Talk:Spygate (conspiracy theory)

Evidence vs Conspiracy theory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The parts that were verified either don't pertain to Trump, or else were sufficiently public information that they don't mean anything in terms of credibility for the dossier. And you are incorrect that it hasn't been debunked. Cohen didn't go to Prague, so there you go. Perhaps you will say "but maybe he snuck there somehow without his passport being stamped" - and all I hear is "but maybe Obama's long form birth certificate is a forgery, did you see how some of the letters look copied and pasted?" Who is advancing the conspiracy theory here? Yes, the Steele dossier has been debunked. It is untrustworthy and can be dismissed by reasonable people who aren't conspiracy theorists. Wookian (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Wookian, Cohen says he didn't go to Prague. And Cohen was convicted of lying to Congress, so as far as I know that's still one of the unverified claims. I don't know where he got his passport stamped, but remember the EU is different in travel than the U.S. And yes, some key claims in the dossier have been verified. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

This passport stamp argument needs to be dropped. I’ve traveled between EU countries without a passport stamp, and even without stopping to show my passport. And that was before the Schengen Agreement. And, I'm not an EU citizen. O3000 (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

No, not going to drop it. Per Cohen's passport, which he allowed anti-Trump media to review and photograph, he flew in and out of Italy in July, but the dossier says "last week or August or first week of September". Therefore despite the ease of EU travel, your conspiracy theory still requires him to somehow sneak around passport stamps, or perhaps you think he possesses a second passport. Hint: it would be hard for him to keep a second passport a secret from the State Department and thus Mueller. Do you feel silly yet? Wikipedia is not a place to advance conspiracy theories, so it is long past time for you to let the Steele Dossier go. Wookian (talk) 15:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

You’re snarks are not convincing. The article is well-sourced. O3000 (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

We were talking about passport stamps. Did I tell you some information you didn't know before, and now you are realizing you were mistaken about this and are dropping the subject? If so, that is for the best, because I wasn't being snarky. It is a conspiracy theory to believe the claims of the Steele Dossier. The challenge with telling lies (as Huckleberry Finn explains) is keeping them straight. It was dangerous for the Steele Dossier to be so specific on a verifiable claim like this, and in fact the dossier fell on its face. Wookian (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

It is not our job to draw conclusions or perform investigations. And, I find discussions with those that merely respond with snarks and aspersions as non-productive. O3000 (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Did I answer your EU passport objection, or not? Wookian (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Can opinionated sources be reliable?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page needs to be moved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• @Masem: It's pretty clear that we can't take those two "support" comments above seriously, and why. This is "a conspiracy theory propagated by Trump", but of course it's also about him because everything he says and does is about him. I don't see how it's a BLP violation though. He's the one who put this out there. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'm not considering those !votes. But as I said, one possible interpretation of the disambiguation phrase is "a conspiracy theory directly about Trump", rather than a BLP that involves events that include Trump but are not directly about him, or a conspiracy theory created by him. Add that the phrase can be naturally condensed down to "conspiracy theory" without disrupting any other pages, and the easy means to implement the clarification with the NFL event, and that basically would make it clear that the page should be moved back. There is strong BLP and article titling policy reasons to move the page, with very little reason to retain at this point. --Masem (t) 22:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Gotcha. Not really sure what the best title for this should be, but I'm open to reasonable NPOV possibilities. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
      • That's why I've said "Spygate (conspiracy theory)" is fine. no BLP issues, is concise, and there's far less connection of the term "conspiracy theory" to the NFL Spygate such that a hatnote is sufficient to redirect a searcher to the right page. --Masem (t) 05:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

*Support As far as I can tell, the goalposts have shifted far enough at this point that it requires a fairly "out there" conspiracy theory to believe that Obama's administration didn't spy on the Trump campaign. Furthermore, even though left leaning sources dislike it, official opprobrium (POTUS and much of federal legislature) is directed against rogue deep state elements that aggressively investigated Trump/Russian collusion without a good reason to do so, which in connection to the painfully clear anti-Trump animus of the parties involved (Strzok, McCabe, Comey, Brennan, Clapper), abundantly substantiates the political angle of the Spygate accusation. Time for POV conflicted editors to "let it go" and acknowledge that this encyclopedia shouldn't adopt a leftist slant on this issue. I would favor a title of "Spygate" even though the trend of putting "gate" on things is silly - that's what the Spygate accusers are calling it, so that is its name. Wookian (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Wookian, you write "without a good reason to do so". How many suspicious and secret contacts, which were lied about by Trump and his campaign, again and again and again, would constitute a "good reason" to start an investigation? Are you serious, or just baiting us?

Before the dossier, there were already several suspicious things happening: Papadopoulos's actions showed the Trump campaign knew about the DNC hacked emails before anyone else, ergo they had Russian contacts they shouldn't have had. Several allied foreign intelligence agencies were reporting to the FBI and CIA that they were listening in on Russians talking about how they were discussing the election with Trump campaign members. They were alarmed by this illegal coordination and the Russian interference in the election. The Trump Tower meeting was filled with suspicious elements and people, a very well-planned and coordinated meeting, and Trump even trumped his own son and son-in-law (who had a prepared statement telling the truth) by issuing a false press release, which of course was exposed as a lie. (That false release is seen as evidence of guilt, collusion, and obstruction.) Flynn, Stone, Page, and others in the campaign were having all kinds of secret contacts with Russians that had no legitimate purpose, all relating to the campaign. That's seen as evidence of possible collusion.

So HOW MUCH of this type of activity is a "good reason"? This has nothing to do with the dossier. This was all activity known by American and foreign intelligence agencies, who were all justifiably very alarmed by the Russian hacks, leaks, and penetration of voting machines and voter rolls. Even more worrying was that all that illegal activity was being sought after and accepted by the Trump campaign. Never once did they do the only right thing (which Steele immediately did) by turning over that information to the FBI. Instead, they cooperated with the Russians by accepting, and not refusing and reporting. Even now Trump refuses to accept that the Russians interfered in the election to help him win. That's seen as aiding and abetting a crime. It's also seen as treason by many. So how much of that should they have ignored and just allowed? Seriously. Can you imagine what the GOP would have done if Obama had done that, instead of running an honest campaign? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

References

• Oppose and procedural objection. Aside from the arguments I already made on this page, this move is procedurally defective. The OP is seeking to overturn consensus that was obtained one month ago to move from Spygate (conspiracy theory) to Spygate (Donald Trump conspiracy theory). The consensus was based primarily on the fact that the "(conspiracy theory)" parenthetical was confusing (and therefore ineffective) since Spygate is commonly associated with the NFL scandal, and it did in fact have a conspiracy theory component to it. More concerning, however, is that, as far as I can tell, not a single participant in the prior move discussion was alerted to this one. Then we have a series of apparent "Support" votes that aren't actually in support. One says we should move the article to Spygate investigation even though that's not the proposal. A second says we should move the article to Spygate, even though that's not the proposal either. The third says we should move the article to Spygate (conspiracy theory) while arguing that Spygate isn't a conspiracy theory. That's totally nonsensical. The merits of these !voters' arguments aside, clearly they do not understand what has been proposed here. If Masem really wants to pursue this, I suggest they start fresh with a {{requested move}} template, explicitly state what title they want the article moved to, acknowledge the prior consensus, and notify all of the editors who were involved in it. R2 (bleep) 19:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, I understand Masem's concern and wouldn't be opposed to a change. I just don't think that we should go back to Spygate (conspiracy theory). R2 (bleep) 21:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per R2. Very good reasons for not making a change right now. None of the support !votes can be counted anyway, due to complete confusion.

I understand the desire for a less confusing title, so a possible move might be wanted, but this needs to be done properly. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I have not actually nor was attempted to start a proper RM, just trying to figure out why there's a reason to have a BLP violation in the title (the last RM close doesn't really consider that , and I was hoping someone would have a potential reason). Yes, a proper RM needs to be started, and given that the only argument give to keep it at this current name is "it could be confused with NFL Spygate" while there are several strong reasons to move, another RM disicussion should be started. --Masem (t) 17:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Masem, I tend to agree, but before going to RM, where any confusion or lack of consensus will just create a failed clusterf##k, we should reach a consensus here on a good replacement title. We need to brainstorm for ideas. I'll be watching this space. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Masem: - if you’re concerned about BLP then I propose “Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump)”. starship.paint ~ KO 04:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The only argument I am seeing right now against using "(conspiracy theory)" as the disambiguation phrase is "it might be confused with the NFL thing". But 1) we have HATNOTES to direct people that might be looking for the NFL thing by searching on "Spygate conspiracy theory" and end up here to get to them to the NFL one, 2) it is a more concise disambiguation phrase, and 3) to some degree, this political thing does have about twice as much connection to the word "Spygate" over the NFL in Google and Google News searching. --Masem (t) 04:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll add that based on the discussion going on below this, maybe "(conspiracy theory)" is necessarily the right phase, but whatever phrase is given, as long as it avoids naming Trump and stays as concise as possible, the same logic above (as to distinguish from the NFL topic) applies. --Masem (t) 14:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

When done properly, IOW reflecting what RS say, I don't see the inclusion of Trump's name in the title as a BLP violation. Only when negative information is unsourced is there a problem, and that's not the case here. Just make sure the title has (1) no ambiguity and (2) accurately describes the content of the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• It really does depend on what disambiguation phrase is picked. As I've said, as it is right now, it could read as a conspiracy theory raised by Trump (true), or could be read as a conspiracy theory about Trump (not really true), and this latter is what tends into BLP. I don't recommend this but if the term was "Spygate (Donald Trump presidency)" that's not a BLP problem. But the other thing again to keep in mind that we want the most concise term; if we are just adding Trump's name to distinguish, that's probably a problem. But I can't saying for certain until a better term is settled on; only that if it stays at "conspiracy theory", removing Trump's name meets both naming and BLP policy issues. --Masem (t) 03:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

* Supportish the longer title seems awkward and confusing to me, so I’d prefer something else. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• • Support** Since it's up for debate, it should simply be Spygate, not this ridiculous title. If it is proven to be a "conspiracy theory" (lie?), it's a ridiculous title. Miserlou (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

This is the no evidence that Trump possessed. The above is the genesis of the public including Donald Trump knowing that the FBI was spying on his campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 29 March 2019

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

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

NPOV

Now that the Mueller probe has found that there was no Trump-Russia collusion, this is quickly turning into conspiracy FACT. Can we finally have NPOV in this article? Here is a well-documented BOOK on the subject. Spygate: The Attempted Sabotage of Donald J. Trump by Dan Bongino , D.C. McAllister, et al. Oct 9, 2018 ISBN 978-1-64293-099-3 If you don't let me post it now, I will open an NPOV case on this article kgrr ^talk 01:15, March 29, 2019‎ (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, I don't lack NPOV. From the lede of our article: Bongino is known for his staunchly pro-Donald Trump commentary. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kgrr, if you're basing what you know from an interview of Nunes by Hannity, you're not getting the full story. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I trust Devin Nunes because so far, everything he's said has come out to be true. Hannity asks him questions that the mainstream media won't ask and has not asked. However, I base what I know on many sources. You won't let me quote a book in print with hundreds of references that you did not read. I read news from both sides. Clearly, there is a lot of bias in the so-called main stream media. It still backs the lies they've spread for the last two years. kgrr ^talk 04:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

"I trust Devin Nunes because so far, everything he's said has come out to be true" wait, wha? ahahahahaha hahaha .... hahahaha... hahahha hahahahahahahahahahah.... .... no. Provide reliable sources or quit it with the WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. Nunes claims that the dossier was what started the Russia investigation, and he claims that it was also the main impetus behind the FISA warrant. The first is obviously false, and on the second point, his own Nunes memo came to the conclusion that the dossier was only a part of the reason behind the warrant. Think about that, his own memo concluded the opposite of his own false claim: "On July 21, 2018, the Justice Department released heavily redacted versions of four FISA warrant applications for Carter Page which showed that key assertions made in the Nunes memo were false or misleading, corroborating the rebuttal made by Democrats." So NO, he's not trustworthy. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Phmoreno, please provide a source. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you don't like Hannity interviewing Devin Nunes or Daily Caller reporting it. kgrr ^talk 03:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The hey that has to do with anything? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The FISA warrant applications on Carter Page have been released. However, I can't show you the exculpatory evidence that's not in the FISA warrant. I also can't show you what's not been redacted. kgrr ^talk 03:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I do not have time to post them all.Phmoreno (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC) Another. References in this: Unmasking by U.S. intelligence agencies#Unmasking aides to Donald Trump The United States Foreign Intelligence Court Opinion April 2017 discusses FISA abuse including performing "about queries" on U.S. citizens in intelligence databases by contractors. Contractor names redacted. More on the Carter Page FISA warrant.

I'm just waking up so I haven't read through all of this yet, but I did click on that link to the "Unmasking" page and it's out of date, referring to Nunes as chair and Schiff as ranking member. Devin Nunes abused his position as chair and as a member of the Gang of Eight on Trump's behalf, so I imagine the truth is that the unmaskings done were all done appropriately. But I'll have to find sources on that because it's just a gut feeling. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

"so I imagine the truth is that the unmaskings done were all done appropriately" - This is quite a shocker of a statement, and has no place in a posture of encyclopedic neutrality. AGF applies to fellow WP editors, not to abusers of government agencies and surveillance powers. Wookian (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Wookian, this isn't an article, it's a talk page, and I fully acknowledge that I didn't provide sources with that statement. When I have time, I'll look for them. You're providing no evidence that there was any abuse of power. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Spying vs Counter intelligence investigation

I think there's a bit of miscommunication about this article. As I understand it, the article details a conspiracy promulgated by Trump and his supporters, that the Obama administration was "spying" on his campaign. Our article describes this claim as false and a conspiracy theory. However, it is now widely known that the Obama administration had opened a counter-intelligence investigation into the campaign. There is no doubt now that government agencies were looking into the campaign, had tapped phones, applied for FISA warrants, and utilized opposition research provided by the Clinton campaign. There's no doubt about any of this, it's widely known and well sourced. How can we write that Trump's comments were false when there clearly was an effort by the Obama administration to investigate Trump? It's not going away either - recently Lindsey Graham "vowed to "get to the bottom" of why former FBI director James Comey opened a counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign in 2016" source and Rand Paul "claimed members of the intelligence community who served under former President Obama sent "spies" into President Trump's presidential campaign" source. Per the Steele Dossier article, the Trump campaign had been under investigation since mid 2016. This article needs a major re-write. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, you want to make a major rewrite to this article because Rand Paul went on Fox and Friends and made an accusation without presenting any proof? Just making sure I understand. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

By calling it "false" most people would understand that the Obama administration didn't spy on the Trump campaign and use surveillance derived intelligence to harm the Trump campaign politically, when in fact the opposite is the case. As it stands, this article could have been written by Adam Schiff. It has a terrible leftist slant, and fails to convey factual information that is important to understanding the whole picture. Wookian (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Wookian, please present any evidence that "the opposite is the case". – Muboshgu (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Various leaks caused political harm to the Trump campaign. A leak about Trump's briefing on the Steele Dossier was the trigger for publishing it. Partisan animus is undeniable in the principal parties involved. A racist isn't entitled to full benefit of the doubt as they aggressively investigate a person of color for crimes related to voting, especially after their two year investigation comes up empty of the crimes they claimed to be investigating. Hatred of Trump combined with the unfairness of how this transpired (no Russian collusion!) is a notable part of this story, whether you see that or not. Wookian (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Wookian, so you present no evidence. You are also making allegations that this investigation was somehow "unfair", and I'd like to know what that evidence is. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu, what Wookian said. Calling the fact that the Obama administration was surveilling and investigating the Trump campaign "false" and a "consipracy theory" is wrong. It is undisputed that this was occurring, and now prominent Republicans are talking about further investigations into that investigation, which would likely help us know for sure what was going on. Is it your position that this article should be saying that the Obama administration was not surveilling and investigating the Trump campaign? Mr Ernie (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgo said above that they "imagined" that "all" the unmaskings were done appropriately. This attitude is unfortunately consistent with the slant of this article, which rather un-encyclopedically just assumes that the Obama administration would never do anything wrong with respect to abuse of surveillance powers against the Trump campaign, despite the well documented anti-Trump animus of the intelligence community and DOJ brass who carried out these actions, and despite pretty much the entire Republican side of the nation crying foul. Look, the article doesn't have to agree with Trump's accusations, but it is wrong at this point based on all that we know, to summarily call them a falsehood. Again, the article could have been written by Schiff! Wookian (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Wookian, no sources have credibly called them inappropriate, have they? Rand Paul on Fox and Friends is not irrefutable evidence. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

