Wikipedia

Talk:Spygate (conspiracy theory)/Archive 5

< Talk:Spygate (conspiracy theory)
Latest comment: 5 years ago by BullRangifer in topic National Review
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 10

Requested move 12 April 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago188 comments60 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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

Discussion restarted to consider more options and reach a clearer consesnus. See subsection below. Abecedare (talk) 02:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Survey

  • No It's a conspiracy theory. That's neutral. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Please read WP:RM#Commenting in a requested move Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  16:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support- as proposer.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support At the very least, "by Donald Trump" needs to be removed. We do not include the author of a conspiracy theory or other idea in its title (No "Evolution (theory by Charles Darwin)"). Wingedsubmariner (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • No. We base our content on RS, not on the latest headlines, developing stories, or unreliable, fringe sources which push this conspiracy theory. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • No — Trump coined the term, he owns it. Darwin did not coin or even use the term “evolution” soibangla (talk) 03:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
    Darwin is credited with the idea. If you need a better example though, it is not "Relativity (theory by Albert Einstein)". Wingedsubmariner (talk) 03:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
    He is credited with formalizing it with the scientific method, but evolutionary theories predated him. Einstein used math to formulate his theory. Trump just blurted out yet another of his countless baseless notions he makes up from nothing. He owns it. soibangla (talk) 03:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Conspiracy Theory (conspiracy theory) seems to be a sufficient format for all other claims of this type and calibre. I do not see why this article continues to enjoy such a special treatment. "Spygate (conspiracy theory)" is both neutral and accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 03:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
    This is an account with very few edits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    This is an account with too much free time on his hands. I have more enjoyable hobbies than arguing on the internet, as you may have guessed. Considering as you just acquired 5+ edits to your edit count by spamming this message, maybe now you can let it go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 19:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • No - the RFC has barely started, how can this move be based on that RFC? Furthermore, how many comments here advocating for change actually bring up reliable sources to support their stance? starship.paint ~ KO 04:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Something that is currently being investigated by both the Department of Justice (per AG Barr's comments) and by the Office of the Inspector General should not be titled a conspiracy theory. It is frankly ridiculous that this outrageous example of political bias has been allowed to stand for so long. [1] Periander6 (talk) 05:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Again, this is an opinion piece, only reliable for the author’s opinion and not for statements of facts starship.paint ~ KO 10:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support AG Barr IS investigating spying of Trump by previous Obama/Whitehouse - correct this bullcrap. Wikipedia is and has become the world's largest purveyor of fake history thanks to pre$$ure applied by global corporations, politicians and elites. moefuzz (talk) 06:21, April 12 2019 (UTC)
    This is an account with very few edits, especially recently.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Is it because you disagree with someone that you accuse members out of the blue? Seems like an attack on a long term member, nothing more nothing less moefuzz (talk) 05:05, April 13, 2019 (UTC)
  • Support With recent development I can not understand how this can be considered just a "conspiracy theory" anymore, more an unproven allegation SJCAmerican (talk) 06:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - You should let the RfC run its course before trying to backdoor it via a page move. This is still a conspiracy theory, like many other Trump ones. --Gonnym (talk) 07:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The title currently violates neutrality given available sources. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Massive back-and-forth argument. Please use the extended "Discussion" subsection for this sort of thing, or you make the entire RM difficult for everyone else to follow.
