy was planted in his campaign. Barr made ambiguous comments in his testimony, which have been extensively discussed here, and a consensus was reached that the comments were sufficiently ambiguous that the scope of the article should not be broadened at this time. soibangla (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC) No, this article is about Spygate. The majority of RS define it differently (more broadly) than you are doing here. Regardless of "consensus," contemporary RS do not refer to Spygate as narrowly as you insist on doing. See above section. Once again, it's ridiculous that we are still having this discussion. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC) I agree with Sippinontech. It's about spygate, and the current article defines that term in a way that cherry picks a few "news analysis" pieces. I invite you both to weigh in on whether such pieces are RS at RSN. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Spygate was a term Trump coined with a specific meaning. After Barr's testimony, there was extensive discussion over many days on this page about broadening the scope of the article, and the consensus was reached that we should not at this time. We should let that stand for a while unless/until there are material developments in the matter, as reported in RS, rather than get embroiled in a maelstrom of speculation pushed by partisans. soibangla (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Let's focus on content, not editors. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC) That's exactly what I am doing. soibangla (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC) SIPPINONTECH, you made your position on this perfectly clear in your !vote on May 3. That move request, in which dozens of editors voted, did not go your (our) way. Further argument on this issue is disruptive, and I've asked MelanieN to close this discussion. Please drop the stick. R2 (bleep) 18:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC) (removed per WP:BE R2 (bleep) 21:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)) Support name change as proposedBatvette (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC: conspiracy theory

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should we continue to describe Spygate as a conspiracy theory? R2 (bleep) 22:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Survey

(Yes = continue describing Spygate as conspiracy theory, no = stop describing Spygate as conspiracy theory) I am a Yes.Wcmcdade (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion

We just did this. O3000 (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Facepalm. I will withdraw and close. R2 (bleep) 22:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I reopened. 1. I did not have any part in any previous discussion or supposed "consensus". 2. There was not a "consensus" otherwise there wouldn't be at least 2 editors who think that we need to remove "conspiracy theory" and change the name. 3. Can you point to any other actual conspiracy theories that title the article in this fashion on Wikipedia with "(conspiracy theory)" in the title? 4. There is extremely strong WP:RS evidence that the Trump campaign was spied on. So for a US President to make such a claim does not at all feel like or sound like a conspiracy theory.

Previous comments moved as I am reopening the RfC.Wcmcdade (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• See Why is Spygate called a "conspiracy theory"?. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

You're linking to your own argument for a reference? As if its the last word on this, when we have RS stating Trump had good reason to say what did? This is getting silly. Your position rests upon Trumps claims getting some details wrong but overall he was mostly right, this conspiracy theory thing is getting narrower and narrower. So its coming down to proving it was for political purposes ... ignoring this?

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/392284-fbi-agent-in-texts-well-stop-trump-from-becoming-president?amp. ? Really? 

"An FBI agent who was removed from the probe into alleged ties between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign texted an FBI attorney that the agency would "stop" then-candidate Donald Trump from becoming president."

 Trying to assume good faith here but its hard with your edit history. You are a productive objective editor and an asset to wiki but your anti Trump sentiments are pretty obvious.  Why the stubbornness to continue the wrong angle to this story?Batvette (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I withdrew the RfC. Please stop. R2 (bleep) 19:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Points presented that argue this was Trumps conspiracy theory rather than erroneous details of otherwise well founded suspicions.

This seems to be the basis for preserving the CT nature of this article and it seems to have been focused around 4 points listed by BR. He concedes surveillance occurred. I think we all agree what it was called is irrelevant. He places significance on errors of the date the investigation starts but IMO that goes hand in hand on what starts it- the Steele dossier as well as intel about George P boasting about Russian leaks. I dont think Trump getting the dates wrong merits calling it a conspiracy theory, indeed, he was going on what he knew at the time. I also think that an error about Halpers role or whether he was paid massive amounts matter much. Halper was paid $1mil by the feds, we know that. What makes this a Trump conspiracy theory, at the end of the day, is claiming the investigation was for political purposes and done by the Obama admin. Can we agree on that? This dispenses with ever narrowing arguments concerning Trumps errors which as usual were plenty and cuts it away to the gist of his self proclaimed bombshell, and do RS provide evidence that his accusation was crazy or rational. Im going to let this essay sit and stew a bit before presenting some RS to support this and what I have seen today may or may not be news to anyone. I might further note that a lot of discussion says that the investigation was merited based on preliminary evidence about the players under Trump. This appears true. However the Mueller report finds little to no evidence Trump orchestrated any Russian collusion so why should he not assume political reasons... and when the investigation continues despite concerns over the Steele dossier and Azra Turks efforts with George P going nowhere... should we consider that it did become political? RS have texts from Page and Strzok that suggest thats exactly what happened, and that it was under direction of the White House. Will provide if necessary.Batvette (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I see you have not made a single edit to the article. Why not try that? soibangla (talk) 22:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory discussion #__