This article cites a number of Republican lawmakers who said the investigation was entirely proper and that "Spygate" was nonsense; to say that "the entire Republican side of the nation [is] crying foul" is simply not true. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Fortunately, I didn't say "the entire Republican side of the nation [is] crying foul" - and I agree with you that is not true. I said "pretty much the entire Republican side of the nation [is] crying foul" - which is true. Let's not misquote one another. (And I say that while acknowledging that I misunderstood one comment by Muboshgu somewhere above and replied to what he hadn't actually said, so it's a timely reminder for all of us.) Wookian (talk) 16:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Saying that it was "the Obama administration" that did the surveillance and investigation implies or infers that it was directed by political appointees for political reasons, as opposed to being initiated by career FBI agents and investigators who had credible evidence and probable cause to believe that the Russian government was attempting to interfere with American election processes. Reliable sources do not support this claim. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

If Trump’s claims of such an investigation are true why is this labeled a false conspiracy theory? Mr Ernie (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion about WP:RS that belongs on WP:RSN not here O3000 (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The "false" claim, inappropriately made in Wikipedia's voice right at the front of the article, is supported by an opinion piece from Vox, which is a heavily left leaning news outlet. (Breitbart is not allowed as a source here, because it is right leaning. But Vox is OK, because it is left leaning.) The "false" judgment is based on straw man distortions of the Spygate claims, and ignores how that story has developed over time as more information has come to light. A balanced, encyclopedic article on Spygate would discuss all the forms of surveillance, the falsehood of the premise of the Russian collusion investigation, and the political bias and animus of the principal DOJ, FBI and intelligence community actors. However, by restricting sources to anti-Trump, left leaning news outlets, that part of the story is currently prevented from being told. Wookian (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC) Wookian, if we're using a Vox opinion piece there, that is a mistake. If it's not an opinion piece, it's fine. Vox can be partisan in their analysis, but their reporting is reliable. Breitbart's reporting is wholly unreliable. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources contains discussions that have been held about these and other sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC) I checked the Perennial sources link, and found exactly what I expected to find. The most common leftist explanation cited for why Breitbart should be considered unreliable - Breitbart's posting of that out of context video clip of Shirley Sherrod. The very citation of that example is itself misleading, since Breitbart wrote that they posted the full video as provided to them by an external source, and then updated their reporting when more info came to light. It's not any different than WaPo with the Covington kids, and that it continues to be cited says more about those who cite it than about Breitbart. Breitbart should not be blacklisted from Wikipedia. Just as with other news outlets, editors should always exercise discretion and pay attention to the writer, the outlet, the writer's sources, etc; however Breitbart is not inherently less reliable than Vox or the like. The problem here is when right leaning outlets get lawyered out of the picture, and only left leaning sources remain. Wookian (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC) Wookian, you are leaving out a lot of other instances where Breitbart proved to be unreliable. Comparing Vox to Breitbart is apples to oranges. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC) Wookian, and lest you think I only read left-wing sources, ""Editor Admits Breitbart Publishes Fake News", published by The American Conservative. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC) The more salient point though is that Breitbart isn't cited positively by other reliable sources. Vox is. R2 (bleep) 20:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC) That blog post does not substantiate that Breitbart published any fake news, despite its sensational title. All it substantiates is that this Breitbart editor in chief said that his organization weighted their news coverage to counter what they perceived as strategic weighting in the other direction by left leaning media on what it looks like one could summarize as a sort of Overton Window chess game ultimately directed at President Trump. It does not imply that any Breitbart journalist or commentator published anything they believed to be untrue. In fact, Breitbart published a whole bunch of articles about Roy Moore, quoting people both pro and often strongly against Moore's Senate candidacy. Wookian (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC) You guys, WP:RSN is the place to debate whether Breitbart is a reliable media outlet. Not here. R2 (bleep) 20:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC) Wookian didn't respond about the other articles I posted that have specific examples of Breitbart publishing fake news. This does pertain to this article because we're discussing the use of Vox in it and the nonuse of Breitbart. If you are "weighing" your coverage in one way or another, you are a partisan source that cannot be relied upon. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC) I will make an effort to respond later when I get a chance (probably not today). I disagree with your last comment about weight of coverage. If such weight affects the truth/falsehood of what you're publishing, then obviously yes, but if it's just a question of which topics you spend the most time addressing, that is inextricably tied to the personal values of the individuals involved. The NYT is never going to give extended coverage to stories about the Kermit Gosnells of the world. A pro life group of journalists may very well give such weighting and coverage. Weight in that sense may be a sign of bias, but it's a human bias from which no media is immune. Wookian (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC) That's really a debate about the general reliability of Vox, which has also already been extensively hashed out by the broader community. If the two of you were somehow to miraculously come to a local consensus inconsistent with the broader consensus, then someone would alert RSN and the community would come down on the issue like a ton of bricks. So you might as well not waste your time here. Just a suggestion. R2 (bleep) 21:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC) I have no problem with using Vox as a source. We just have to use discretion, as with all things. And on that note, Muboshgu will probably recognize some timely irony with the following -- here's the Editorial Director of Vox admitting that liberal media (including Vox, specifically she herself) have usually ignored and sometimes misleadingly whitewashed Joe Biden's history of inappropriately touching women. This is exactly the same thing you cited to suggest disqualifying Breitbart from being considered as a source (will still respond in more detail, just wanted to share this humdinger of an article). At any event, I suggest that Vox doesn't carry sufficient authority as a source to speak in Wikipedia's voice as it currently does. See first sentence of article, calling Spygate "false" instead a more journalistically tempered word like "unproven" or "unsubstantiated", cf. NYT and WaPo. Wookian (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC) Wookian, a big difference between Vox and Breitbart is that Vox admits when it makes a mistake. For Breitbart, factual errors are part of their business model. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Like most popular conspiracy theories, this one is based on a kernel of truth. That doesn't make it any less of a conspiracy theory. Now, let's get to how Wikipedia works. We base our articles on what the reliable sources say. The reliable sources say that Spygate is a conspiracy theory. Therefore, we say it's a conspiracy theory. When reliable sources start saying it's not a conspiracy theory, then we can have a policy-based discussion about how the article should be changed to reflect that. R2 (bleep) 19:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is seriously outdated. The New York Times exposed operation Crossfire Hurricane, the counter-intelligence operation, so you can safely assume that every common type of surveillance at the FBI's disposal was used against Trump and his team.Phmoreno (talk) 01:54, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not what the source says at all, but nice try. The fact that the FBI sought to investigate George Papadopoulos after he went around telling foreign diplomats that he had gotten "dirt on Clinton" from the Russians is not the same as "every common type of surveillance at the FBI's disposal was used against Trump and his team". YOU can assume that if you want, but that's about you and your POV, not actual reality.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Phmoreno, no, Operation Crossfire Hurricane is the start of the Russia interference investigation. The NY Times article you provided is clear that Papadopoulos talked about his Russian dirt with Alexander Downer, who went to the FBI, starting the investigation. This is all known. It does not mean that "spygate" is real. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand what Papadopoulos has to do with my statement, but he was also set up and spied on.Phmoreno (talk) 02:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Lol. Ok, thanks for the entertainment, but seriously, WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Interesting personal opinion, but that wild, insane claim is nowhere to be found in the reliable source you cited. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

People who ridicule other editors are trolls rather than serious editors. And where did I claim that was in the source I provided? IF you are following this story you should know where that comes from.Phmoreno (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

You're right. Your track record here makes it likely you got that from some unreliable source. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• Does anyone have any specific suggestions for improving the article or are we just here to throw bombs? R2 (bleep) 04:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, remove the words "false" and "conspiracy" from the first sentence. It is factual that there was an counter intelligence investigation into the Trump campaign. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, it is not factual that this was in an effort to help his rival Hillary Clinton to win the US presidential election. Rather, it was because there was significant evidence of connections between Russia and Donald Trump, and significant evidence that members of his campaign were committing crimes (several of whom have since been convicted of those crimes). NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof: Concerning the topic under discussion, the cause for opening the counter-intelligence investigation does not matter. Regarding your comment on colluding with Russia, Lisa Page testified that the FBI had no evidence of such from the time the investigation was opened on into the appointment of the Special Counsel. Nunes also said the investigation was based on "no official intelligence".Phmoreno (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Of course the motive matters. There can't be a "conspiracy" to open a legitimate counterintelligence investigation - a "conspiracy" by definition has to be planning to do something illegal. It would be illegal to open an investigation for political purposes. However, reliable sources are clear that the investigation was not opened for political purposes. You're misquoting Page, and the FBI clearly had evidence - they wouldn't have gotten FISA warrants without any evidence. What Nunes (a partisan Republican) says is totally irrelevant, so please stop quoting him as if you're going to convince anyone. You don't see me quoting Adam Schiff here, do you? I don't expect you to believe a partisan Democrat, so please don't pretend that a partisan Republican is a convincing truth-teller. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie and Wookian: - Have you even read the article's body carefully as to what Spygate entails? It's not just vague spying. I'll simplify it, let's go through it in Trump's own words. Spygate version 1, May 2018: [2] there was indeed at least one FBI representative implanted, for political purposes, into my campaign for president. It took place very early on So, any evidence? None. No FBI representative implanted. Verdict - conspiracy theory and false. Spygate version 2, June 2018: [3] a counter-intelligence operation into the Trump Campaign dating way back to December, 2015. SPYGATE is in full force!. So, any evidence? None. FBI began investigating in July 2016. Verdict - conspiracy theory and false. starship.paint ~ KO 14:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• This article is about the May 2016 and June 2016 claims. Please provide information relevant to the May 2016 and June 2016 claims (whether they are true or false). Barr's letter has nothing to do with these claims If you are arguing that Spygate goes beyond the May 2016 and June 2016 claims, please provide reliable sources. starship.paint ~ KO 14:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

If you are arguing that this is a narrow article covering just those dates, then we need another one titled Spygate (scandal).Phmoreno (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense. It's not a "scandal". Per sources, it's another nutzoid conspiracy theory. But hey, prove me wrong, show me sources which say it's a scandal. Otherwise quit it with the WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:56, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

You are semantically mistaken. A scandal is an act regarded as immoral or wrong, leading to public outrage. This easily meets that bar - many Americans are angry over the false Russian collusion accusations and the (perceived as) unjustified surveillance of the Trump campaign. Of course, in a two party system, huge numbers of people are quite routinely getting outraged, whether or not they should be. The proverbial "Thanks Obama" is now "Thanks Trump" as the parties rotate in and out of power. Here's an example reference that claims the Spygate scandal is the worst political scandal in American history. Exaggeration? Maybe, but clearly the various questionable surveillance actions are perceived as a scandal, which is all it takes for this to be correctly termed a scandal. Wookian (talk) 02:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

If and when mainstream reliable sources begin referring to it as a "scandal," that discussion can be had. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

"This easily meets that bar " Nonsense. It doesn't. Reliable sources or stop it with the WP:NOTAFORUM. "many Americans are angry" - many Americans are angry over lots of stuff. Donald Trump being the president for example. The Federalist is a garbage source. And you seem to be aware of that. So why even bring it up?Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

No, thefederalist.com is not a garbage source. Wookian (talk) 05:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I mean, yes, it is a garbage source as far as we're talking about here. It's a partisan conservative magazine with no substantial journalistic reputation. At best, it's usable as a source for partisan conservative opinion. You don't see me asking to cite Media Matters for America here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

MMFA is literally a propaganda outlet and is not comparable. The Federalist is a serious outlet that is regularly featured on RealClearPolitics to provide balance from the right leaning end of the spectrum. It definitely passes the mainstream test. The author of the article I linked to in particular (Margot Cleveland) has strong legal credentials and background, and as such, carries credibility on the subject of this article. Wookian (talk) 06:08, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

"The Federalist is a serious outlet" - lol, no. It's not mainstream, it's junk. This discussion has been had before.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Even National Review acknowledges that The Federalist... ... has some problems [4] "In March 2016, more-mainstream publications, including Breitbart and the Federalist, published long pieces that whitewashed, rationalized, and excused even virulent white nationalism and white supremacy" (that'd be "more mainstream" by NR's definition of mainstream, but at least they acknowledge that TF is in the same league as Breitbart) Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

And the reason it's featured on RCP because the Federalist is actually funded and run by the guy who started RCP (basically, they're trying to play the "good cop, bad cop" game with, RCP being the good cop and Federalist being the bad cop), though they don't like it when folks point it out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

David French is full of beans here (as often elsewhere). He is making false claims. The articles he references do not advocate or endorse white nationalism / white supremacy. Wookian (talk) 06:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

That you describe MMFA as a "propaganda outlet" yet believe The Federalist is "mainstream" belies your strongly-held personal opinions about this issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

By "mainstream" I don't mean to imply that The Federalist reflects any kind of middle of the road view politically. In fact, I'm not aware of any major media outlets that meet that description. Articles on The Federalist are clustered on the right, just as NYT and WaPo tends to the left. The difference between The Federalist and MMfA can be illustrated in that MMfA is run as a very tight ship to advance their political side, whereas The Federalist takes a more journalistic posture. Thus for example The Federalist has run pieces both favorable and critical toward Trump. You're never going to see that kind of thing on MMfA, because once again, they are a tightly controlled propaganda outlet for advancement of the political interests with which they align. Wookian (talk) 20:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Devin Nunes will be making criminal referrals related to the scandal next week. As far as Trump's statement related to the scandal starting in Dec. 2015, Trump has access to information not made public, either material that was classified or information obtained by his legal staff through discovery (law). Everyone by now should be aware that Trump plans to start declassifying and releasing material that was sealed while the investigation was ongoing.Phmoreno (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Nunes can do whatever he wants, and Trump can do whatever he wants. When and if he does anything, and those things are inevitably reported upon by reliable sources, they can be discussed here. We aren't playing a Ben Garrison-illustrated fantasy RPG here, so please take your unsupported speculation to a more appropriate forum. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict):What Nunes or Trump may or may not do in some future and what responses may or may not result has no bearing on any article at the present time. O3000 (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Phmoreno, Nunes has become quite adept at creating headlines like this that are totally meaningless in actual legal proceedings, but help him raise lots of money. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The story of Spygate entails a lot more than what is discussed in this article. The definition of the term "spygate" doesn't belong to leftists who defend the Obama administration, it belongs to those who are doing the accusing, including Trump, Nunes, and journalists and commentators like Bongino. It is in fact quite a fascinating story that should be told on Wikipedia using appropriate sources and tone. As Phmoreno mentioned, some of it has not been able to come out until after the SCI's conclusion and is (hopefully) due for imminent clarification, though what we know now is pretty juicy already (see: drama with Mike Rogers). Those who are not familiar with Spygate because they've only read left leaning sources can read Bongino's book referenced above, and/or get a summary from accounts like: .