  • By listing no sources, your argument is devoid of substance. starship.paint ~ KO 11:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Consider this source [1]. It confirms that four campaign staffers--Manafort, Flynn, Papadopolous, and Page--were surveilled by the FBI starting in 2016, and that Page and Clovis were directly contacted by FBI informant Stephen Halper "over the course of the campaign". The piece goes on to say "Whether these acts constitute “spying” is the less interesting part of the question...The important part is that he and Barr claim it was targeted “on a campaign."" I'd like to see the article reflect this more even-handed approach. The FBI surveilled and sent informants to several members of the Trump campaign starting in 2016, and they at least partly depended on the Steele dossier--an unproven list of outlandish claims that was funded by political opposition to Trump--to get authorization for some of this surveillance. I can understand there being some disagreement about whether this constitutes spying. But let's not pretend that there is no reasonable controversy here. Relatedly, it's nuts that the article currently doesn't mention the Steele dossier. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
      @Shinealittlelight: - the key problem is that the article you provided, while reliable, doesn’t mention Spygate. starship.paint ~ KO 13:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
      "Spygate" is currently characterized in the wikipedia article as an attempt to "plant a spy" in the Trump campaign. I provide a WaPo article according to which four campaign staffers, including the chairman of the campaign, were under FBI surveillance, and it says that a spy was sent to two people in the campaign. And now you say that this information is not a relevant source because the source doesn't use the term 'spygate'. I'm not sure what to say to that. How about: in light of the facts in the piece I cited, I think it is a violation of neutrality to describe the view that the FBI was spying on the campaign as a conspiracy theory in the title of the wikipedia article. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
      • @Shinealittlelight: - the May allegation was that a spy was implanted into the Trump campaign. That means the spy literally joined the Trump campaign. Talking to campaign members does not mean joining. By that logic, a whole bunch of journalists also joined the Trump campaign. starship.paint ~ KO 14:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
        The May allegation was that Halper had been paid to spy on the Trump campaign. By your logic, Trump did not realize that Halper was not a member of his campaign, which is not plausible and is not supported by any RS. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
        So you admit that Trump claimed something which he didn't know and didn't happen. Yes, that's a false claim made by Trump. This article is correct. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
        @Shinealittlelight: No, the RS is clear. NYT, WaPo, Vox at least. Halper was never part of Trump’s campaign. That’s why what Trump said is a conspiracy theory. Of course it’s possible for Trump to not know who is in his campaign. Trump is the same guy who called Steve Bannon a staffer (Bannon was the chief White House strategist and campaign CEO), who called George Papa a mere volunteer (George was a foreign policy adviser who was in meetings with Trump) and who called Michael Cohen a “PR person” and a “rat” after calling him a “great lawyer” and a “wonderful” person. Of course Trump can be wrong or a bullshitter. starship.paint ~ KO 15:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
        @Bullrangifer, far be it from me to deny that Trump has made some false claim. But I don't see what that has to do with the issue at hand, which is whether the current title of the wikipedia article violates neutrality. I have argued that the title does violate neutrality. My argument is that RSs report that the FBI surveilled several members of the campaign and sent a spy to several of them, and the title of the article should not (per neutrality) characterize everyone who regards this as "spying on the Trump campaign" as a conspiracy theorist. That argument does not require me to endorse the truth of everything Trump has said on the topic of spying. @Starship, so you're saying that because Halper was not officially part of the campaign, but only offering to help out the campaign with info, the whole theory that the FBI was spying on the Trump campaign is neutrally described as a conspiracy theory. What can I say--this view goes well beyond any RS, and isn't plausible at all. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
      Spygate was the Trump claim that Trump Tower was wiretapped. Your source specifically states that this was a false claim. The FISA stuff is covered in other WP articles. O3000 (talk) 12:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
      The fact that it is covered elsewhere is completely irrelevant. The issue at hand is that the article about Spygate does not define Spygate accurately. The fact that certain aspects of Spygate are discussed in other Wikipedia articles doesn't somehow change the definition of Spygate, which this reputable source defined as follows: "allegations that the FBI had spied on his 20116 campaign team." You are completely wrong about the definition of "Spygate," you have been proven wrong already in this talk page, and nevertheless continue to double down to the point of absurdity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SIPPINONTECH (talk • contribs) 14:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
      @Objective3000: - I believe you are mistaken. [2] WaPo says that Spygate is new and that the wiretapping allegations predated Spygate. I would ask that you strike your comment. starship.paint ~ KO 13:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
      However it's framed, WaPo does not claim there was any conspiracy of any kind against the Trump campaign. O3000 (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
      • @Objective3000: - I didn’t say that. I was referring to this quote of yours: Spygate was the Trump claim that Trump Tower was wiretapped. this is inaccurate in light of the WaPo source. That is what I am requesting you strike. starship.paint ~ KO 13:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