Spygate is not a conspiracy theory any more! Please update your site accordingly. Get your facts straight otherwise you are guilty of the same thing the media has been doing all along. Catquillen (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done - Wikipedia is based on mainstream reliable sources. Your personal belief that these sources are biased or wrong is of no consequence here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Is Paste a reliable source for politics? I have never heard of this magazine. Is it mainstream? Why isn't the claim that Spygate is a conspiracy theory sourced in NPR, NBC, ABC, CBS, Reuters, AP, BBC, Bloomberg, or USA Today? Oh, right, because although all these sources reported on Spygate, none of them called it a conspiracy theory, so we had to cherry pick Paste and the Intercept. How embarrassing. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Can we at least remove Paste and the Intercept? RSN seems to regard Intercept as unreliable without attribution. And Paste is apparently a magazine that focuses on entertainment. What the heck? Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@Soibangla: WaPo states in their reader guide that their news analysis pieces are opinion pieces. See here: [57] So the WaPo seems like another inappropriate source. Keep looking, though--maybe you can find a choicer cherry to replace it. Also, Newsweek is a little weak as support for the central claim of the article. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: - I strongly disagree with your interpretation of WaPo's policy. The separation of news columns from the editorial pages is solemn and complete ... But nothing in this separation of functions is intended to eliminate from the news columns honest, in-depth reporting, or analysis or commentary when plainly labeled. Thus, Analysis is News under WaPo. starship.paint (talk) 05:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: the the whole section you're quoting from is the "OPINION" section of the article. They're explaining how they label the various sorts of opinion columns in their publication, and how it's ok that there is some opinion in some of their news sources, so long as they are careful to label them as analysis pieces. That's how I read it anyway. Hard to understand the title of the sub-section you're quoting if the various labels are not regarded as different sorts of opinion columns. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: - there is some opinion in some of their news sources - your statement doesn’t tally that WaPo said The separation of news columns from the editorial pages is solemn and complete. This separation is intended to serve the reader, who is entitled to the facts in the news columns and to opinions on the editorial and “op-ed” pages. There is no mix of opinion and fact here. Opinions are on editorial and op-ed pages. Nowhere does it say that opinions are on Analysis pages. What it does say is that analysis is on Analysis pages. They have named the subsection Opinion just to clarify their commitment to keeping news and opinion separate. starship.paint (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Do you believe that the FBI spied on the Trump campaign to alter the election in favor of Clinton? If so, please point to reliable sources. If not, what is your point? O3000 (talk) 23:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

My beliefs on that matter are not under discussion. My point is that the WaPo piece is not an appropriate source in this case, for the indicated reason. That's also exactly what I said. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and my other point is that Newsweek is a weak source. Also exactly what I said. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• • 03000, the texts between Strzok and Page prove exactly that, that they intended to prevent his win, and that their activities were directly reporting to the white house. RS everywhere on that. Batvette (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Let's see those RS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

That's ludicrous and a serious WP:BLP violation. O3000 (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

That is not at all "proven". You and others are misrepresenting those text messages. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that Trump's claims are unsubstantiated, and that he made them to discredit the Mueller investigation. That's the correct way to describe the situation, in line with tons of reliable mainstream sources, which I've detailed on this page. Instead, you guys are cherry picking Newsweek, some opinion pieces, and one outlier report from the LA times. Stop cherry picking. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Here's Vox, Rolling Stone, GQ, CNN, Vanity Fair, New York, etc. using the same terminology. We don't need WP:CITEKILL in the lede to make the point. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Right, GQ and the like, and another CNN opinion piece. That's reassuring. Why not consider what I said: the traditional RS news sources described the situation as I did: his claims were and are unsubstantiated, and they were originally made to discredit the Mueller investigation. Put it that way, cite some real RSs, and then you don't have to turn to mens fashion media or entertainment media. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Here's Politico — The retiring South Carolina Republican’s emergence as a critic of Trump’s conspiracy theory began Tuesday. You've asked for more and better sources than Paste and The Intercept, and those sources have been provided. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Haaretz: Fox News, which is often in sync with U.S. President Donald Trump both rhetorically and politically, is joining some Republican leaders in sounding the alarm that Trump’s latest conspiracy theory, “Spygate,” may finally be a step too far and even a threat to rule of law in the U.S. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: - could you add the best sources to the body? Thanks. starship.paint (talk) 05:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

RS for the texts. https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/392284-fbi-agent-in-texts-well-stop-trump-from-becoming-president?amp https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/strzok-page-texts-trump-russia-investigation-origins/ https://nypost.com/2018/06/14/texts-reveal-disgraced-fbi-agent-told-lover-well-stop-trump/ https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/comey-says-he-cant-interpret-what-strzok-meant-when-he-said-hillary would you like more?Batvette (talk) 03:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

The fuck is "CNSNEWS"? NY Post? Please approach article editing seriously. If you're gonna promise "RS", then provide those RS, not garbage. The other two sources are marginally better though probably still not RS for claims of fact, and they also do not say what you claim they say.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I see you have not made a single edit to the article. Why not try that? soibangla (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• There are a couple of editors here who have not been respecting the recent consensus. It is time to drop the stick. R2 (bleep) 03:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I count no less than 28 different editors who have posted on this page since april 12 (this is all topics currently on the page) who disagreed with the POV nature of the article and/or want CT dropped from the title. Why the misportrayal? If you dont want to participate in the discussion you dont have to. Batvette (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek you are trying to deny the facts by attacking the source. The statements by those agents were lifted directly from an official Justice Dept report. Here it is from the Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-receiving-briefing-ahead-of-public-release-of-report-expected-to-criticize-fbi/2018/06/14/c08c6a5a-6fdf-11e8-bf86-a2351b5ece99_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5773a0c72991 There it is, reliable sources stating as fact, that top FBI officials engaged in inappropriate behavior with the intent of hurting Trumps chances of winning the election. Thats from the inspector general report. These officials were assigned to the case as it was being investigated in London and their own words state their intentions as well as describing their actions were reported directly to the President.Batvette (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I read through your WaPo cite twice. I saw absolutely nothing relating in any manner to the subject of this thread. It is completely off-topic. O3000 (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Willful ignorance is hardly a talking point I feel obligated to waste time on.Batvette (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Batvette: - please provide exact quotes. starship.paint (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Please stop your personal attacks. They are not useful. O3000 (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

The statement clearly refers to WHAT YOU ARE POSTING HERE, not who you are nor anything about your person. Such false accusations against editors are a lame form of deflection and demonstrate a lack of a competant arguement. (not a personal attack either)Batvette (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)