No, the definition of the term "Spygate" belongs to reliable sources, which are what all Wikipedia articles are based upon, by foundational policy. If you object to this foundational policy, you might find more happiness participating in another encyclopedia project such as Conservapedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia must be based on reliable sources, and I'm not aware of any of my comments that imply otherwise. Will we differ on which sources are reliable? Probably. In the meantime, WP:AGF and don't misrepresent the scope and nature of our disagreement. Wookian (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Wookian and Phmoreno: - your sources can’t even agree on what Spygate really is. The Federalist source claims that Spygate is all about the Steele dossier, funded by the Clintons campaign, and its usage. The Bongino source claims that Spygate had illegal spying on the Trump campaign, then it was discovered and the bad guys tried to use the dossier to result in legal spying to cover illegal spying, and that the dossier was already written in 2007.... it doesn’t even compute. If the dossier was written in 2007 (Bongino) then why does the Clinton campaign need to fund it (Federalist)? starship.paint ~ KO 04:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• ... and the Nunes source doesn’t even mention Spygate right? Plus he makes the claim “We now know for certain that that’s not true.“ - then provides absolutely no evidence. starship.paint ~ KO 04:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Bongino's book does not claim the Steele dossier was written in 2007. It says a very similar document written by Glen Simpson was mentioned in The Wall Street Journal in 2007 and that the main difference between it and the Steele dossier was the names of the people being smeared were changed.Phmoreno (talk) 12:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't have access to Bongino's book, and the rest of the 2007 story is hidden behind a paywall. Is Bongino pushing some type of conspiracy theory tying the 2007 story to the Steele Dossier? Also, is this matter discussed in RS? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Federalist

Can we please stop bickering about which websites we like to read and focus on what matters? Wookian, do I understand correctly you think we should say that Spygate is a "scandal" rather than a "conspiracy theory" based on this Federalist source? Are you aware that this is an opinion source? Notice the note at the bottom: "The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity." R2 (bleep) 21:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Per the definition of a scandal, if something provokes shock and outrage in the public, then it can be referred to as a scandal. I linked to that article as an example showing that the Obama admin's surveillance of the Trump campaign is perceived as a scandal. Most people would read the claim that it's "the worst political scandal in American history" as a subjective judgment of the author, however that it is perceived as a serious scandal is not a controversial claim at this point. It's an objective statement about a subjective judgment of a large chunk of the public. Wookian (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

We don't name articles to promote the views of a small minority of deluded people who believe lies. There has to be much more to it before we do that. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I haven't argued for that specific name change on the article. That was someone else. My contribution to the "scandal" discussion started when somebody said it wasn't a scandal, and I pointed out that it is easily a scandal by definition. There is much more than a small minority who are upset about the surveillance, and they don't believe lies. They believe things like: Obama political appointees engaged in suspicious acts of unmasking, which was abruptly shut down when NSA Director Adm. Rogers became aware of it, and was furthermore rebuked by the FISA court. They believe things like that the Trump campaign didn't in fact collude with Russia to influence the election, and thus the whole SCI investigation falls under suspicion of political bias - and it doesn't help when they see the rank anti-Trump attitudes of the principal parties in the CIA, FBI, and Obama White House. It's important to remember that many Americans are not strongly partisan, and when they hear that the Obama administration was spying on and surveilling their political opponents, many people naturally become suspicious that there has been wrongdoing. In fact, you have to be pretty weird not to be suspicious - or at least, extremely partisan on the left wing. Wookian (talk) 04:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

(ec) "Per the definition of a scandal, if something provokes shock and outrage in the public, then it can be referred to as a scandal. " Nope. if something is referred to as a scandal by reliable sources then we can refer to it as scandal. And if you're not arguing for a name change, what's the point of this besides WP:NOTAFORUM?

There's no reason the article can't reflect that many people perceive it as a scandal. The article uses a form of the word "scandal" in three places that I see, always pooh-poohing the notion. However, it seems Americans at large disagree. Here's a poll that shows what I'm talking about, which came out just before the SCI conclusion and Barr's results. So you would expect that the picture has become even more favorable for Trump since then, now that Mueller's SCI report definitively refuted the Democrats' absurd conspiracy theories about Russian collusion. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/18/trust-mueller-investigation-falls-half-americans-say-trump-victim-witch-hunt/3194049002/ Wookian (talk) 04:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but where does this poll say that "many people" believe that Obama wire tapped Trump? For that matter, where does that source even mention Obama? And even if it did, we don't base our articles on cherry picked polls but on reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

And I hate to break it to you but "Mueller's SCI report" did NOT "refute" "Democrats absurd conspiracy theories". For one, no one here has seen the report. All we got is Barr's - who was specifically picked by Trump to squash the investigation - "summary of it". And EVEN Barr's summary doesn't say that. More bad news - Trump's approve/disapprove numbers haven't budged at all in the wake of Barr's summary.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

"when they hear that the Obama administration was spying on and surveilling their political opponents (...) you have to be pretty weird not to be suspicious - or at least, extremely partisan on the left wing" - nah, you just have to not be a gullible, easily manipulated dunce, since, you know, Obama administration was not actually doing anything like that. Take this Qanon bullshit somewhere else.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Qanon, indeed. I'm not sure what to reply since this doesn't really seem like a serious comment, or else you are deeply confused. I'm unaware of any Qanon nonsense being promoted on this page. Wookian (talk) 04:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

This IS Qanon nonsense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Which claim do you question? Choose one and be specific. Wookian (talk) 04:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

"Obama administration was spying on and surveilling their political opponents" for starters. But seriously, unless you have some specific policy based proposals for the article itself, this indulgement of WP:SOAPBOX has gone long enough.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I think this is important. If you are unaware that the Obama administration was spying on their political opponents, you are frighteningly uninformed, and probably shouldn't be editing this article at all. There are actually more than one instances of this that could be cited, however let's go for the following: The Obama administration obtained a FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page, a member of the Trump campaign. This allowed them to perform surveillance on everybody within two hops of Carter Page, i.e. essentially the entire Trump campaign including Trump himself. You can do various things with that - you can say the surveillance was justified because the Trump camp was shifty - you're entitled to that opinion. However, it is a fact that the Obama admin spied on their political opponents. Kindly note the absence of Qanon nonsense in my reply. Wookian (talk) 05:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Wookian: - I believe your statement The Obama administration obtained a FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page, a member of the Trump campaign is inaccurate - Page was a not a member the Trump campaign of that point. Your New York Times reference states an October 2016 application to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to wiretap Mr. Page I have a reference here from Politico saying that Page left the Trump campaign in September 2016, and another reference here by The Hill writing that the Trump campaign spokespeople said in September 2016 “Mr. Page is not an advisor and has made no contribution to the campaign” Also, there were FISA warrants on Page in 2013, 2014, before Trump's campaign ever existed. So if Page wasn't a member of the Trump campaign ... how did they spy on the Trump campaign then? starship.paint ~ KO 07:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Starship.paint: Thank you for the fact check. I believe you are mistaken on this, however. Firstly, surveillance in the 21st century is far removed from the days when a government agent would drive down to the phone company, sit at a desk, and listen in realtime to a target's conversations. The NSA vacuums up massive amounts of data and organizes it in a machine controlled, non human overseen fashion. Then, when warrants (in this case FISC orders) permit, they provide tools to query these massive databases to perform surveillance of targets and people connected to the targets. Thus it's not limited to realtime - once they get permission they can start looking back in time. Secondly, the "unverified, salacious" Steele Dossier was used in the Carter Page FISA application, and the (rather wild) allegation in the dossier was that Russia promised to give Carter Page essentially tens of billions of dollars in the form of shares in a Russian energy company if he could convince the Trump campaign and eventually Trump Presidency to drop Russian sanctions. Thus it would be surprising and really wouldn't make any sense if people querying the NSA database chose not to look at the Trump campaign. Wookian (talk) 13:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Wookian: - okay, so what you were saying in your comment just before this one, as well as this one, is that the Obama administration could have spied on the Trump campaign. Also in this comment, you argue that the Obama administration essentially should have spied on the Trump campaign, given the information on Page. However, the key question is, did the Obama administration spy on the Trump campaign? And if yes, pertaining to this article, did they implant a spy per the May 2018 allegations? Did they run a counter-intelligence operation since 2015 per the June 2018 allegations? starship.paint ~ KO 14:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Starship.paint: Obama's administration made extensive use of the FISA to surveil people connected to Carter Page, and people connected to those people. There is no theorizing necessary. It even extended to surveillance of Donald Trump himself, as admitted by James Clapper. Furthermore, the Obama administration farmed out analysis of the surveillance intel to private contractors. When NSA Director Mike Rogers became aware of this abuse of surveillance power, he notified the FISC and had it shut down immediately. Rep. Devin Nunes reported that the use of the surveillance data was extensive, was focused on US citizens, and had no relevance to Russian collusion investigation. It is weird and unnecessary to extend a strong presumption of innocence to the Obama administration on this. You had obvious political appointees like Samatha Power and Susan Rice involved in surveilling and unmasking political opponents. They claim it was all legit (except, oddly, Samantha Power claims she didn't make the requests made in her name), however why would these individuals be involved in counterintelligence operations? Why not task that work to the CIA instead of to political officials? I am not advancing a personal theory here, I am explaining to you why a great number of people view this surveillance (informally: spying/wiretapping) as a scandal. Wookian (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Wookian: - you made a lot of claims here, few were backed by references. But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt - assuming if everything you said is true, you still have key hurdles to clear. 1) If you want Wikipedia to call it a scandal, you shouldn’t need to explain to me that it’s a scandal, instead you simply need to have reliable sources calling it a scandal. 2) Is the surveillance (or scandal) called Spygate? You’ll also need reliable sources for that. If you have both of those you can go ahead and create Spygate (scandal). The thing is that so far you’ve not produced anything concrete against the content of this article, and if so, then nothing about this article should be changed at your request. starship.paint ~ KO 15:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

So, polls show that even more people believe that Donald Trump may be tied up with Russia in some corrupt way. By your standard, we'd have an article on the "Trump-Russia scandal," because that's what lots and lots of people believe. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Wookian, I'm trying to understand how your response answers my question. So you aren't saying that the Federalist source by Margot Cleveland is a reliable source? R2 (bleep) 04:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Cleveland's article clearly contains some opinion ("worst in American history") along with a bunch of verifiable statements of fact. Based on her legal background, she is a credible writer, and the outlet she's publishing in is reasonably mainstream. I would have no problem considering her article a reliable source, albeit everything she says could also be sourced from formal news reporting so it might not be necessary. It's a nice summary though, and she makes her case convincingly. Wookian (talk) 04:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Also worth noting that Cleveland wrote this before the SCI conclusion, and her article has stood the test of time, unlike the left leaning conspiracy theorists who crashed and burned when we learned that there was no Trump campaign collusion with Russia to influence the election. Wookian (talk) 04:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

So, considering the precedent you're proposing here, you would also support moving Links between Trump associates and Russian officials to Trump-Russia scandal, based upon this column by Max Boot published in The Washington Post, entitled Let’s not lose sight of the real scandal: Trump was elected with Russia’s help, correct? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Wookian, your arguments are coherent but I don't see much connection (if any) with our community standards. As best as I can tell, you're saying this source is reliable because (a) you find it credible and convincing, (b) it's written by a lawyer, (c) it has "stood the test of time" (not been debunked?), (d) it was published by the Federalist, and (e) it's more reliable than conspiracy theories. Is this correct? If so, what do these things have to do with our our guideline on identifying reliable sources? The disconnect between your arguments and our community standards is probably the source of other editors' complaints that you're just using this talk page as a discussion forum. R2 (bleep) 15:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Here's my own assessment. Reliability is based primarily on whether the source has been fact-checked by a third party with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In this case, the Federalist has a questionable reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That's been hashed out pretty well here. I'll throw into the mix that the Federalist's editorial staff is led by David Harsanyi and Mollie Hemingway, two columnists with, as best as I can tell, extremely limited newsroom experience. The Federalist is really an opinion mag. Even if you disagree with the consensus on its reputation, however, the evidence suggests that the Federalist didn't fact check the source in the first place. After all they said: "The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity." That's a pretty clear signal that the Federalist isn't standing behind Cleveland's conclusions. If even the Federalist won't do that, then neither can we. R2 (bleep) 17:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The Federalist is a hyper-partisan right-wing website beyond the limits of what we accept here as a RS. I have an essay dealing with such things, and you can check the RS I have used there:

• Reliable sources, Trump, and his editors here.

It's to the right wing what these sources are to the left wing, and we wouldn't use them here either: Forward Progressives, Bipartisan Report, Occupy Democrats, Daily Kos, AlterNet, Palmer Report, and Patribotics. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, though I don't think it's fair to expect Wookian to accept your say-so. My point is that regardless of the Federalist's bias, no one has pointed to any reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and no one has pointed to evidence that the Federalist fact-checked Cleveland's article in the first place. R2 (bleep) 18:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I understand. I got my info from the best non-partisan expert source reliability chart around: Media Bias Chart: Version 4.0. Check out the location of The Federalist. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The chart is fun and it is interesting, but it means very little, for three reasons: First, there is no objective standard for political beliefs, and therefore a person's own beliefs will inevitably shift the way they position things in such a chart. I could make one, and it would look very different from this. Parts of this chart make me laugh. Second, the author of this chart has what I'd characterize as extreme bias to the left. The following tweet demonstrates that in a way that is likely to be meaningful to the (electoral) majority of Americans who chose Trump for president: [5]. Third, just as it's not always fair to rate a human's intellectual strength using a single IQ number, there are actually multiple ways to break down political alignment, including fiscal, social, and religious. Thus plotting onto a single right/left point oversimplifies to the point that the only person who would use such a chart is someone who cares more about what they can do with it, than what it actually means as charted. Wookian (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Can we please focus on improving the article instead of engaging in a broader debate about media bias? As I pointed out, we don't have to identify the Federalist's ideological bent in order to resolve this matter; and besides, sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Wookian, if you don't have a response to my previous comments then I think we're done here? R2 (bleep) 16:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 31 March 2019

this is no longer false 2601:3CA:4100:22CE:84D6:B189:615:67E9 (talk) 06:55, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done No consensus to make any change, no reliable source given, and redundant with other discussions immediately above. R2 (bleep) 07:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

There are reliable sources: The New York Times broke the Crossfire Hurricane story and Bongino's book Spygate. There is no basis for saying Bongino's book is not a reliable source. Nothing in his book is known to be untrue and it cites mainstream news sources. Phmoreno (talk) 13:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The request is too vague to be useful. The request must be very specific with wording and RS to use. It must also not be a controversial request, IOW there must exist a consensus on this talk page. The request fails on all counts. Closing. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Bongino

Can we please consolidate all discussion about the reliability of Bongino in one section, namely here? Further, if there are editors who wish to add or change the article based on Bongino, could they please share the relevant passages of the book? R2 (bleep) 17:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Please clarify what you mean by "relevant passages". Bongino's book is an compilation of what was publicly known, but not always widely reported, before the AG Barr's summary finding of the Mueller report. The book has 195 pages of text, an appendix with a 14 page timeline and with a 13 page table of media leaks, 5 pages of connection diagrams and almost 600 notes. Bongino is also working on another book with the latest findings.Phmoreno (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Bongino is clearly not RS. He has stated an agenda. O3000 (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't disqualify him as a source, and certainly not discredit his cited sources.Phmoreno (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)does

Phmoreno, considering he tries to twist the "facts" to fit his agenda, yes it does. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

No, it's the fake news media who twist the facts.Phmoreno (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Phmoreno, I can't help you. You're just going to believe what you want to believe. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Phmoreno, every disputed statement in Wikipedia must supported by a reliable source that makes that statement expressly. Moreover, a source can be reliable for some statements and not for others. Therefore, you need to identify the specific statements in Bongino that you want to support a specific change or addition. For instance, if you're using Bongino to say that Spygate isn't false, then you need to identify a staement in Bongino that says Spygate isn't false. You can't just point to the entire book and tell people to read it. Then, in addition, the burden is on you to convince a consensus of editors here that Bongino is reliable for that statement. I don't agree with Objective3000 and Muboshgu that Bongino is unreliable merely because he's stated an objective. However it certainly doesn't help. I'm more concerned by the fact that I couldn't find any reviews by reputable outlets, and Bongino himself has zero background in a relevant profession like journalism and is closely affiliated with conspiracy theory outlets such as InfoWars. The fact that his book was published by Broadside Books doesn't boost its reliability. Broadside Books and similar publishing houses routinely put out books that we wouldn't consider reliable. Unless you think that books by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are reliable here? Those were printed by reputable publishers too. R2 (bleep) 22:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The facts of the matter far outweigh individual statements. It was a conspiracy and it is being exposed. That a counterintelligence investigation was opened against Trump and associates with no evidence is a matter of public record, including from Lisa Page's testimony. That the unmasking of US citizens caught up in surveillance is under investigation is a matter of public record and covered by Fox News and others. That FISA abuse is under investigation is a matter of public record and covered by Fox News and others. That Inspector General Horowitz is investigating all of this corruption has been covered by Fox News and is a matter of public record. (The IG report is due in two months.) Besides Fox News there are numerous transcripts of testimony by Christopher Steele, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Lisa Page. Andrew McCabe is under indictment as reported by Fox News and others. Too much to list here. I could rewrite this whole article, but am not allowed to even enter a single sentence.Phmoreno (talk) 23:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC) (BLP-violating falsehood struck. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC))

This is all BLP related. Tread carefully about conspiracy theories you've picked up. O3000 (talk) 23:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Phmoreno, instead of relying on RS (which you call "fake news media"), you are fighting for "The Truth". Here we are more concerned with verifiability, not truth (a phrase which used to be very prominent in our sourcing policies). That won't get you anywhere here, and in fact, can get you blocked as tendentious.