      No one in any reliable source uses 'spygate' for the narrow claim that Trump Tower was wiretapped. Indeed, the wikipedia article currently characterizes spygate as the claim that there was a conspiracy to spy on the campaign. If you want to use 'spygate' for the more narrow claim, you're going to need a source, and the article is going to need to be almost completely rewritten. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
      No reliable source states there was a conspiracy to spy on Trump campaign either. No reliable source says there was any conspiracy against Trump of any kind. O3000 (talk) 12:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
      Objective3000, the article says Spygate was a false conspiracy theory that the Obama administration tried to plant a spy inside Trump's campaign. It does not say (your words) the Trump claim that Trump Tower was wiretapped. According to the article it had nothing to do with the Trump Tower wiretapping, and indeed this isn't mentioned. Can't you understand now why some of us think the article is wrong or misleading? Mr Ernie (talk) 12:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
      That would also be a false conspiracy theory. O3000 (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
      I just provided a WaPo piece above that said four Trump campaign staffers were surveilled and two met with an FBI informant (i.e., a spy). I didn't say that it was a conspiracy, and I didn't say that the WaPo said it was. The point is that reasonable people can disagree about whether this constitutes spying on the campaign. As a result, the title of the article should not take a side. Also, the RSs consistently say that the theory is unsupported, not false. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
      The article in no way supports the concept that there was any conspiracy of any kind against the Trump campaign. Indeed, it concluded that Trump's use of the word "spy" was political in nature. (Which is to say he was pushing a conspiracy theory.) O3000 (talk) 12:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
      Again, I never claimed that the piece supported the idea that there was a conspiracy. The issue is whether a reasonable person could regard surveilling four campaign staffers and sending a spy to two of them as "spying on the campaign". I think it's obvious that a reasonable person could think this. The title of the article should reflect this rather than taking a side. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
      We use reliable secondary sources, not our own opinions about what may have happened, how some have characterized possible events, what actual evidence may exist, and what "reasonable people" might think. This is going nowhere. I'll go edit something else for a time.O3000 (talk) 13:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
      Agreed, as I've indicated, reliable secondary sources state that the FBI surveilled four campaign staffers, including the chairman of the campaign, and sent a spy to talk to two people in the campaign. The current title suggests that it is a conspiracy theory that the campaign was spied on. This is manifestly biased in light of the information about what the FBI did in the reliable sources. We don't write titles of articles to reflect our political opinions, but try to summarize what the reliable sources indicate in a neutral way. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
      You keep repeating the same thing. The parts of what you are saying that are documented by reliable secondary sources are included in the appropriate articles on Russian interference in the 2016 election. But, no RS has stated that this was a conspiracy against the Trump campaign. That is a false conspiracy theory. I realize that there are people that believe in conspiracy theories. That's their problem. This is an encyclopedia. O3000 (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
      Please stop repeating the thing we agree about as if we don't agree. We agree that the RSs do not directly say that there was a conspiracy. What the RSs say is that four campaign members were surveilled and a spy was sent to two of them. These are facts and not a conspiracy theory. And these facts reveal the current title of the piece as biased. I don't expect that you will agree with me at this point, but please stop mischaracterizing my point. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
      -gate means scandal. There was no scandal. That's a false conspiracy theory. The stuff you keep pointing out is in the applicable articles. O3000 (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
      Er, I agree that -gate means scandal. Whether Spygate is a scandal is not under discussion. What is in other articles is not under discussion. The question is whether it is a violation of neutrality to call spygate a conspiricy theory in the title. I have argued that it is a violation of neutrality based on the RSs, and specifically based on the WaPo piece I linked. Again, you won't agree, but please stop mischaracterizing my point. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
      When your key campaign officials talk with people known to be linked to hostile foreign intelligence services, it's not a "conspiracy" or a "scandal" or "deep state treason" when the FBI investigates what's going on. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
      Whether Spygate is a scandal, treason, or a conspiracy is not under discussion here. I agree with you that RSs don't characterize it that way. But RSs show that the FBI surveilled several members of the campaign and sent a spy to talk to several of them as well. And it isn't neutral to characterize people who think that the FBI was thereby spying on the campaign as believers in a false conspiracy theory. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - for the same reasons given in the above RfC. Why do we have two related RfCs at once? The Earth is not flat and Spygate is a conspiracy theory according to reliable secondary sources. O3000 (talk) 11:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Collapse-boxing another long-winded squabble.
