Talk:Spygate (conspiracy theory)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kgrr (talk | contribs) at 15:47, 9 September 2018 (→‎Evidence vs Conspiracy theory). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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

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

MOS:NEO and WP:NEO are probably helpful guidance on if and when to add this. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 23:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reputable sources using the term:


All five headlines enclose the term in quotation marks, signaling a lack of linguistic acceptance. For now, it's still President Trump and his publicists' term, not the sources' term. That could change quickly, though, so it's worth keeping an eye on. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the skyrocketing of visitors to this page since May 23rd of this year who are no doubt disappointed to see a disambiguation page that has no internal links at all to the current Trump accusation, I have changed this disambiguation page into an article on the supposed scandal presented by Donald Trump. I don't think we are doing our readers ANY kind of service by having no article on this issue, even it it is shown to be concocted— the fact is that the presidential accusation was made, and the popular press has begun reporting on it, and people are turning to Wikipedia for more information on it, and they have not been finding anything about it here except links to an obscure Formula One racing controversy and another on the Patriots football team's misdeeds. My version of the article is very short, but I am all but certain that others will begin adding to it very soon, if only to elaborate on the theory's baselessness. I know the use of the term in this sense is still quite new, but I think it is clear that it is going to be sticking around for awhile (regardless of its appearance within quote marks in newspaper headlines, which while they do indicate the lack of acceptance of the term so far, do not prevent us from hosting an article on it if the "thing", the idea, seems to be real and of at least some lasting significance, even if it is a dumb term like "controversyaffair" or "battleconflict"). A loose noose (talk) 10:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A loose noose - I expanded some. starship.paint ~ KO 13:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is the proper reference to President Trump's first SPYGATE tweet on 5/23:
"SPYGATE could be one of the biggest political scandals in history!"[1]

kgrr talk 15:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of stuff from the background

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

Lede

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

Requested move 5 June 2018

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

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

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

I'm not sure that the 2018 conspiracy theory is the primary topic. Consider google trends result for Spygate. Interest in the term spiked in 2008 when the New England Patriots were first accused of spying on their opponents and again in 2015 when the team was accused of deflategate. I understand that interest today is based almost entirely on the current conspiracy theory, but that interest is much smaller than previous spikes related to the term and we will need to wait and see if the current spike grows into something more substantial. Smmurphy(Talk) 10:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This may currently be a significant topic for the term, but it is recentism to draw any conclusion so soon. The term as used by Trump may sink without trace within a few months. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose any move. At the disambiguation guideline, it says with regards to "primary topic" that two criteria are typically used by editors to determine 'primaryness': usage and long-term significance; Smmurphy (talk · contribs) researched and explained these above. Furthermore, this page has disambiguated other topics for 8.19 years before anyone came along and linked to the US president; moving it would not be "back". — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. There is no question that Stefan Halper surreptitiously monitored the Trump campaign on behalf of James Comey's FBI. Comey and his supporters don't accept the idea that anything the FBI does is spying. That is the only basis for the "conspiracy theory" moniker. As far as the primary topic issue goes, this article is certainly primary topic at the moment. The "long-term significance" criteria is designed to make it easier to designate a topic with such significance as primary, not to create an additional barrier on the road to primary topic. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as Artw suggests below, or failing that, oppose move. Recentistic; no empirical evidence supports idea that this meaning is more common than other meanings. Neutralitytalk 22:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Special Counsel investigation (2017–present) and give proper context as part of efforts by Trump/Nunes et all to undermine the investigation. If it becomes so sprawling a separate article is required then that article should cover the undermining efforts as a whole, probably starting with the Nunes run to the Whitehouse. A standalone article on "Spygate" not noting it's basis in those efforts and status as a conspiracy does not seem sustainable so if we don't merge I'm defaulting to oppose. Artw (talk) 02:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not merge and do not move - the special counsel stuff started in 2017, this is supposedly about events in 2016, not about the special counsel investigation. Will need evidence that this is the primary topic to move. starship.paint ~ KO 02:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No move. Too soon. The continued use of quotation marks around "Spygate" suggests sources have not yet adopted it linguistically. WP:LABEL and WP:RECENT are particular NPOV concerns. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. While it might appear to be the primary topic at the moment, only time will tell whether this gains long-term significance. Smmurphy (talk · contribs) provided useful data above. -- Pemilligan (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I don't think it's decisive to note that one part of the title (the -gate prefix) seems to violate WP:LABEL and not note that the other part ("conspiracy theory") also seems to violate it. Go with WP:NPOVTITLE and WP:CONCISE. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Look, this is such an obvious term for journalists to apply to their latest local scandal that if ever we move the DAB away from the base name we'll inevitably have another RM in time, it's just a matter of when. Such moves invalidate bookmarks and incoming links from other webpages, over which we have no control... we can't even detect them let alone fix them. For the readers, it's a no-brainer. Andrewa (talk) 11:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

supporting evidence

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

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

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

kgrr talk 11:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, a couple slapped-together cash-grab smearjob books by right-wing commentators. That's your proposed rebuttal to a pile of mainstream reliable sources? Nope. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ready any one of the three books? I have. The books are supported by references to known facts -- Congressional testimony, FOIA requests, and articles from credible sources. It seems to me that you have a real problem with maintaining a neutral point of view. kgrr talk 00:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gregg Jarret's book is published by Harper-Collins/Broadside, a reputable conservative publisher. [2]

Jeanine Pirro, a former judge, had her book published by Hachette Book Group, a reputable publisher.[3]

Dan Bongino et al book, a former Federal investigator and Secret Service agent, has his book published by Simon Shuster/Archway, a reputable book publisher. [4]