Drop the stick and start cooperating with us. If Bongino says something you think should be used here, then single out that specific statement, and then see if RS document it. If so, then you can quote those sources, you'll be working according to our rules, and we'll be happy to help you include that content, assuming it really is worth including. Try it and you'll get much more success. As it is, you're just a POV warrior, pusher of conspiracy theories, and a notable opposer of our RS policy. Those are all blockable offenses, and you just won't drop the stick. No matter how many times you are warned and advised, you keep doing it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Phmoreno, I understand your factual theories, but that's not what I asked for. I don't see anything about Bongino in your response, let alone any quotation of a specific passage in his book. Are you going to comply with my good faith request that you comply with our core policies? R2 (bleep) 17:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Phmoreno: I could rewrite this whole article, but am not allowed to even enter a single sentence. - this article currently has 45 sources. If you say you can rewrite this whole article, do you have a similar number of reliable sources to back up your view? When someone makes fantastical claims like Bongino, we must surely have multiple reliable sources to support it. You must provide the sources. starship.paint ~ KO 00:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• By the way, Phmoreno, Inspector General Horowitz's investigation is not completed. You seem to be assuming guilt already. Why not wait for his results? Or start an article on Inspector General Horowitz's investigation. And is Andrew McCabe is under indictment as reported by Fox News and others.? I can't find evidence of that. Are we living in the same reality? Please point to me reliable sources on that. starship.paint ~ KO 00:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• ... and as for Bongino, I don't think he has much credibility with WaPo reporting about his lies. [6] starship.paint ~ KO 01:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
• More misleading stuff from Bongino courtesy of Snopes. [7] starship.paint ~ KO 01:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

McCabe under grand jury probe.Phmoreno (talk) 01:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Phmoreno: - forgive me, I'm not American. I could not find the word "indict" in that article. Is "under grand jury probe" equal to "indict"? I thought indictment is similar to being charged with a crime. I may be wrong, please enlighten me. Your Fox News source says The grand jury is often used as an investigative tool to gather evidence, though it may not necessarily lead to charges. It would be notable if McCabe is ever charged on anything. starship.paint ~ KO 01:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• No, you're correct, there is no indictment. A grand jury proceeding can lead to an indictment, but no such thing has happened. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarification NorthBySouthBaranof. starship.paint ~ KO 02:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• That's from September, and not for anything related to this subject or our discussions. I suspect the investigation is already over by now, but I don't recall reading anything more about this. It may be a nothingburger. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Anyway Phmoreno, on Bongino's book, how did Dan Bongino succeed where everyone else failed, including congressmen (and their staff) with top secret access? Even the Nunes memo by Nunes' staff and the Republicans' House Intelligence Committee report of April 2018 state that the Russia investigation started because of George Papadopoulos. (Nunes memo [8] The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok while this is the House report - page 57, [9] [10] [11] in late July 2016, the FBI opened an enterprise CI investigation into the Trump campaign following the receipt of derogatory information about foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos) starship.paint ~ KO 02:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Dan Bongino most likely doesn't have a team of investigative journalists. How did he uncover a vast conspiracy based on publicly available information when Fox News, The Wall Street Journal or even the National Enquirer couldn't? starship.paint ~ KO 02:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

See the nearly 600 reference notes.Phmoreno (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• Phmoreno - having nearly 600 references notes doesn't prove that it's reliable. starship.paint ~ KO 02:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Off-topic. This discussion is about the reliability of Bongino's book. Unrelated comments will be hatted or moved. R2 (bleep) 17:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, John Solomon has good inside sources and is believed by certain members of the Fox News crew to know a great deal more about the story than he has reported to date. Devin Nunes as well as Senate Intelligence Committee members making the criminal referrals have seen the classified evidence. No doubt there is a scandal, the only issue as far as this article is concerned is whether Spygate is the appropriate title.Phmoreno (talk) 02:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC) Who is John Solomon and how is he relevant to this section on Dan Bongino? Plus, in your own words, Solomon hasn't reported all he knows. As I already said, Nunes' own staff say it's Papadopoulos who started it. Nunes' own committee which he chaired said it's Papadopoulos who started it. I provided the evidence above. This contradicts with Bongino's information. Bringing Nunes up is not helping your case. starship.paint ~ KO 02:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC) Bongino's relevance is the title of this article is the same as his book. Bongino points out problems with justifying Papadopoulos as a reason to open Crossfire Hurricane. John Solomon is the leading investigative reporter on Spygate or whatever you want to call the scandal. He appears frequently on Fox News and listen to what he says two FBI agents told him in Mar 2017 at around time 7:20 in this clip.Phmoreno (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC) @Phmoreno: - no no no. Why are you bringing up Solomon when this section is on Bongino? I listened to Solomon's story at 7:30, it has nothing to do with Bongino, it has nothing to do this Trump's May/June 2016 Spygate allegations either. It's Solomon telling a story and no evidence is given in that story. Start another section for Solomon please if you somehow have anything on him relevant to this. You seem like you're grasping for straws. starship.paint ~ KO 03:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC) You asked who John Solomon was.Phmoreno (talk) 03:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC) @Phmoreno: - I asked because you brought him up when he has no relevance to this current discussion on Dan Bongino's reliability. Do you understand? starship.paint ~ KO 03:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Phmoreno, does this article by a Matt Palumbo on Bongino's website inform your thinking? Does it represent Bongino's thinking?

• Proof the Dossier, Not Papadopoulos, Sparked the Russia Investigation

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• Perhaps these tweets by Bongino. Original thread: [12] [13] [14] [15] Quintupling down: [16] [17] [18] [19] starship.paint ~ KO 03:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• Yup, that's it. He's grabbing at straws and totally goes contrary to all RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• Bongino appears to be an expert on the subject matter, and his book is not self-published, so it can be used as a source. If you disagree with his assertions, just attribute the information to him in the text, "Dan Bongino says..." By the way, I predict that in about two-years time the title and tone of this article will have significantly changed. AppliedCharisma (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• @AppliedCharisma: - I respectfully disagree, Bongino seems to be the exact opposite from an expert on the subject matter. He gets a key claim wrong, according to publicly available information and various reliable sources. I argue that the biggest factor in determining his unreliability is that he completely ignores (thus he is unreliable), or is unaware (thus he is unreliable) of its strongest counterargument, which is the evidence provided by the House Intelligence committee (with access to classified documents, the opposite of Bongino), as reliable sources will invariably cite [20]. starship.paint ~ KO 14:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

If we're going to cite Bongino as an expert opinion then we have to establish his expertise as well as the noteworthiness of his opinion. As our guidelines note, anyone can claim to be an expert. Expertise generally requires work in the relevant field that has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. In addition, as far as I can tell Dan Bongino's book has been virtually ignored by reputable media outlets. I couldn't find a single reliable review. R2 (bleep) 17:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

References

IP's comment

Wikipedia has become nothing more than CNN. Spygate is real and unraveling before our eyes. The FBI under Obama was weaponized. The democrats used the FISA courts under Obama to spy on Trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.248.34.147 (talk) 05:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• This comment (and so many recently prior) made me reflect on the lede of the article. People seem to think Spygate isn't a conspiracy theory. Maybe it isn't, for them. But this article is about the May 2018 and June 2018 stuff that Trump said, and Trump called that Spygate. So, I've edited the lede. This article is accurate, the claims he made were debunked, and are still debunked right now. But the thing is, maybe there is really a Spygate scandal out there, but whatever Spygate scandal some people are thinking of certainly isn't about what he said in May 2018 and June 2018. So the Spygate scandal should really be another article - go create one and see if it's well sourced enough (will there be enough reliable sources?), or coherent enough (will reliable sources even agree what Spygate is?) not to be deleted. starship.paint ~ KO 11:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't encourage these editors to create a new article. We already have an article it would neatly fit into, namely Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. That article could really benefit from a section on the Comey-led (pre-Mueller) FBI investigation, and a reference to Spygate would fit in nicely there. There's also James Comey#Russian election interference investigation, which doesn't link to this article, but probably should (consistent with WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE). R2 (bleep) 17:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, the article is incorrect as to the definition of what "Spygate" actually is. "Spygate," as it is understood among the people who actually use the term in a contemporary sense, refers to supposed abuses of power by the Obama Administration against the Trump Campaign, including 1) the use of Opposition Research materials to obtain a FISA warrant against Carter Page, 2) the use of the FISA warrant against Page to gather "incidental" communications of officials in Trump's campaign who were not under investigation, and 3) the unmasking of senior Trump Campaign/Trump Transition officials by Cabinet level officials in the Obama Administration including Susan Rice and Samantha Power. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

SIPPINONTECH, please define "the people who actually use the term in a contemporary sense" and their sources. Please tell me it's something better than Breitbart or Infowars. Because none of the three points you mention above are indicative of abuses of power. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Two conspiracy theories

I think Starship.paint's recent edits to explain that there were two Spygate conspiracy theories instead of one should have been taken with extra care and should be rolled back until we can obtain some consensus on their validity. Starship.paint may well be right, but at a minimum the sourcing is inadequate. Looking through the sources cited in the lead for the new content, I don't see anything saying or suggesting there were two separate conspiracy theories. What I see is a tweet from Trump apparently contending that the June 2018 allegations were evidence of the same (single) conspiracy theory. R2 (bleep) 16:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

And this also applies to the move from Spygate (Donald Trump conspiracy theory) to Spygate (conspiracy theories by Donald Trump). I'm not opposed to Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump), but if we're going to refer to Spygate as multiple "theories" then we need sources to back that up. In addition, this move should not have been made without any talk page input while related move discussions were active and ongoing. R2 (bleep) 16:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Trump made Allegation A (implant a spy in Trump campaign) in May, he made Allegation B (counterintelligence started in Dec ‘15) is June. While they were on the same topic, they weren’t necessarily related allegations. Trump just called both of them Spygate. Sources called Allegation A a conspiracy theory. Sources called Allegation B a conspiracy theory. In my view they were two conspiracy theories, because Trump didn’t link Allegation B to Allegation A, and the sources didn’t either. What is your interpretation? starship.paint ~ KO 23:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

"In your view..." Not that you're necessarily wrong, but do any reliable sources bear that out? R2 (bleep) 23:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• I can flip it back to you that do any reliable sources say they are one / the same conspiracy theory? What sources said is: Allegation A is a conspiracy theory. Allegation B is a conspiracy theory. starship.paint ~ KO 23:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes of course. Here's a good explanation from Vox of the June 2018 allegations--what you're calling "Allegation B." It explains that Trump's June tweet was just a further development of "the 'Spygate' controversy...the idea that the FBI put a spy in the Trump campaign." It refers to a single "Spygate" conspiracy theory and explains how it developed and snowballed. There's no suggestion that this was a separate theory. R2 (bleep) 23:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Well okay. I think the better quote you are looking for in that Vox article is “The best way to analyze “Spygate” is not as a partisan dispute, but rather a conspiracy theory.” which came after Vox discussed both months allegations. starship.paint ~ KO 00:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that. R2 (bleep) 00:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• By the way, R2, you’ve pasted a whole old version of the article instead of restoring just the lede. 30KB in one shot. And, I will move the article back to 1 conspiracy theory. starship.paint ~ KO 00:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll fix. R2 (bleep) 00:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Trump also claimed that Trump tower was wiretapped - that was another big Spygate claim. RS were nearly unanimous in saying he claimed it "without evidence." Mr Ernie (talk) 12:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I could be mistaken but I believe that's been treated as something different, apart from Spygate. I haven't found reliable sources saying that the Spygate theory, which started in 2018, includes the Trump Tower wiretapping theory, which started in 2016. Here's a TIME article that treats it as something different and previous. "This is not the first time Trump has made broad claims about the investigation. In 2016, he alleged that President Barack Obama for 'wiretapping' Trump Tower..." Though it seems relevant and may be worthy of mention in our article in some sort of background or "related claims" context. R2 (bleep) 16:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Mr Ernie - I would caution treating anything as Spygate unless reliable sources explicitly say this allegation / this situation is Spygate. starship.paint ~ KO 22:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Attorney General of the United States: "I think spying did occur. The question is whether it was adequately predicated. [...] spying on a political campaign is a big deal."

AG Barr's testimony today shows that Donald Trump's accusation that his campaign was spied on in 2016 was true. He furthermore says that such spying is suspicious, its justifiability is in question, and this is being investigated. [21] This should not be surprising, since such investigations would have been difficult while the SCI was ongoing. Wookian (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

So my intent is to highlight the above prominently in the article. It is clearly relevant, solidly sourced and essential to understanding the material in the article. Any objections before I do so? Wookian (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Wookian, sigh. He later said "I am not saying that improper surveillance occurred. I am saying that I am concerned about it and I’m looking into it." – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Surveillance does not need to be improper to fit the definition of "spying." This is s a pointless semantic distinction that has no bearing on the merit of the claims presented. I will also point out that neither did William Barr say that it was proper. He said he was investigating it. Meaning that, at the very least, William Barr has at least some indication that it may not have been proper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.232.180.146 (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Wookian, do you see how the headline "Barr testifies 'spying did occur' on Trump campaign, amid reported review of informant's role" is disingenuous, since it leaves out the key qualifier "I think"? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

In no way does this indicate Trump's accusations were true. O3000 (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

It does indicate that the assertions made article's opening words "Spygate is a false conspiracy theory" are, at the least, disputable.<Periander6 (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)>

In the same way that modern flat Earth societies would dispute that the Earth is round. Yet, our article opening for Earth won't give that false theory the time of day. We won't give credence to the idea that the FBI did anything inappropriate until we see incontrovertible evidence of it. Even Barr admits he has no evidence. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

He went on to say: “I am not saying that improper surveillance occurred". The Spygate conspiracy theory claims that Obama spied on Trump's campaign to help Hillary in the election. There is no such evidence and it was not suggested by the AG. O3000 (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The beginning sentence about the theory being false should, by the same token, be deleted due to incontrovertible evidence, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.48.19.246 (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The incontrovertible evidence is that it is false. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't believe there is clear and concise evidence either way. Investigations are happening in both directions. According to US Code, a person is innocent until proven guilty, and thus a statement is true until proven false. One can't say this is a false conspiracy until it is incontrovertibly proven false. (written by IP editor - please sign next time?)