  • The fact that users are comparing this to Flat Earth theories is very telling. No NPOV whatsoever in this article. Revision badly needed. Flat Earth theory, and TDS, and the fact that this article "Triggers Trump Supporters" as was said above, betray an overtly political intent with regard to editing the article in my opinion. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
    Another SPA account with very few edits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    "Please remember that a comment should not be dismissed merely because it comes from a new account; in itself, this is an argument to the person, considered to be rather weak."[2] I invite you to assume good faith.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 20:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    Gee, how did an account with just a few edits find an obscure Wikipedia policy so fast?Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
    Is it really so obscure, or is my sarcasm plugin not working? This site has helped me with my research since I have been old enough to do research. I used the search bar. How does an account with so many edits not know how to apply the guidelines of the policies he invokes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 19:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support There is ample and growing evidence that this is not a "conspiracy theory," nor do I think it's fair to say that it's "by Donald Trump" as the underlying accusations have been made and repeated by many people, including the Attorney General of the United States. Part of the issue seems to stem from a misunderstanding by the authors of what "Spygate" is referring to. "Spygate" refers to allegations that the FBI and possibly other Federal agencies were conducting a far-reaching intelligence gathering operation against Trump and Trump's Campaign/Transition team. See the section above, in which several contemporary, reliable sources were provided that define "Spygate" in this way. In point of fact - objectively - there is ample public evidence that spying did occur against members of the Trump Campaign. The FISA warrant against Carter Page has been public knowledge for quite some time, and Susan Rice testified before Congress that she personally read intelligence reports on Trump Campaign/Transition Team members in which she unredacted the names and other personal identifying information of Trump Campaign/Transition members. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 12:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Yeah, no. Article title reflects what reliable sources say. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As with the other RfC, my !vote here is less about passion for the current way things are worded, but an alternative presented that's much worse. In this case, the full phrase "conspiracy theory by Donald Trump" could be reworded/changed in some way, but not to something as unclear as what's proposed. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support especially now that the focus is on whether the spying was legal or not rather than if it really happened. -- That Guy, From That Show! 14:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Counterintelligence happened. No spies were inserted into the campaign. That's what Trump claimed. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - This article accurately reflects anti Trump fervor of left leaning media from back before the Mueller Report was completed and reported on[3], however is woefully out of date now. It is an embarrassment to Wikipedia, and looks like it could have been written by Adam Schiff. This article needs updating to reflect the truth that any reasonable definition of "spy" or "spying" is perfectly accurate to describe what the FBI and/or US intelligence agencies did to Trump and the Trump campaign[4]. It needs to prominently highlight Barr's admissions[5][6] and his investigation. Wookian (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
And another threaded discussion ...
