Talk:Spygate (conspiracy theory)

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

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

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

Reputable sources using the term:

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Removal of stuff from the background

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

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

Lede

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

Requested move 5 June 2018

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

supporting evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Evidence vs Conspiracy theory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources

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

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

Can opinionated sources be reliable?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

Requested move 20 February 2019

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Page needs to be moved

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

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

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