It is puzzling to me, Muboshgu why you would equate suspicions that the FBI's spying was inappropriate with flat earth conspiracies. "One of these things is not like the other." Multiple FBI people involved, including Strzok, McCabe, and Comey were extremely anti-Trump and have been fired. The Attorney General does not investigate whether the earth is flat, however he is investigating whether this surveillance was improper. You should stop upholding the frankly unsustainable anti-Trump slant of this article with your biased POV. Wookian (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Wookian, you're clearly taking my comparison too literally. The point is that you're bringing the most frayed threads and claiming them to be proof. You said in the first edit of this section "AG Barr's testimony today shows that Donald Trump's accusation that his campaign was spied on in 2016 was true", and I showed you that this is not at all the case. Barr's testimony shows that he has a predetermined belief and he's looking for "facts" to verify it. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Wrong! How do you know Barr's intentions? Can you read minds? At this point, we can only say that it has neither been proven nor disproven. Just because you found a bunch of left-leaning opinion pieces that assert Donald Trump made it up, does not mean anything. The fact that Bill Barr, the attorney general of the United States, thinks that there was spying means it is at least possible. What Barr actually said was "“I think spying did occur. Yes, I think spying did occur. But the question is whether it was predicated, adequately predicated" “I’m not suggesting it wasn’t adequately predicated, but I need to explore that.” He did not say there is no evidence, so I don't know where you're getting that from. What it appears he is suggesting is that this needs to be investigated.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Rusf10, of course the spying did occur. You would have to be a fringe conspiracy theorist at this point to claim it didn't. The only remaining questions relate to the extent and justifiability of such spying. Wookian (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory pushed by Trump stated it was predicated. And listen to Barr's testimony. He clearly backed off. Indeed, he said there was no evidence that the FBI did anything wrong -- the opposite of what was suggested above about Strzok, McCabe, and Comey. And, investigation is not "spying". O3000 (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Some people are trying to short circuit the discussion and preempt the scandal by saying that the FBI doesn't classify it as spying. However, our intelligence community doesn't use the words "spy" or "spying" to describe their undercover assets' human intelligence gathering at all, so that's just sort of a red herring. The term "spy" here means whatever those making the "Spygate" accusations intend it to mean. Something can be "breathing related" even though medical professionals would call it "pulmonary," and it's silly to claim that the first usage is factually incorrect. Do you understand the point I am making here? Wookian (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

There is no evidence that any “intelligence” about the Trump campaign was being gathered. And please be careful about accusations against Strzok, McCabe, Comey and others. WP:BLP O3000 (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I see ‎Isothermic's block has expired and they are continuing the edit war. I can't revert. O3000 (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Objective3000, I dealt with it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• The AG made no “announcement”. He was being questioned and made an unprepared response. He then backed off and later, given the opportunity to clarify, used far less inflammatory language. One of the reasons we don’t jump to put stuff into an encyclopedia is to give some time for the dust to settle. O3000 (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  How can we write this is a false conspiracy theory when it’s clearly under investigation? We have a few biased news sources who seem to know more than the Justice Department. Let’s save the judgment until after the investigation concludes. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Later clarifying, he said he was not suggesting that rules were violated. He noted that Congress and the Justice Department’s inspector general have already completed investigations of that matter, and that after reviewing those investigations he would be able to see whether there were any “remaining questions to be addressed.” In no manner did he suggest that Spygate was anything other than a false conspiracy theory or that it was even under investigation. O3000 (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, he’s pretty much backed off everything now. There were two investigations, and no evidence was found that Obama paid to plant a spy inside Trump's 2016 presidential campaign to assist Clinton to win the presidency as claimed by Trump in a false conspiracy theory named Spygate. O3000 (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Objective3000, hi there. Although I lean conservative in my politics, I'm mostly neutral with all things regarding to Spygate as I actually have not done my research thereof; in fact after reading some of the comments in defense of the contents on the article I'm, if anything, more convinced that Spygate is falser than I had initially thought. However I can't help but notice that, no matter your political biases, it is difficult to read the article without feeling an obvious agenda behind the article contents, either with a total dismissal of the allegations or with a premature conclusion to the allegations themselves. I would like to ask though: what would have to come out in order for you personally to be convinced that perhaps the rhetoric on the article regarding *conspiracy theory* or *falseness* be either curbed or entirely removed? I genuinely wish to hear specific answers and not cop-outs such as, "for *evidence* to come out. Thanks! -- Jeremy Ahn ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Ummm....our content is based on RS, not editor's opinions. RS have examined the allegations and issues, discovered what was really happening, and found there was no evidence behind Trump's claims (nothing new there), so RS called it a conspiracy theory, and rightly so. When RS change their minds, we will also change the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jeremy Ahn, and thanks for a polite response. What I believe is not relevant. I’m just a lowly editor. We use reliable sources. When they say something, we will document it. O3000 (talk) 23:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Even if the Spying was legal it clearly happened and is not merely a 'theory". The AG said he thinks it happened, that is a pretty major source. The discussion in this thread reveals mods who are too heavily biased. There needs to be a way for a vote of no confidence of the editors of this page and for new people to come in and take the reigns. Justncase80 (talk) 02:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2019

April 2019

On April 10, 2019 – Attorney General William P. Barr, while appearing in front of Congress said the government did spy on the 2016 Trump presidential campaign and continued that he would be looking into whether or not any rules or laws were violated. Ptelesca (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: "Did potentially"? He has no evidence of anything improper. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source for your claim that the AG "has no evidence of anything improper"? Just because he has not revealed evidence publicly from an ongoing investigation does not imply the AG has no evidence, as you claim. Wookian (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Wookian, I gave it to you in the above section! The Axios link! SMH. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

If you want to shake your head, then shake away, my friend. Here's the money quote from Axios: "I have no specific evidence that I would cite right now." Not seing how that justifies your claim that he has no evidence. At the least, you should include the same qualifier. Wookian (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Wookian, you put the emphasis on the wrong clause. "I have no specific evidence" is him saying he has no specific evidence. The second clause refers to the imaginary evidence he believes is out there, but even though he has the whole Mueller Report, can't find. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Grammatically speaking, you are incorrect in your parsing of his sentence. This clearly could mean that he doesn't have anything that he wants to share at the present time. I agree that it could also mean that he doesn't have anything, however your analysis here is extremely POV driven. Question: how come I get threatened over potential BLP violations above for making completely factual, sourceable statements about Strzok, McCabe and Comey, but you are making wild claims about AG Barr's internal thought process here that reflect horribly on him as a law enforcement official? Are there different rules for the two sides of this debate? Wookian (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Wookian, if he had any evidence, he'd be shouting it from the rooftops. "I have no specific evidence" means "I have no specific evidence". The BLP warning is because Strzok, McCabe, Page, and Comey have all been inappropriately slandered over this. There is no evidence they did anything improper. (Except Comey's October 2016 presser to say there was new evidence on Hillary's emails when there wasn't.) – Muboshgu (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Muboshgu:Again, you're just cherry-picking Barr's words and making assumptions. The full quote is "I have no specific evidence that I would cite right now.", thus there is no conclusion to whether the claims are false. It would be irresponsible of him to give any specific evidence until he has thoroughly investigated the claims. We are to assume that the possibility that the Trump campaign may have been improperly spied on is nothing more than a false conspiracy theory, but for the past two years the Russian collusion theory has been totally creditable (even though Mueller's report now suggests it is false). This article gives WP:UNDUE weight to the opinion of journalists over that of the Attorney General. A truly neutral statement would be something along the lines of "the allegations have neither been proved or disproved."--Rusf10 (talk) 21:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

There is an important part of Barr's testimony that is being missed in this discussion: "There is a basis for my concern, but I'm not going to discuss the basis". You can search for that phrase and find many references to it.

Rusf10 is correct. And it seems a violation of BLP to claim that the US AG would "shout from the rooftops" evidence pertinent to an incomplete investigation. At any rate, it's just Muboshgu's opinion and irrelevant on Wikipedia. Clearly, the phrase "that I would cite right now" means "that I would cite right now" and Muboshgo would do better to acknowledge its ambiguity than to make wild claims about what goes on inside the AG's head. Wookian (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Wookian, the conclusion was made, long before Barr came along. Trump made up a bogus conspiracy theory about Obama paying people to sabotage his 2016 campaign. That's not at all what happened. The FBI began investigating the Trump campaign due to their sketchy ties to Russia. It's that simple. Ergo, this conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory. It is false. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

"The FBI began investigating the Trump campaign due to their sketchy ties to Russia." The same sketchy ties which now do not appear to exist. According to the Mueller Report, "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities" So what it sounds like to me is the real conspiracy theory is that Trump colluded with Russia.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Rusf10, wrong. That's not the Mueller Report. That's the letter Barr wrote allegedly summarizing the Mueller Report. Nobody (save Barr and Rosenstein) has seen the Mueller Report yet. And from some leaks to the New York Times and Washington Post, it seems like some members of Mueller's team are quite unhappy with how Barr presented that conclusion. Further, we know that the investigation began because George Papadopoulos told an Australian that he had access to Russian dirt on Hillary, and that Australian told the FBI. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The suggestion that Barr incorrectly summarized major elements of the Mueller Report is a wild conspiracy theory and doesn't belong here. Per the NYT, the unhappy anonymous persons you are referencing are not even from Mueller's team, just people who claim to be familiar with their thinking. In other words, mere gossip and hearsay. Wookian (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Show one single piece of evidence that Obama paid a spy to infiltrate Trump's campaign. That is the conspiracy theory, and after two investigations, it turned out to be false. Barr is referring to the Russia investigation and saying he wants to review the FISA request. Nothing to do with Spygate. 22:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)O3000 (talk)

I read my paragraph... then I read your reply... you appear to be changing the subject. Anyway. It is fascinating that Papadopoulos claims that Mifsud was an undercover FBI asset. If true, that would make the whole affair start and end with the FBI. Presumably if Trump declassifies the FISA warrants that particular question would be answered. Since Barr also mentioned in his remarks today that he doesn't believe the rank and file of the FBI did anything wrong, just some of the top brass, this interpretation would be consistent with his intention to review the FISA etc. Personally, Barr's remarks make sense to me. I think only if someone was still somehow stubbornly hanging on to the Trump campaign Russia collusion conspiracy theory would Barr's remarks not make sense. Wookian (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Updated with "did spy" Ptelesca (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Ptelesca... which is factually inaccurate based on all that we know. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The original article that I linked stated their was potential improper spying, I see Barr has since walked back those comments. Regardless this should be included in the article as it directly related to DJT's claims of being spied on. Ptelesca (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Barr testified that he thinks spying occurred. If this article is solely about Trump’s claim that someone tried to infiltrate his campaign, then it may be time to start another article about the Obama administrations larger attempts to spy on Trump’s campaign. If we have the AG openly testifying that it occurred we need to think about what we should do with it. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion is above. Please don't split it into two sections. O3000 (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Objective3000 has proven himself to be biased and should not be allowed to edit this page any further. Your changes were partisan and now, with recent reports, have been proven erroneous, which gives the entire site a bad look. Instead of maintaining the neutrality that was needed, an assumption of falsity was created. TheMemeMonarch (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

TheMemeMonarch, nothing in this page has been "proven erroneous" as far as I'm aware. Please point out specific things you think are inaccurate, with reliable sources to demonstrate. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu, The issue is with the quote "false conspiracy". Barr has confirmed that Trump was spied on, criminal referrals are being made. Saying that it was "false" was even over-reaching at the time. It should be labeled "unproven" until such investigations are done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMemeMonarch (talk • contribs) 18:42, April 10, 2019 (UTC)

TheMemeMonarch At no point did Barr "confirm" Trump was "spied on". He said "I THINK". He provided no evidence of it. And even then, he was not talking about Obama putting a mole in the Trump campaign. He's talking about alleged FISA abuse. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu, I agree confirmed is putting it too strong. However, the issue is not on whether the spygate conspiracy is true, at least, not at this time. This issue is whether it has been debunked. The answer to that is a resounding no. Journalists do not get to decide something is debunked before an official investigation is done. Considering criminal referrals are being filed, it is clear that this issue is not decided. To maintain npov, "false" should be removed or replaced with unproven. TheMemeMonarch (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Adam Schiff just issued a stark warning about William Barr, The Washington Post. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 April 2019

Spygate is a factual event that occurred where democrats illegally spied on the campaign of Donald trump. More to come. start here

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/10/politics/barr-doj-investiation-fbi-russia/index.html 209.159.214.113 (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Did you actually read the link you provided? ""I think spying did occur," Barr said, though he declined to provide the basis for his concern." – Muboshgu (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

There is an issue with first sentence of the article

The situation is currently developing. Calling the whole thing false right out of the gate is giving the false impression that the situation is settled (its not as seen this article ), and that their isn't any investigations of ongoing speculation from official parties( which their is as seen here)

It is in wrong to call an ongoing issue false before any real confirmation. The articles cited to make "spygate" seem false are committing the same mistake, and read more like opinion articles. I doubt the neutrality of this article and sentence. Jamescart (talk) 20:27, April 10, 2019‎ (UTC)

Barr didn't say one word about Spygate, a conspiracy theory that Obama paid a spy to infiltrate the Trump campaign to help Clinton get elected. And please people, quit splitting the discussion. O3000 (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Just because he didn't say the word "spygate" doesn't mean that its not painfully obvious what he was referencing. LOOK all I am asking for is that you guys change "false" to "Unconfirmed". That's it. Calm down — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamescart (talk • contribs) 07:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

It is now official that it is not a "conspiracy theory" but an "investigation" based on The New York Times and Fox News articles cited in other sections. This story has been ongoing for some time, but it is headline news today and will be more so in the weeks and months ahead, except "Spygate" is only a small part of it. Nunes mentioned the conspiracy statute (18 U.S. Code § 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phmoreno (talk • contribs) 16:53, April 10, 2019 (UTC)

Show me where any source says there is any evidence that Obama paid a spy to infiltrate the Trump campaign to help Clinton. And don't use the word "scandal" in edit summaries. O3000 (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

IIRC, the claim is that Obama Admin ordered FBI agents to infiltrate Trump's campaign, not that a spy was privately hired by Obama SK8RBOI (talk) 23:26, April 10, 2019‎ (UTC)

Objective3000, you are anything but objective. The issue has been, and stills continues to be, the initial paragraph. You can't label something as false before an investigation has been concluded. With the new report, confirming that Trump was spied on, this over-reach is doubly egregious. False should be removed entirely or replaced with unproven. Anything else violates npov. TheMemeMonarch (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh dear. Two investigations have been concluded. No charges. And what new report are you talking about? I have seen no claim that any report claims Spygate is real. O3000 (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 April 2019

quintuplicate edit request O3000 (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In the first sentence, replace "false" with "disputed". Insert a new second sentence: "On April 10, 2019, U.S. Attorney General William Barr testified before a U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee that he believes 'spying' on the 2016 Trump campaign took place, but he is investigating if such spying was adequately predicated." Source: https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/438214-barr-probing-if-spying-on-trump-campaign-was-adequately-predicated FreshFact (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)  Not done: Four consecutive essentially identical edit requests. O3000 (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC) Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 April 2019 In the recent confirmation that this spying absolutely did occur, Wikipedia's core integrity is on the line to pull this completely false article. 69.73.113.13 (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC) 1. The request must be uncontroversial. 2. That happens after you have achieved a consensus. BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

BARR has literally just announced that there was spying on Trump campaign

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-news/william-barr-testimony-today-spying-did-occur-trump-campaign-2019-04-10/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soviet union comrade (talk • contribs) 21:55, April 10, 2019 (UTC)

"litterly" - Interesting choice of words.- MrX 🖋 22:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I know right? D--- Russians... Don't mind me if I correct that. SK8RBOI (talk) 23:11, April 10, 2019‎ (UTC)

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doj-watchdog-fbi-informant-in-russia-probe SK8RBOI (talk) 23:12, April 10, 2019‎ (UTC)
This source shows AG Barr is reviewing the various claims regarding abuse of power by investigatory agencies under the Obama Administration. Is this new information reflected in the article, and if not, would an extended editor or Administrator care to rectify that? IMHO this article is lacking even in basic grammatical quality, let alone a comprehensive coverage of the topic, and to me the protected status given to it here appears to be stifling its development rather than fostering it. SK8RBOI (talk) 23:38, April 10, 2019‎ (UTC)
“I am not saying that improper surveillance occurred. I'm saying that I am concerned about it and looking into it, that's all” - Barr starship.paint ~ KO 13:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint
"This source shows AG Barr is reviewing the various claims regarding abuse of power by investigatory agencies under the Obama Administration." -Me
Can we continue to declare it a definitively "false" conspiracy theory if the AG is "concerned about it and looking into it"? How best to incorporate this new information into the article? I reiterate my concern that the unusually stringent protected status given to this article appears to be stifling its development rather than fostering it. SK8RBOI 02:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

"false conspiracy theory"

Wiki needs to remove the proven false conspiracy theory for Spygate. We no know for 100% certainty that the Trump Campaign was spied on. This is not in question. The3taveren (talk) 23:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The cited reliable sources disagree. The claim that Obama administration officials spied on the campaign for political purposes is, indeed, false. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not false anymore. There's plenty of evidence, including FISA warrants, and text messages saying: "POTUS wants to know everything". Lots of "credible" sources call Spygate a false conspiracy theory, but they are wrong. KeithCu (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

KeithCu, please provide evidence from reliable sources (i.e., not Breitbart or any other conspiracy theory site) that verifies that "Spygate" was real, as opposed to actual, legal countersurveillance. I can see in a source like this one how we can come to different conclusions. Note, regarding the "POTUS" text message: "But it is not clear that the text message between the two refers to the FBI's investigation of Clinton. Johnson's report only says that the text "may relate" to the FBI’s Clinton investigation, since the Justice Department had redacted other text messages that related to other investigations. " – Muboshgu (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Breitbart isn't a conspiracy theory site. Sorry to read you believe that because I lose confidence in Wikipedia. This book lays it out in great detail: https://www.amazon.com/Spygate-Attempted-Sabotage-Donald-Trump/dp/1642930989 Here's an article that explains some history about the FISA warrants https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/21/us/politics/carter-page-fisa.html The NYT has done a bunch of reporting about the FISA warrants.