  • @Wookian: - #1 is an opinion, #2 is not opinion, but RealClearInvestigations or RealClearPolitics have yet to be established as reliable at WP:RSN or WP:RSP, suggest you get consensus on the reliability on WP:RSN then we can discuss incorporation of this source. #3 does not mention Spygate. #4 is opinion as well. starship.paint ~ KO 14:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Wookian, you cited a Fox News opinion piece. And what is "realclearinvestigations.com"? Is that related to "realclearpolitics", another right-wing site? Also, no spies were inserted into the campaign, as Trump has claimed. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
    • When did realclearpolitics become a right-wing site? Last I checked they have opinion pieces from both sides of the aisle.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
      • Rusf10, when it was founded? It has a right-center bias. It does post opinion pieces by both sides though, you're right about that. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
        • What proof do you have that mediabiasfactcheck.com is a reliable source?--Rusf10 (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
    • If somebody was murdered by a pickaxe and Trump made the accusation that they were murdered by a garden hoe, it would be absurd for Wikipedia to frame the whole issue as a false conspiracy theory on Trump's part. It doesn't make a big difference whether Trump phrased things perfectly accurately (he often fails to phrase things accurately, per many of our reliable sources). What is significant and carries encyclopedic weight (per AG Barr) is whether this rather unusual spying on political opponents was adequately predicated. Why is it bad for a site to be "right leaning"? The NYT and WaPo are left leaning. What's important is whether we can credibly source facts from a particular source. Wookian (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Also need to get rid of all of the fake news propaganda and tell what actually happened.Phmoreno (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
And another ...
  • You're still calling RS "fake news"? That should earn you a topic ban for working against our RS policy. That repeated claim is evidence you are NOTHERE to follow our policies, but to push your fringe beliefs based on unreliable sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Perhaps by "fake news" he or she is referring to the idea that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 election. That is a conspiracy theory that has been advanced by a moderator on this very talk page recently, even though any source worth its salt would describe it as "fake news" if advanced today, and some sources credibly point out that it was fake news as pushed for the last two years by disgraced left leaning TDS afflicted news outlets. In light of this, I suggest you back off and recognize that being here to build an encyclopedia can sometimes (shocker!) involve recognizing that top tier, marquis reliable sources sometimes get things painfully wrong. That doesn't discredit everything they say, rather it's a messy world out there and we have to pay attention to how we source things and never do so in blind faith. Wookian (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
      "some sources credibly point out that it was fake news as pushed for the last two years by disgraced left leaning TDS afflicted news outlets" I am still waiting for a conservative source to publish a list of "all the things MSM got wrong." Can you cite any? If not, maybe you and others should stop asserting it. soibangla (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support move. The Attorney General of the United States, who is a subject matter expert on this topic, just clearly said, in Congressional testimony, that spying was done on the Trump campaign. Therefore, by definition, this can no longer be considered a conspiracy theory. It has been confirmed by one of the highest officials in the US government. AppliedCharisma (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
And another ...
  • This is another account with very few edits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    That's flatly untrue. Barr, under questioning, hemmed and hawed and then said he thought there was spying. He then backed off that answer repeatedly and said he had no evidence of wrongdoing. O3000 (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
    NorthBySouthBaranoff, who appears to be a regular editor of this article, below just stated that there WAS surveillance on the Trump campaign. So, it doesn't seem to be a matter of debate that there was spying. The only question is if it was legal and/or ethical. That's not a conspiracy theory. AppliedCharisma (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
    No, that's incorrect. I said there was surveillance of people associated with the Trump campaign. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
    Read the AP article (my bold), "The president’s comments came a day after Barr testified at a congressional hearing that he believes “spying did occur” on the campaign, suggesting the origins of the Russia investigation that shadowed Trump’s presidency for nearly two years may have been mishandled." We say what RS have published. Atsme Talk 📧 17:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support move. WP is an encyclopedia and what we have as a title now is more like a news headline. Atsme Talk 📧 17:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. WP:RS and WP:V require that a source be independent of the subject; since Barr is not, we cannot treat his personal opinions as facts. We can only treat them as factual if they are reported as fact in secondary sources, which clearly isn't the case yet; absent that, we have to go by what independent sources say, which is that this is a conspiracy theory. Edit: I'd also support "Spygate (Conspiracy theory)" or comparable formulations as long as they mention that it's a conspiracy theory. --Aquillion (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support As per proposal description and Attorney General William Barr's statements on the matter. Aviartm (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
And another ...