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

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

None of those documents support this conspiracy theory. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IN YOUR POV OPINION. References please. Get prepared, I will open an NPOV dispute. kgrr talk 01:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I would refer you to the reliable sources cited here in this article. What you call "my POV opinion" is actually the sourced conclusions of multiple independent reliable sources. In response, you proffered primary source documents you claim support the theory, and three purported books authored by partisan Trump supporters. These are not equivalent, and Wikipedia is not required to treat them as equivalent. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"These are not equivalent" based on what? While New York times and the Washington Post are reputable sources, the other four sources are rather dubious. The Intercept, Paste Magazine, Vox and Cleveland.com are online publication that are not in print. References 1-6 in this article are significantly older than these three books on the subject. More evidence has been uncovered since the references 1-6 were published. The three references are hard-bound books with references. The two newspaper articles and the four online sources do not give sources. All of the sources 1-6 are liberal left-leaning. I'm sorry, I don't buy your claim. kgrr talk 05:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not a publication publishes dead-tree editions or not is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is a reliable source; moreover, you're wrong about Cleveland.com, because that's the website of the Cleveland Plain Dealer.
You appear to be under the delusion that because you disagree with the NYT and WaPo, you can dismiss the two most respected news sources in America as "liberal left-leaning." That won't work here. We don't subscribe to Trumpist notions of "fake news." His words (more precisely, tweets) have no power here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence vs Conspiracy theory

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

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

kgrr talk 00:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that Barack Obama's administration paid to put an informant in the Trump campaign. That is the essence of the conspiracy theory, and not one iota of evidence exists to support it, as per the numerous reliable sources cited here. All else is obfuscation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So why don't you please explain Stefan Halper.[5] kgrr talk 05:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have a poor understanding of how Wikipedia is edited. It's not up to me to "explain" anything. Rather, if you believe something should be changed in the article, it's incumbent upon you to state which changes you believe should be made and provide sources which support those changes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I understand how Wikipedia is edited. I don't have to propose a change, I can also ask for help to arrive at a correction that better reflects the facts. Follow me, I will make that suggestion.
The second sentence in the article "On May 22 - May 23, 2018, Trump announced and elaborated, without providing evidence, on the existence of this conspiracy via his Twitter account, stating his belief that the previous administration under Barack Obama paid to plant a spy inside Trump's 2016 presidential campaign to assist his rival, Hillary Clinton, win the 2016 US presidential election.[5][7]"
The beginning of this second sentence was mostly borrowed from a May 18 New York Times article "WASHINGTON — President Trump accused the F.B.I. on Friday, without evidence, of sending a spy to secretly infiltrate his 2016 campaign “for political purposes” even before the bureau had any inkling of the “phony Russia hoax.”".[6]
Rather than labeling it a conspiracy and borrowing far too much from the NYT article, why not stay NPOV and state the fact when the word "SPYGATE" was (re)coined by President Trump?
On May 23, 2018, President Trump tweeted "SPYGATE could be one of the biggest political scandals in history" [7] kgrr talk 10:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because a broad consensus of reliable sources label it a baseless and unsupported conspiracy theory, that's why. While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. A clear and unambiguous majority of reliable sources depict these claims as baseless, false and ludicrous conspiracy theories. In response, you've provided... three partisan books written by Trump apologists. Unfortunately for you and Trump, the sources speak loudly here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So since that all the left-leaning newspapers and online resources you have found say it's a conspiracy theory, you will disregard that there are other sources that disagree. It's not that the minority viewpoint does not exist, it's that it's not represented by the sources used. kgrr talk 15:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Back to the original subject of this talk discussion. The difference between evidence and a Conspiracy theory is that there is credible evidence. I have offered several sources that are credible Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). I offer that [Gregg Jarrett]]'s book is a credible source by the definitions offered in WP:IRS. kgrr talk 15:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can opinionated sources be reliable?

Please read WP:Identifying reliable sources I believe that Wikipedia says yes. The article's references 1-6 are biased towards the left. And, yes, the three books I cite are possibly biased towards the right. [8] kgrr talk 05:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they can, but they should be factual, not partisan twistings of facts and based on unreliable sources, such as the books you've suggested.
Otherwise, NPOV expressly allows biased sources. The trick is with extremely biased sources, where their bias leads them to start twisting things, not covering subjects unfavorable to their POV, etc, IOW what Fox News, Breitbart, InfoWars, Daily Caller, etc. do all the time. Then they become unreliable. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So for example, who judges that Gregg Jarrett's book is extremely biased? It's an analysis of the known facts in the scandal (not conspiracy theory). It is thoroughly documented with references. It's published by a very well known publisher. It's certainly not an obscure book. It's a best seller. kgrr talk 15:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The number of copies something sells has precisely zero to do with how reliable it is. From our biography of Jarrett, which helpfully has an extensive section on his Trump apologism and the book in question specifically: In a review for The Washington Post, Carlos Lozada described the book as a Trump hagiography. PolitiFact rated a number of claims made in Jarrett's book as false, misleading and unsubstantiated. That's why it's not a good source here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ @realDonaldTrump (May 23, 2018). "SPYGATE could be one of the biggest political scandals in history!" (Tweet) – via Twitter.
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HarperCollins
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hachette_Book_Group
  4. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_%26_Schuster
  5. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/who-is-stefan-a-halper-the-fbi-source-who-assisted-the-russia-investigation/2018/05/21/22c46caa-5d42-11e8-9ee3-49d6d4814c4c_story.html
  6. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/us/politics/trump-fbi-informant-russia-investigation.html
  7. ^ https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/999246677549768704?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E999246677549768704%7Ctwgr%5E373939313b73706563696669635f73706f7274735f616374696f6e&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fdidtrumptweetit.com%2F999246677549768704-2%2F
  8. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Biased%20opinionated%20sources
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spygate_(conspiracy_theory)&oldid=858783322"