There's tons of evidence Trump was spied on. The editors need to wake up and realize that most of the mainstream media have been lying about this for 2 years, and calling the truth a conspiracy theory. Just imagine if Bush 43 had been embedding spies and wiretapping Obama. The media would treat it as a massive scandal instead of a conspiracy theory. KeithCu (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

KeithCu, Please check out Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Breitbart is absolutely, 100% a conspiracy theory-based site and it is wholly unreliable for Wikipedia. If we can't agree on that, it's unlikely we'll agree on much else. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

There is zero evidence that there existed any embedded spies. Please be careful. You are making vile accusations against living people. Read WP:BLP. O3000 (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Calling Breitbart a conspiracy theory based site is ridiculous. Of course, I'm just here to point out that Spygate is not a false conspiracy theory. One can't hope to fix all the incorrect ideas believed by Wikipedia editors in one day. Too many here clearly live in the mainstream media bubble. There is plenty evidence of spies embedded in the Trump campaign, and that there was surveillance of basically everyone via the FISA 2-hop warrants. It's amazing people are cautioning me about making vile accusations of spying, instead of actually realizing it is true. Anyway, more evidence will come out, with future IG reports and declassifications. Don't expect to get admissions from the mainstream media who were wrong for 2 years on the Russia Collusion hoax.

The biggest problem with Wikipedia is that the "reliable sources" are in many cases just pushing official government storylines. It's amazing to see how many people here are implicitly defending unauthorized surveillance (by saying it didn't happen) and defending the politicization and weaponization of the US intelligence community for political purposes. Is it just a coincidence that so many here refuse to admit crimes by those agencies? Maybe they aren't paid, they've just had their minds manipulated by deep state leaks to the mainstream media, as Glenn Greenwald explains: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enqRAmtfwqo KeithCu (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

KeithCu, there is no evidence of unauthorized surveillance. Period. Therefore, this is a conspiracy theory. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

There's an entire book written about it, I posted a link above. I'll bet reading it would blow your mind. Give it a shot, rather than being part of a mob defending crimes by the FBI and CIA. KeithCu (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Dan Bongino is not credible, he is a clown. Stop watching Fox News, they are lying to you. Are you among those who enjoy being lied to? soibangla (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

"There is plenty evidence of spies embedded in the Trump campaign, and that there was surveillance of basically everyone via the FISA 2-hop warrants" Where?

"Don't expect to get admissions from the mainstream media who were wrong for 2 years on the Russia Collusion hoax" I have yet to see any conservative sources provide a list of "all the things the MSM got wrong." Why is that? Surely they would've pounced on it by now. There are many, many indicators of Trump associates in contact with Russians in peculiar ways, but evidently (from what Barr has told us) Mueller was unable to connect the dots and hopefully his report will show why. Greenwald's relevance began and ended with Snowden. soibangla (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Dan Bongino, a Republican (who has run for office in two different states), is not someone to be believed. He has willingly gone onto Infowars. Here's an Associated Press fact check that debunks one of Bongino's claims. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 April 2019

Remove "false" before conspiracy theory. There is much evidence now in the media that it was actually not false. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doj-watchdog-fbi-informant-in-russia-probe Tigerman325 (talk) 02:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

See the replies to previous, identical, requests. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Changed first paragraph of the lede

I have changed the first paragraph of the lede. [22]. The previous one was just triggering too many Trump supporters, who read “Spygate is a false conspiracy theory” and get triggered because they have their own idea of what Spygate is. However, Spygate in this article refers to the allegations or May 2016 and June 2016. So I have framed that first. As for what Spygate is about, that is already described in the lede via paragraph two and four. So I have removed the summary (second half of first paragraph) of the summary (lede) as essentially duplicate info in the lede. starship.paint ~ KO 13:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Good change. O3000 (talk) 13:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

This article's significant flaws and inappropriate slant still remain after your change. The term "Spygate" gets to be defined by the accusers, not by lawyering words from the anti-Trump side. A congresswoman challenged AG Barr over the term "spy" yesterday, and he replied that we could call it "unauthorized surveillance" if she preferred. The term "spy" is a term in popular use and must be interpreted that way, just like Trump's claim that Trump Tower was "wire tapped" (quotes his) should be interpreted broadly to include the two hop surveillance (of both past and ongoing communications) that arose from the Carter Page FISA. Wookian (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

He said that he wasn't saying improper surveillance occurred. In no manner did he suggest that the claim promulgated by Trump that Obama ordered spying on the Trump campaign to help Clinton is anything other than a false conspiracy theory. And please AGF and stop with these "anti-Trump" claims. O3000 (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

A couple of points here: Your comment "AGF and stop with these anti-Trump claims" is a bit tone deaf in light of the comment above suggesting that editors who disagree with this article's slant are "trigger[ed]...Trump supporters." I wasn't even talking about Wikipedia editors, but rather chosen sources, which are anti-Trump. Maybe we could just build an encyclopedia here and focus on the content and not each other.

Also, WaPo suggests that AG Barr strongly implied he believes wrongdoing was committed by the "upper echelons" of the FBI and potentially wider in the intelligence community. Wookian (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

He specifically stated that he was not investigating the FBI. O3000 (talk) 14:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

You are correct. He is not investigating the FBI as a whole. Here's a quote[23]:

I think there was probably a failure among a group of leaders there, at the upper echelon. So I don't like to hear attacks about the FBI because I think the FBI is an outstanding organization and I think Chris Wray is a great partner for me. I'm very pleased he's there as the director. If it becomes necessary to look over some former officials' activities, I expect I'll be relying heavily on Chris and work closely with him in looking at that information. But that's what I'm doing. I feel I have an obligation to make sure that government power is not abused. I think that's one of the principal roles of the attorney general. Wookian (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

You don't get to make "Spygate" mean whatever the hell you want to it mean whenever it's convenient. The claim was that there was a conspiracy of Obama administration officials to spy on Trump's campaign for political purposes — that claim has been proven false. You can't turn around and go "Well but now I mean it's just that someone spied on the Trump campaign at all!!1!1? SCANDAL! TREASON! OBUMMER!" No, that's not a scandal — that was a legitimate counterintelligence investigation based on lawful warrants and reasonable suspicion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it’s worth it to put a note at the top of the page stating this article is about the theory that Obama tried to put a spy in the Trump Campaign. For information about the Obama Administration’s investigations into the Trump Campaign see the Special Counsel page, for example. A lot of readers seem to be coming to this article expecting to be related to what Barr testified about. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, that is because the definition of "Spygate" includes far more than what the Wikipedia article is suggesting here. "Spygate" is not just about Trump's claims that they put a spy in his campaign, it's about the entire FISA surveillance warrant against Carter Page and how that warrant was used as the basis for a Counterintelligence Investigation. Outside of this specific Wikipedia article, I have never seen anyone define "Spygate" so narrowly.

Your edit does absolutely nothing to correct the problem. You're just just carve something out to continue the narrative you want to present. Rather than, "false conspiracy theory", words like unproven or disputed would be acceptable. Bill Barr suggested that spying took place (whether it was legal or not is another question that has not been settled), so is Bill Barr now a conspiracy theorist? I dispute the neutrality of this article and in particular the lead.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• Wookian - replying to your quote: The term "Spygate" gets to be defined by the accusers, not by lawyering words from the anti-Trump side. - no, the term Spygate gets to be defined by reliable sources. starship.paint ~ KO 01:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Also Wookian: Your comment "AGF and stop with these anti-Trump claims" is a bit tone deaf in light of the comment above suggesting that editors who disagree with this article's slant are "trigger[ed]...Trump supporters." - when I mentioned Trump supporters, I was referring to people on /r/the_donald [24], not editors here. Maybe some editors are Trump supporters, but I don't know and that doesn't matter. starship.paint ~ KO 00:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Mr Ernie: quoting you - Maybe it’s worth it to put a note at the top of the page stating this article is about the theory that Obama tried to put a spy in the Trump Campaign. - that's really the first sentence of the second paragraph in the lede right? If readers can't even get to the second sentence of the whole article.... shake my head. starship.paint ~ KO 01:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Rusf10: You're just just carve something out to continue the narrative you want to present. That's what reliable sources are presenting, so we do that. Rather than, "false conspiracy theory", words like unproven or disputed would be acceptable. If reliable sources say unproven or disputed, provide them. starship.paint ~ KO 01:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Starship.paint:Those are opinion sources which create an issue of WP:UNDUE since you're including it in the lead and you're presenting those opinions as facts rather than attributing them. Furthermore, those opinion pieces were all written before Bill Barr said he though spying did occur.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Here are some more recent opinions in reliable sources that say the opposite: Spygate: Did American intelligence agencies spy on Donald Trump? Barr says we'll find out (USA Today), Barr hammered for stating ‘spying did occur,’ despite confirmation of Trump team surveillance (Fox News)

Can someone point out where in the three sources cited the word "false" is applied to the allegations? The only pace I see is in the Vox headline (not the body of that piece), which says that the allegation is false. But even that piece repeatedly says that there is "no evidence", just as the other pieces do, and Vox is obviously the most partisan of the three sources cited. Given that the piece itself (along with the other two pieces) criticize the theory as being unsupported by evidence, it seems to me that the description as "false" gives undue weight to the one Vox headline. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Others (including myself) have been pointing that out for a while, and urging that we temper the language to that of the NYT or WaPo rather than the Vox opinion piece. It is difficult to make any reasonable, encyclopedic changes here when a Wikipedia moderator who endorses conspiracy theories (e.g. that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to influence the election) is holding the keys and blocking encyclopedic neutrality. The reliable sources who actually talk about Spygate and give it the credibility that the AG's comments clearly justify giving it get rejected as unreliable (e.g. Solomon). I'm not aware that any right leaning source is being allowed here, only left leaning ones (could be wrong on that, happy to be corrected). Edit to add note: referring to sources used to justify speaking in Wikipedia's voice and characterizing Spygate in the first sentence. Clearly only left leaning sources are used for that. Wookian (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Plot twist

Agents involved in the Russia investigation asked Mr. Halper, an American academic who teaches in Britain, to gather information on Mr. Page and George Papadopoulos, another former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser. However, Mr. Halper also had additional contacts with other Trump officials that have raised concerns about his activities. In one instance, Mr. Halper reached out to Sam Clovis, a Trump campaign aide; it was not clear whether Mr. Halper had the F.B.I.’s blessing to contact Mr. Clovis. soibangla (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

About the only thing of relevance to this article is: “Mr. Halper’s contacts have prompted Republicans and the president to incorrectly accuse the F.B.I. of spying on the campaign” as it may be related to the genesis of this conspiracy theory. But, I wouldn’t look at including anything from this article until the review is completed – assuming RS get to see it. O3000 (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Yesterday Barr reframed "spying" as "unauthorized surveillance." it was not clear whether Mr. Halper had the F.B.I.’s blessing to contact Mr. Clovis soibangla (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The term "unauthorized surveillance" is actually more damning than "spying;" nothing about the term "spying" implies improper conduct. "unauthorized surveillance" is no different in terms of meaning than "unauthorized spying," I fail to see why we need to make such pointless distinctions here.SIPPINONTECH (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC) — SIPPINONTECH (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Susan Rice Unmasking of Senior Trump Campaign Officials

This article is extremely biased - primarily in the assertion that Trump's claims that he was spied on have no merit. Susan Rice, President Obama's National Security Adviser (a senior Cabinet official and a political appointee,) was receiving intelligence reports on senior staff inside Trump's campaign, which she unmasked (de-anonymized.) Source. Rice was not only receiving briefings on the private communications of senior Transition Officials gathered via FISA surveillance warrant; she was also seeking identifying information on them. Source. It seems rather obvious that a Cabinet level political appointee inside the Obama Administration reading unredacted intelligence reports on the opposing Party's nominee is consistent with "Spying," and certainly would render Trump's Tweets, which this article claims are "false," at least partially based in reality. I feel that this article does an extremely poor job of representing some very concerning aspects of "Spygate," which do in fact raise suspicion that it is a bit more than a "conspiracy theory." — Preceding unsigned comment added by SIPPINONTECH (talk • contribs) 17:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC) — SIPPINONTECH (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

From your source: "I didn't hear anything to believe that she did anything illegal," Florida Rep. Tom Rooney, a Republican helping to lead the panel's Russia invesigation, told CNN of Rice's testimony...Trey Gowdy, a South Carolina Republican who is helping lead the House investigation, told the Daily Caller "nothing that came up in her interview that led me to conclude" that she improperly unmasked the names of Trump associates or leaked it to the press. soibangla (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Is your assertion that spying must be illegal in order to be properly defined as spying? Even if such surveillance was conducted in accordance with the Law, the fact that Cabinet level appointees in the Obama Administration were reading unredacted intelligence briefings on the opposing Party's campaign without their knowledge using a surveillance warrant issued by a secret court is absolutely consistent with "Spying." Whether that surveillance was conducted properly or improperly (itself a matter of debate) is irrelevant in terms of characterizing the underlying behavior as spying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SIPPINONTECH (talk • contribs) 17:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC) — SIPPINONTECH (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Agree with soibangla. This is old news. A few folks tried to make something out of what turned out to be common practice and part of her job. It was not spying on the campaign in any meaning of the word. O3000 (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Saying something is old news does not change the substance of my argument, which is that regardless of the legality of Cabinet level officials reading unredacted intelligence reports on the private communications between members of the opposing Party's campaign, such behavior can nevertheless still be construed as "spying." The definition of spying makes no reference to its legality. Reading the private communications of Campaign officials without their knowledge using electronic surveillance is completely consistent with any reasonable definition of "spying." That the National Security Adviser routinely engages in behavior that can be construed as "spying" is equally irrelevant to the point I am making here.SIPPINONTECH (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)— SIPPINONTECH (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Taking commonplace incidents and interpreting them in malevolent ways is at the heart of conspiracy thinking. And as our article on Conspiracy theory states about such: “… unnecessary assumption of conspiracy when other explanations are more probable Evidence showing it to be false, or the absence of proof of the conspiracy, is interpreted by believers as evidence of its truth, thus insulating it from refutation.” Let us not try to find conspiracy in every news item. There is nothing in your sources that indicate that the Obama admin was spying on the Trump campaign to help Clinton, as posited by Spygate. O3000 (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I find the assertion that having Cabinet level appointees reading unredacted intelligence reports on the political campaign of the opposing Party is somehow "commonplace" to be thoroughly unconvincing. There is only one other time in American history when surveillance was conducted against a rival political campaign - and it forced a sitting President to resign from office. I also think it is interesting that you inserted the caveat bolded in the following quote: "There is nothing in your sources that indicate that the Obama admin was spying on the Trump campaign to help Clinton, as posited by Spygate." Are you under the impression that spying on the private communications of a political rival during an election would not reasonably benefit the party in power? Because that is an absurd argument. There is no need to prove intent here. The very existence of the spying in the first place would by definition help Clinton by harming her opponent. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC) — SIPPINONTECH (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You're making an assertion without any evidence that "the Obama admin was spying on the Trump campaign to help Clinton". Please stop making unfounded claims. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I have provided sources where, in Congressional testimony, senior officials in the Obama Administration literally admit that they were reading unredacted intelligence reports on Trump Campaign/Trump Transition officials without their knowledge. This is consistent with the definition of spying. And as I have said elsewhere in this section, by definition, conducting a wide-ranging surveillance operation against a political campaign helps the opponent's campaign. Nothing I have said is the slightest bit unfounded, I think you are having difficulty separating your political beliefs from your ability to objectively evaluate the evidence I have provided. Especially considering your comments elsewhere in this article. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

No, you're suggesting that Susan Rice did something wrong or illegal, when there's no evidence of that at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

That's how you are interpreting what I'm saying - I never said Susan Rice did something wrong or illegal. In fact, I said that regardless of the legality, the fact that Susan Rice was reading the unredacted private communications of Senior Officials in Trump's Campaign/Transition can be construed as spying. Spying in and of itself is neither illegal nor immoral. Having said that, I think it's telling that you seem to see the behavior that Susan Rice herself admitted she engaged in was improper or illegal. It's kind of hard to avoid jumping to those conclusions when discussing a Cabinet level political appointee using the power of their office to conduct surveillance against members of the opposing Party's political campaign who are not under criminal investigation. Which is why it is relevant to begin with. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

SIPPINONTECH, I don't think she did anything improper or illegal. I'm used to editors coming to this talk page and other suggesting that. So, perhaps I am being too defensive and am misinterpreting what you're suggesting. But, what are you suggesting? We had an unprecedented situation in 2016 where Russia was interfering in our elections, and there was (and still is) good reason to think the Trump campaign was actively colluding with Russia to do it. So, Susan Rice took unusual actions for an unusual situation. None of them deal with "Spygate" as far as I'm aware, they deal with the Russia investigation. So, based on your bringing up Susan Rice in discussion, what changes to this article do you think should be made? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I am suggesting that in actual point of fact Trump was spied on. That specific claim is absolutely not a "conspiracy theory." Susan Rice literally said in Congressional testimony that she was reading the unredacted private communications of Senior Trump Campaign/Transition members. The specific edit I would suggest here would be to include the articles I linked above in the "Background" section of the article, as the fact that Susan Rice has testified that she was reading unredacted intel on Senior Trump Campaign/Transition members is directly opposed to the following excerpt from that subsection: "Trump also made his Trump Tower wiretapping allegations in 2017, for which the Department of Justice has said evidence has yet to be provided." Regardless of what the Justice Department said, Susan Rice herself has testified that, not only was Trump's Senior Staff under electronic surveillance, that she herself was personally involved in said surveillance. There needs to be an excerpt in the background section that includes this information. Because it lends credence to Trump's claim that he was "wiretapped." SIPPINONTECH (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Did Susan Rice say that there was wiretapping of Trump Tower, in the manner that Trump alleged? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, as detailed in the sources above. Susan Rice testified before Congress that she unmasked the communications of Senior Trump Campaign officials (Trump's campaign HQ was located in Trump Tower.) So by definition there was wiretapping on Trump Tower, unless you want to play semantic games about the technical definition of "wiretapping."SIPPINONTECH (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Susan Rice was doing her job. If there wasn't concern about the Trump campaign's ties to Russia, she wouldn't have done what she did. There's no evidence that suggests that she passed along information to the Clinton campaign, that would be a serious breach. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

She did not need to pass information along to the Clinton Campaign in order to damage Trump's - the existence of a covert surveillance operation against a political campaign is by its very nature damaging to that campaign. You are setting the bar unreasonably high.SIPPINONTECH (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC) — SIPPINONTECH (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It wasn't an investigation of the Trump campaign. It was a counterintelligence investigation. soibangla (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

What's your point? Counterintelligence, if anything, implies spying. Certainly nobody inside Trump's Campaign or Transition was aware that widespread surveillance was being conducted against senior officials inside the campaign. That is consistent with the definition of spying. Regardless of how you want to label it, there were cabinet level officials inside the Obama Administration who were reading unredacted intelligence reports on senior Trump Campaign and Trump Transition officials. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC) — SIPPINONTECH (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please do not make unfounded accusations. WP:BLP applies. O3000 (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I have made no unfounded accusations whatsoever. All of my claims are sourced in the articles linked at the top of this heading (CNN and Politico articles.) Cabinet level officials inside the Obama Administration - specifically Susan Rice - was reading unredacted intelligence reports on senior Trump Campaign/Transition officials. These officials were unaware that they were being surveilled (by definition - FISA warrants are issued in secret.) If you feel I have made an unfounded accusation would you point out which specific "accusation" you are referring to? SIPPINONTECH (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

You are pushing nonsense that was debunked long ago, after some concocted yet another fake scandal, in furtherance of their previous fake scandal that Rice lied about Benghazi to smear her. Have you ever considered the possibility that the people you believe and trust are lying to you? soibangla (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

You are bringing in extraneous details that have nothing to do with the subject of our discussion. Susan Rice, a Cabinet level political appointee in the Obama Administration was reading the unredacted private communications of senior Trump Campaign/Transition officials, who were not under FBI investigation. If you want to accuse me of being partisan or misguided, I suppose that is your prerogative. However, I have provided reputable sources for my assertions and you have failed to explain why those assertions are invalid. Obama Administration officials admitted in their own words to reading the campaign emails of their political enemies before Congress. In their own words. It wasn't the Republicans saying it, it was Susan Rice saying it. I believe that fact is significantly at odds with the tone and the tenor of this article. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

You haven't provided any evidence that Susan Rice did anything other than her job. You're talking about the counterintelligence operation as though it was illegal spying. It wasn't. Bringing up Benghazi was, I assume, a way of pointing out that Susan Rice has been a target of conspiracy theories from some on the right-wing. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Benghazi is completely extraneous to our discussion here and has no bearing on Susan Rice's testimony before Congress, in which she admitted to reading the unredacted private communications of senior officials inside the Trump Campaign/Transition Team. I never said anything about the legality of the spying, only that, in Susan Rice's own words, she did, in fact, engage in spying against the Trump Campaign. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

What you and right-wing sources (like Fox News and Breitbart) are calling "spying", reliable sources call "countersurveillance" as a result of Russian interference. These are not the same thing. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Can you explain to me how countersurveillance is inconsistent with the definition of spying? The definition of spy(ing) in the Merriam Webster Dictionary is as follows: "to watch secretly usually for hostile purposes." Either way this is a pointless semantic argument - electronic surveillance was conducted against Trump's Campaign/Transition, full stop. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SIPPINONTECH (talk • contribs) 20:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

What hostile purposes? You keep suggesting conspiratorial stuff that has been firmly debunked. And none of your sources say anything like what you are posting here. O3000 (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

If you want to redefine Spygate / If you think Spygate is NOT a false conspiracy theory

Then please provide reliable sources that explicitly mention what Spygate is. You can find reliable (or unreliable) sources at WP:RSP, and discussions at WP:RSN can point to the reliability of a source. How Wikipedia works is that we reflect what reliable sources say, and the more reliable sources agree, the more we will reflect it. Reliable sources, per WP:RS, are third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. So if a reliable source, say, the Associated Press, says: “Spygate is a dolphin”, and Reuters, AFP etc. agree, then we at Wikipedia report “Spygate is a dolphin”. If you want to redefine Spygate, you have to have reliable sources explicitly giving the alternate definition for Spygate. I’m not seeing that in many (or even any) proposals on this page. starship.paint ~ KO 22:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

No, reliable sources do not need to be provided to show that Spygate is not a false conspiracy theory. The burden of proof lies with making the assertion that it is a conspiracy theory (and hence false). If we do not have reliable sources demonstrating this, then the article needs to be edited to say only this is a theory of alleged spying, without taking a position on whether it is true or false. Wingedsubmariner (talk) 03:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• You really should read the article and sources before speaking. The RS say it's false and a conspiracy theory, which Trump pushed without evidence. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• No, if reliable sources say Spygate is false, we report it to be false. This is how Wikipedia works. starship.paint ~ KO 03:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Hypothetical example 1 - reliable source: “Susan Rice watered the plants” - not acceptable, no mentioned link to Spygate
• Hypothetical example 2 - reliable source: “Susan Rice watered the plants, and that is Spygate” - acceptable, linked to Spygate
• Hypothetical example 3 - unreliable source: “Susan Rice watered the plants, and that is Spygate” - not acceptable, unreliable source
• Hypothetical example 4 - reliable source: “Susan Corn authorised paying a spy who was implanted into the Trump campaign for political purposes” - acceptable, relevant to May 2018 allegations
• Hypothetical example 5 - reliable source: “Susan Corn authorised the FBI investigation into the Trump campaign to start in June 2018” - acceptable, relevant to June 2018 allegations. starship.paint ~ KO 23:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Here is a source from Aug 11, 2019, that refers to "Spygate" in the title. Notice that the source doesn't mention a single thing about Halper or other spies planted in the Trump campaign. It is strictly about the electronic surveillance of the Trump Campaign/Transition Team by Obama era Cabinet level officials. It's you, who is trying to redefine what "spygate" means. Nobody who actually refers to Spygate in contemporary sources and articles conceives of it as being strictly limited to Trump's claims in 2016/17. Nobody outside of this article, anyway. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not surprised he didn't mention Halper. You linked to an opinion column by James S. Robbins. Opinion pieces are not RS. Halper doesn't fit his narrative. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The fact that it is an opinion piece has literally nothing at all to do with the point I am making, which is that Spygate is understood to mean something different than what you're saying it means. What are you even arguing here? Are you trying to tell me that the writer of the article doesn't understand what Spygate is really about, he's using the term incorrectly? Someone should tell the editor... Regardless, your point is entirely moot. Here is another source, that isn't filed under opinion (that I can tell,) which defines "Spygate" as the following: "The Russian probe led to the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Use of the word “spying" to describe that initial investigation echoes the language of President Trump and some of his more strident supporters who call the probe 'Spygate.'" You are completely off base here. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• *@SIPPINONTECH: Sorry I'm trying to keep up with your old statements. For your second link above (NY Daily News), per WP:RSP, There is no consensus regarding the reliability of the New York Daily News. The New York Daily News is a tabloid newspaper that publishes tabloid journalism. A more reliable source is preferred. starship.paint ~ KO 01:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• @SIPPINONTECH: - thank you for your effort. For your first link, see: WP:RSOPINION - Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact ... A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. - You're using an opinion for a statement of fact. starship.paint ~ KO 01:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, here is a non-opinion article, both contemporary and not an opinion piece, in a reputable source, that defines Spygate as the broader investigation - and not specifically about claims that spies were planted in the campaign (although that is a part of spygate.) This article defines Spygate as follows: "a term referring to allegations the FBI spied on (Trump's) 2016 campaign." SIPPINONTECH (talk) 01:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Here is yet another article, both contemporary and not an opinion piece in a reputable source, that defines "Spygate" as the following: "Last year, the president tweeted about “Spygate,” a term referring to allegations the FBI spied on his 2016 campaign." No mention of spies being planted in the campaign specifically, it's referring to the broader investigation. You are narrowing the definition of "Spygate" well beyond its usage. Spygate is about Halper and Mifsud, yes, but it's also a more general term used to refer, as the article says, to "allegations the FBI spied on his 2016 campaign." The article is redefining "Spygate" in a way that is incoherent with its colloquial usage. As a general comment, if you don't even understand what "Spygate" is, you probably shouldn't be contributing to articles that talk about it. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• This (Newsweek) appears to be alright. There should be further discussion on how to incorporate this "“Spygate,” a term referring to allegations the FBI spied on his 2016 campaign." starship.paint ~ KO 01:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

And for good measure another contemporary, non-opinion, reputable source referring to "Spygate" as follows: "The so-called "spygate" scandal, which relates to alleged FISA abuses by the intelligence community, has been frequently promoted by defenders of President Trump. It has not been corroborated." SIPPINONTECH (talk) 01:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• @SIPPINONTECH: - Axios' reliability hasn't been really discussed in WP:RSN / WP:RSP. I know that Axios has broken some news regarding the Trump administration. If we at Wikipedia can reach a position on Axios' reliability, and agree that it is reliable, then yes, this source, and this definition, can be looked for inclusion. This isn't a rejection of this source. starship.paint ~ KO 01:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Apologies to the people reading through this, I am still getting a hang of how Wikipedia works in terms of sourcing. I will refer to the source list before I claim another one is reputable. Here is a 2nd Newsweek article that refers to "Spygate" as follows: "The president has repeated addressed the matter several times since taking office in January 2017. Last year, Trump tweeted about “Spygate,” a term he apparently coined to refer to allegations that the FBI spied on his 20116 campaign team." SIPPINONTECH (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• @SIPPINONTECH: - That's also okay, just a note that that is the same Newsweek author (Christina Zhao) on a different article. Same as above, this does appear reliable, discussion is needed on how to incorporate this.. starship.paint ~ KO 01:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• @SIPPINONTECH:, context matters. Keep in mind that contemporary sources do not define what THIS "Spygate" refers to. It is the original assertions by Trump on May 22 which do that, and he referred to a spy (who was Halper), and claimed the spy was planted inside the campaign. There is no evidence any spy, especially Halper, was part of the campaign. None. Trump made a very specific claim which was false, and myriad RS said so. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: .... but perhaps this article can mention alternate definitions of Spygate, which were also based on Trump's campaign. starship.paint ~ KO 04:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The fact that context matters is precisely why it is important to properly define what "Spygate" means. You are basing your definition off of information that is both incomplete and outdated. "Spygate" includes the Halper and Mifsud allegations, but as is abundantly clear based on the articles I have here provided, it also includes other aspects of the wide-ranging FBI investigation into Trump's Campaign/Transition. If anyone is ignoring context here, it would be the authors of the article, who narrowly focus on outdated sources to narrow the definition of "Spygate" beyond its colloquial usage and meaning, to such an extent that one wonders if it is intentionally ignorant in order to avoid discussion of some very real, proven and concerning aspects of the far-reaching counterintelligence operation conducted against a political campaign by the Obama Administration. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 12:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the new sources that keep being brought up, what exactly does anyone think they show? It's journalists documenting that the usual suspects are having the usual debate. The conservative talking heads are jumping all over Barr's statement, the democrats are pushing back, and various sites are documenting the debate. Spygate doesn't stop being a conspiracy theory as far as Wikipedia is concerned simply because Tucker Carlson said so, even if Newsweek reports that he said it. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Are you having difficulty understanding what this subheading is about? The articles provided by me and others in this section show that the definition of "Spygate" used by the author of this Wikipedia article is incorrect. The authors of the article are saying "Spygate" is specifically about the FBI planting, or trying to plant, human intelligence sources inside Trump's campaign. In reality, "Spygate" refers to the wide-ranging efforts by the FBI to surveil the Trump Campaign/Transition, including the (proven) use of FISA warrants, (proven) electronic surveillance, (proven) unmasking of Trump Campaign officials who were not under FBI investigation by senior members of Obama's Cabinet (See "Susan Rice" section above this,) etc. The authors of this article are essentially constructing a strawman here by using an extremely narrow definition of "Spygate" that only focuses on the unproven aspects of a larger unfolding scandal for which there is ample public evidence - some of which I have provided above concerning senior officials in Obama's cabinet reading the private communications of senior Trump Campaign officials who were not under FBI investigation. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 11:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• What about USA Today? This mentions both the subject of Barr's investigation and "Spygate" as regarding the same entity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 05:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

This page needs to be edited immediately

It's extremely embarrassing that this article was allowed to be edited and Frozen in such a politically biased and incorrect state. It never should have been allowed to be phrased in this manner, since it is been shown to be true that he was indeed spied upon and therefore there was clearly no evidence to show that it was merely a conspiracy theory.

Please rectify this mistake immediately. There needs to be a way to allow editing and discussion around these types of things rather than just freezing editing of an article that is clearly wrong and salacious.

The article should say a "conspiracy directed at" president Trump, or something along those lines.

At the very least you must remove the righteous yet innacurate beginning and disambiguation headline as it is today. Justncase80 (talk) 01:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I Agree. If nothing else, the quotation concerns in the banner must be addressed, the grammar of the article must be corrected, and the information in the lede paragraph must be updated to reflect recent developments. This is impossible with the current protections as it seems that no Administrators or extended editors are willing to do the work themselves, or that those who are will have their contributions reverted within the hour. The status and treatment of this article reflects very poorly on Wikipedia as a community and genuinely makes me question the motives of its most influential editors. Not even the Special Counsel page has this level of protection. Do we have so little faith in the ability of Wikipedians to moderate their own content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 02:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Justncase80 and SK8RBOI: please read #If you want to redefine Spygate / If you think Spygate is NOT a false conspiracy theory - coming here without reliable sources explicitly mentioning Spygate is a waste of time. starship.paint ~ KO 02:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Having now read the section you mentioned, how best to you believe we should integrate the sources mentioned by SIPPINONTECH? Are you prepared to make the necessary adjustments or will you allow this shameful article to remain in stasis? I reiterate: This article needs to be edited immediately. Can we continue to declare it a definitively "false" conspiracy theory if the AG is "concerned about it and looking into it"? "It" here encompassing the proposed new definition for the conspiracy theory known as "Spygate", which has yet to be accepted and incorporated into the article despite the provision of reliable sources that support this change.SK8RBOI 02:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• @SK8RBOI: - we simply have to first discuss more on the alternative definitions on Spygate. We have to obtain consensus on how to include the other reliably sourced info. Only after alternative definition is included, then Barr's "think"ing is relevant. starship.paint ~ KO 04:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• @SK8RBOI:, based on the crazy patterns of editing on this talk page in the last couple days, we need to slow things down in order to establish a consensus, not rush into something in error. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Starship.paint and Muboshgu: Certainly I agree with the need to establish a consensus; my concern is that the current "consensus" was prematurely established and is at the moment grossly outdated, being founded on sources from a year or more ago, and is now enshrined by protections that preclude the ability of ordinary editors to correct it. People come to Wikipedia for information; this page is inaccurate and inadequate and cannot be modified, and now, as the topic becomes relevant to current events, you say it is time to slow down the correction process? I unreservedly disagree with that aspect of your proposal. What error do you fear?
• If you genuinely believe Barr's "think"ing (investigation by the US Attorney General) is a different and separate topic from "Spygate", would you support the creation of an new, independent article? Or do you believe this new information, derived from reliable sources, might be more relevant here? To be fair, we can always merge the two topics later.

The attorney generals statements of this week are pretty credible and I have seen them discussed already in other discussions around this page, yet the editors are dismissing them. This is why there needs to be a meta discussion around not only the article but those guarding the false narrative it embodies.

Because the righteous tone of this page is far from accurate. This situation is not a clear cut "false conspiracy theory" and should have never been allowed to be classified as such, as it appears to actually have been mostly true.

If the attorney general says that he thinks that spying did occur, properly or not, then this article is inacurate and needs to be edited and the gatekeepers fighting against these corrections should be considered for dismissal or at least removed from political article moderation.

This is a major embarrassment for Wikipedia. Justncase80 (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

“it is been shown to be true that he was indeed spied upon” No it hasn’t. soibangla (talk) 03:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

page isn't even marked

Normally a page with such an extreme level of dispute would be marked as such, right at the top of the page. The lack of any such marker is shameful. 71.46.230.154 (talk) 02:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

"False conspiracy theory" in lead

Should the lead contain the phrase "false conspiracy theory"?

• Yes- keep current lead
• No- Change first sentence to "Spygate refers to the unproven allegation that the Justice Department under the Obama Administration illegally surveilled Donald Trump's presidential campaign.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Just a note - you’ve proposed this, which is a content dispute, and offered no reliable sources to back up your claim. starship.paint ~ KO 10:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• No- As proposer. Given the statement by Attorney General Barr that he believes spying did occur, dismissing this a conspiracy theory is inappropriate. A neutral statement should however include that the allegations are unproven.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• No The Attorney General is "investigating" and "concerned" about the abuses described by the conspiracy theory, even if he would never use the term "Spygate" to describe them. It is dishonest to continue to name the claims enumerated in this article as outright falsehoods when they are just now coming under official scrutiny. "Unproven" is accurate. "False" reflects outdated RSs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 02:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• If the Attorney General does not describe anything as Spygate, how do we know he is talking about Spygate? You’ve defeated the argument for using whatever the Attorney General said. starship.paint ~ KO 10:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• No More neutral language should be used SJCAmerican (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• No The sources cited in support of the claim that the allegations are false do not say that they are false, with one exception: the Vox headline. But Vox is the most partisan source cited, and even the Vox piece (aside from the headline) only claims that the allegations are unsupported. And that's all the other sources say as well.Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Another good point if true; headlines alone do not qualify as reliable sources.

• Yes Really? Four comments so quickly? This is a conspiracy theory, plain and simple. It's a hoax. To call it "unproven" suggests it could be true. It's not. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

consensus is Rolling Stone is only to be used if attributed, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources In my opinion, really should not be used at all after the University of Virginia rape story. Since it hasn't been discussed since then at WP:RSN, maybe its time to look at whether Rolling Stone should be used as a reliable source at all, but we'll leave that issue for another day.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Rusf10, try the BBC, then. Or any of a number of sources from the green lighted sites. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Both of these were written prior to Barr making his statement to congress.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Rusf10, the statement he walked back during the same hearing after saying he had no evidence to change previous conclusions. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

For at least the third time, that's not exactly what he said, the full quote was "I have no specific evidence that I would cite right now"--Rusf10 (talk) 03:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I have no specific evidence that I would cite right now that Ted Cruz's father killed Kennedy. That doesn't make it an "unproven" theory. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect an anonymous wikipedia contributor saying something about a topic he has no involvement in and the attorney general of the united states saying something he very much would have involvement in are two very different situations SJCAmerican (talk) 06:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• ... but the attorney general has not said this is Spygate. Relevance has to be established starship.paint ~ KO 08:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• I have provided you with ample evidence in this talk section from sources deemed reputable by Wikipedia, which define "Spygate" as "allegations that the FBI had spied on his 20116 campaign team" Source. This is a contemporary article by a reputable source. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Adding Newsweek is Step 1. Then, we look at adding other things, although it would definitely, 100% be better if whatever article explicitly mentions Spygate. What’s going on is people are putting Step 2 first. starship.paint ~ KO 14:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• No It isn't yet clear if it is false. There is also the pointless redundancy of "false" and "conspiracy theory" together. Wingedsubmariner (talk) 03:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • This is a fair point. "Conspiracy theory" is enough. It doesn't also have to say "false". But "unproven" is misleading. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Yes soibangla (talk) 03:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Yes as of now because reliable sources report it to be so. Beyond the Newsweek source SIPPINONTECH brought up just a few hours ago (of which discussion is obviously ongoing), the rest of the sources, as presented in this article, present Spygate as a false conspiracy theory. Until more reliable sources are brought up with an alternative definition, this article should not be changed. starship
  • Where in the current reliable sources is it said to be false (other than the Vox headline)? The sources consistently call it unsupported, not false. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

.paint ~ KO 04:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• No Reliable sources certainly do not all agree. For example: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Periander6 (talk • contribs)

• That’s an opinion piece, only reliable for the author’s opinion and not for facts. And please sign your comments. starship.paint ~ KO 08:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Yes - do not change anything until RS say otherwise. Barr saying its real does not make it real, anymore than if Donald Trump says it. --Gonnym (talk) 07:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• No obviously, per my comments in the above sections and the nominator. Anyways, saying something is a false conspiracy theory is an oxymoron and should be improved regardless. Mr Ernie (talk) 10:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Yes - Clearly what reliable secondary sources state, and we follow RS. Spygate is the conspiracy theory that Obama hired spy(s) to infiltrate the Trump campaign to help Hillary Clinton. No evidence of this has ever been provided. No spies have ever been named. Barr's statement has nothing to do with Spygate. Barr was referring to actions approved by multiple FISA judges as a part of an investigation into Russian influence in the 2016 election. FISA judges do not approve of infiltrating campaigns to influence elections. We should not allow imprecise language that suggests the Earth is flat. WP:RS O3000 (talk) 10:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• No as it is a fundamental mischaracterization of both what "Spygate" refers to, and as a result a misrepresentation of the very real and growing public evidence for the underlying scandal. "Spygate" refers to the broader investigation by the United States' intelligence apparatus including the FBI's Counterintelligence Division against members of Trump's Campaign and Transition Team. It is not about Halper or Mifsud specifically, although certainly the alleged attempts at intelligence gathering by human sources should be included under the broader umbrella of "Spygate." The bottom line is that the definition used in this article is far too narrow. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 12:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Hi, I moved your comment from the Discussion section below to this section. starship.paint ~ KO 12:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, in part because the "no" option prescribes a particular alternative that is much worse. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Yes - We follow reliable sources, not the pronouncements of politicians. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

3- Spygate refers to the conspiracy conducted by the Justice Department under the Obama Administration to surveille Donald Trump's Presidential campaign.

In the "no" option you provide, allegedly is no longer relevant as the AG has stated he thinks it did happen. Also, the use of the word "illegally" is not accurate as it could have actually been legal. If it we're legal it does not mean that it did not happen. Justncase80 (talk) 02:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

ALERT - possible meatpuppetry for this page and thus maybe this RFC also /r/the_donald [25] There is a big argument between Wikipedia editors on "Spygate" here. Clearly some of them suffer from TDS. starship.paint ~ KO 03:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint:I strongly suggest you strike that allegation. The page you linked has not had a post since I began the RFC. Please don't muddy the waters.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Rusf10: - this isn't an allegation against you. That page clearly links to this article. People will click and come here. It doesn't need to have more posts. starship.paint ~ KO 03:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• I never took it as an allegation against me, but you're still muddying the waters.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• I don't see how I am confusing people, if that's what you mean by "muddying the waters". starship.paint ~ KO 04:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• It's not muddying the waters. The waters appear to have been muddied already, if you catch my drift. It's not you, but there is some suspicious activity here. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• I too am concerned about some of the conclusions being leapt to here. The existence of the link is worth noting, as is the observation that it is a dead post. Can we now address the questions being asked and the challenges raised? That "meatpuppetry" comment rings like one of those that blames each and every dissenting opinion on "Media Matters" and "the shills". I invite you to apply some of your customary skepticism here. This is a popular and controversial topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 04:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• This post [26] 15 hours ago, 5000+ upvotes, 280+ comments, is not so 'dead' (the first post, at 5 hours old, can hardly be considered dead either), and also links to this page. starship.paint ~ KO 05:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• "Too many people have tried to edit the fake news out of this title in the past 24 hours, so Wikipedia has locked it from editing" AFAICT This is not an inaccurate assessment. But where does the OP then suggest people go and try to flood the talk page? How many people read that post and commented, and how many new editors arrived? Do you see how your assumptions do not help your case? If I find the treatment of this article alarming and concerning, imagine how the "conspiracy theorists" must feel. People are concerned by the treatment of this article because this treatment convinces them of everything they have been saying. The thread is an expression of genuine concern, not a call to arms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs)

• @SK8RBOI: - the main problem is - the people coming from that thread, they might not be new to Wikipedia, but they are not experienced enough to know how Wikipedia works. If you’re calling this fake news, in my opinion, you don’t know how Wikipedia works in reporting what the reliable sources say, and you probably haven’t read this article and understood it. What people should be doing is bringing out reliable sources to support their view. But this is not what is being done. That’s the problem. starship.paint ~ KO 08:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Just like to point out that 2 editors who haven't edited or actively edited in almost a month found and replied to this RFC in less than 5 minutes, and 1 more editor who hasn't edited in about 3 weeks found the RGC in less than 1 hour. starship.paint ~ KO 03:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Starship.paint: I've also been suspicious of some sort of advocacy campaign to stir this up over the last few days. I already brought this to the attention of Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Well, if there were future meatpuppetry, if they read my comment, they might very well edit some other pages before coming here. starship.paint ~ KO 04:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

If you are referring to me, yes I did read the reddit post and yes I did come here and create my account because I find the article egregiously false. Nevertheless, I have provided you with helpful information that is very relevant to the construction of this article elsewhere, and I think that information should be treated seriously and respectfully. I have been respectful of Wikipedia and its rules and done my contributions are in good will - I believe there is objective evidence that suggests this artice is inaccurate, both in its definition of "Spygate," and its characterization of it as a "false conspiracy theory." I think you would do well to continue to address those concerns seriously, rather than cry foul because you have a problem with the people bringing those concerns to your attention SIPPINONTECH (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• @SIPPINONTECH: - thank you for telling the truth. I do take your concerns seriously. I do think people are coming in good faith. But, I also do think that we have established policies like WP:RS to follow. You did respond appropriately. I was actually thinking of creating a separate section to discuss how to include the Newsweek source by Zhao, and I was going to advise you to open a WP:RSN on Axios to get it certified as reliable by the community, then we could discuss how to add the Axios source in the article too. But the problem is with the RfC and the requested move, this talk page has gone into chaos. I’m not sure how to get agreement when there are so many discussions at once. Had more editors followed your lead and answered my calls for a reliable source, I think you would have more success. But now the cart is before the horse, and that can’t be undone. starship.paint ~ KO 14:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 12 April 2019

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)

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

ALERT - possible meatpuppetry for this page and thus maybe this page move also [27] There is a big argument between Wikipedia editors on "Spygate" here. Clearly some of them suffer from TDS. [28] - less than a day ago, 5000+ upvotes, 280+ comments. starship.paint ~ KO 08:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support The title currently violates neutrality given available sources. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• By listing no sources, your argument is devoid of substance. starship.paint ~ KO 11:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Consider this source [29]. 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)

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. 14:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Objective3000: - I believe you are mistaken. [30] 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)

• 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)

• 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)

Sources

• '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[31], 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[32]. It needs to prominently highlight Barr's admissions[33][34] and his investigation. Wookian (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• @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)

• 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)

Trump, Apr 11, 2019: "There was absolutely spying into my campaign"

“There was absolutely spying into my campaign,” Trump said Thursday in the Oval Office. “I’ll go a step further and say it was illegal spying. Unprecedented spying.”Phmoreno (talk) 14:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)``

Oh, well, if Trump said it that makes it true. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

And the idea that it was illegal is, as the sources note, false — all of the appropriate steps to engage in a legal counterintelligence investigation into contacts with known agents of a hostile foreign power appear to have been followed, including gaining appropriate warrants from the relevant courts. So you've further reinforced that this is a Trump-generated conspiracy theory. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• If Donald Trump were a newspaper he would utterly fail our WP:RS policy. In my opinion, he absolutely does not have “a reputation for fact checking or accuracy”. He even boasted about using “truthful hyperbole”. starship.paint ~ KO 14:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, Trump and his sycophants still push that falsehood, and editors who do it should be topic banned. Nothing new there. We can include the fact that he still pushes the false claim, just as we update our documentation of his denials that there was Russian interference in the election, and especially that it was to help him. He will no doubt try to muddy the waters and try to classify the Russia investigation as spying on his campaign. That is not Spygate. That was a legitimate counterintelligence investigation of foreign interference in our election, which Trump welcomed. We have an article about that, and it's not this one. Don't conflate the two. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources

WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS

If there was ever a time when WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS apply, it is now. Comments by Barr are being taken as the final arbiter of truth, even though they were uncertain, off-hand, without evidence, spoken to please his boss, and he's pulled back on what he said. Sheesh!

Give the guy a chance to perform the investigation he said he'd perform. Then we might have something that will change what's in the article, but since Congress has already performed such investigations and the Republicans admitted they found nothing, there isn't much chance he'll have any success. He's just riled up Trump's base, the ones who believe this and other conspiracy theories, and who now come here to misuse Wikipedia to push their political agenda. We need to see some of these WP:NOTHERE accounts blocked and/or topic banned.

We do not base content on such off-hand remarks. Nothing Barr has said disproves the fact that Trump pushed a conspiracy theory without evidence. RS labeled his claims as false, and we base our content on those RS. He said a spy was planted in his campaign. There is no evidence that it ever happened. Halper did poke around the edges of the campaign by seeking information from three persons, but he was never part of the campaign.

Legitimate counterintelligence efforts directed at certain persons in the campaign suspected of crimes are off-topic here. Trump was not talking about them. Just because he throws around the term "spying" doesn't make it so. He likes to create confusion, and editors who allow him to do that to them should know better.

There are other articles about the various counterintelligence investigations. Manafort and Page had their own issues and whenever they secretly met with (and they lied about it) and communicated with Russian and Ukrainian assets under observation, their interactions with them were picked up by several foreign, and later American, intelligence agencies. That is not "spying on the Trump campaign", and it is not what Trump was talking about when he was referring to Halper.

Summary: "A spy", as in ONE person, planted "IN" the campaign, is what Spygate is about. It never happened. Do you have RS documenting other things considered spying on the campaign? Then start a new article about it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Absurd claim here. Specifically which part of WP:NOTNEWS does this fall under? You're trying to tell us that when the Attorney General of the United States makes a statement to congress about a serious allegation, something he clearly thinks should be investigated, we are just to ignore it? Just because you don't like or agree with what he said, doesn't mean it gets ignored. The man is the attorney general, his opinion actually deserves more weight in this article than that of opinion journalists who are routinely cited without second thought.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The Attorney General of the United States is a subject matter expert on this very topic. What he said just made the title of this article ("conspiracy theory") false. The title of this article needs to be change or it makes Wikipedia look very biased and foolish. If the AG later comes out and says that it was, in fact, a conspiracy theory, then the title can be changed back. AppliedCharisma (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)