  • Aviartm, you mean how he made an unreliable statement without producing any evidence, and then walked it back later in the hearing? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • No one should be assuming what contents and contexts Barr was implying. He's knows more than we do and we should go off his recommendations and actions. And I do not recall any backtracking done by Barr. Irregardless, my vote does not wither. Aviartm (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. The parenthetical disambiguation should not be used in a biased way as it is here. Its sole purpose is disambiguation from other articles of the same name, and should be neutral as to the subject matter. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Atsme & Rreagan007; couldn't have said it better myself. Ideally, the parenthetical term would be universally agreed on. Looking at Spygate (permalink), we don't have to be that specific at all, since the other contenders are in the domain of (American) football and Formula One, so I'd even be fine with a shorter title. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Current title is unbalanced, unencyclopedic, and far too wordy. —Torchiest talkedits 01:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    • The title you support is no less wordy, and is even longer: (2016 United States presidential election) at 42 characters and 5 words, while the original (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump) is 35 characters and 5 words. starship.paint ~ KO 07:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • No because of the proposed alternative title. Movig it to simply Spygate (conspiracy theory) would be fine though. However, given that there has been a coordinated off-Wiki effort to brigade and bias the results of this RM [7], this particular RM should be closed and a new one should be opened with a proper alternative title and a semi-protected talk page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - This title is very biased and inaccurate. We know the spy's name. His name is Stefan Halper. He was sent in by the Obama administration to gather intel from the Trump campaign (no collusion with Russia, per Mueller) but not the Hillary campaign (helped purchase dossier of fake Trump dirt from the Kremlin). It's pretty rich for people to use the No Evidence! excuse after shrieking that the president is a Russian agent for over two years. And no, I wasn't sent by reddit. That's a conspiracy theory. Galathadael (talk) 01:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
And another ...
  • Another SPA account with very few edits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Galathadael is probably a good example of someone who hasn’t read the entire article, or, to be more precise, someone who hasn’t even read until the second sentence of the lede. Trump’s allegation was that there was a spy IMPLANTED into his campaign for POLITICAL PURPOSES. As reliable sources (and this article’s lede and body) report, Halper, the FBI informant, did not join Trump’s campaign, so he could not be IMPLANTED in it. So Trump’s allegation is a conspiracy theory. starship.paint ~ KO 11:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alternative Spygate (political conspiracy theory). This doesn't mention Trump by name and doesn't hide the fact that it's a conspiracy theory. I believe this is more neutral than either name, and I hope it is a suitable compromise. – bradv🍁 03:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I have no problem with such a construction, and it's frankly shorter and more elegant anyway. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    • That's my preferred title as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I prefer that as well. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    • This is better than what is originally proposed. Masem, you were in favour of shortening the title, so I’m alerting you. starship.paint ~ KO 11:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
      • I still think it can be shortened to "(conspiracy theory)" but this works as well and avoids any potential BLP from the name only. --Masem (t) 14:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I support this alternative, especially since others are promoting Spygate now as well. Proposer's version is not NPOV as there's broad consensus among RS it's a conspiracy theory. It also conflates the focus of the article, Trump's unfounded accusations that the FBI was illegitimately monitoring him in early 2016, with the well-known legitimate investigation they were doing on Russian interference in late 2016. I think it's best to keep the "political" part in because the conspiracy isn't about whether the FBI found evidence of criminal activity in the Trump campaign in late 2016 at all, it's about when the investigation started and if it was political. Safrolic (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. The proposed name is clearly more neutral. As I said below, the way this article is written comes across as politically motivated. This is a part of a broader problem with political editing over the last three years or so in the American Politics subject area. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:00, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support any move in principle as the presence of "conspiracy theory" violates WP:NPOV and is extraneous (a title can be constructed without it easily). Having "conspiracy theory" in titles always limits our available coverage of a topic, because it restricts us to the conspiracy rather than a full treatment. I would also prefer any title which doesn't use "Spygate"+disambiguator and would instead suggest FBI surveillance of Donald Trump campaign. -- Netoholic @ 07:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as suggested. Moving to Spygate (conspiracy theory) would be OK. It is important to clarify in the title what it is about. Otherwise, this might not be obvious for someone unfamiliar with the subject. Clarifying an undisputable majority view here is actually required by WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    That clarification can and should be done in the text of the article, not in a disambiguation phrase. There seem to be aspects of this story emerging that expand the scope beyond the conspiracy theory (Barr's recent testimony, for example), and this title artificially limits our ability to cover it. We must use a title which properly scopes this topic. -- Netoholic @ 21:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Atsme. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT move - so long as the body continues to have mention of Trump and negative views, that would be a better title by WP:TITLE - more precise to a specific event (vs there are a number of Trump conspiracy theories... both ways), and as more neutral WP:NDESC. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:PRECISE. Adding "by Donald Trump" is unnecessary disambiguation, and ÷"Spygate (conspiracy theory)" is precise enough to identify the same topic. ~Awilley (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC) When I first voted for some reason I thought that the proposed target was Spygate (conspiracy theory). Since that is apparently not the case, and since my initial !vote was mostly a demonstration to make a point elsewhere, I'm just striking it altogether. ~Awilley (talk) 00:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose moved as suggested, although Spygate (conspiracy theory) would be fine. The key reason is that the sources clearly reflect that this is a conspiracy theory, and our title should reflect that. The closing administrator should entirely disregard the army of SPAs and "new" editors that have popped out of the woodwork to offer their policy-free votes. Neutralitytalk 16:39, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - With second choice being Spygate (conspiracy theory). The current title fails NPOV and is not structured in a way that is consistent with other pages. PackMecEng (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support for neutrality and conciseness. — JFG talk 18:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
    • On conciseness, the title you support is even longer: (2016 United States presidential election) at 42 characters and 5 words, while the original (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump) is 35 characters and 5 words. starship.paint ~ KO 07:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I meant conciseness of subject matter, not word count. The current title uses two disambiguators: "conspiracy theory" and "by Donald Trump"; the proposed title uses only one: "2016 United States presidential election". — JFG talk 07:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - However, I'm fine with "Spygate conspiracy theory". That's more concise, and doesn't suggest that it's a scandal, like Watergate, the first of the -gates. O3000 (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
A matter that is resolved.
  • @Objective3000: You already voted above.[8] PackMecEng (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
    Hah. Damn thing's so long I couldn't find my !vote. Thanks. O3000 (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
    Yeah it is kind of a mess! PackMecEng (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
    I almost did the same thing. "The vote is rigged!" soibangla (talk) 22:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: the name proposed in the RfC is much worse than the original. However, I'm supportive of shorter names such as Spygate (political conspiracy theory) or Spygate (conspiracy theory). --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – The newer, proposed title is more neutral than the current title, not to mention being a more accurate description of the subject it pertains to. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 04:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose proposed title, support "Spygate (conspiracy theory) Per Muboshgu I oppose the proposal that we replace the parenthetical description with the title of the election, and per WP:CONCISE I'd be willing to just shorten it. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 06:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose proposed title - would be fine with alternative suggestion dropping the 'by Donald Trump' so just Spygate (conspiracy theory), or a Spygate theory or Spygate conspiracy theory. WikiVirusC(talk) 15:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Ok, look folks, here is the problem. The present title is indeed somewhat POVish and clunky. But the proposed title, in a bit of WP:POINT skews completely the other way so it's also POV. The best thing to do would be to close this RfC and start another one with the proposed title simply Spygate (conspiracy theory) which a lot of the opposes might support. I don't see why we HAVE TO choose between two bad options. Restarting the RfC might also drop some of the meat and sock puppets that have popped up since they're attention span tends to be short.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
    (Conversation moved to Discussion) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs)
"Conversation moved to Discussion" means conversation moved to Discussion.
The proposal is 100% neutral. The phrase "2016 United States presidential election" doesn't offer any opinion at all, so how are you calling it WP:POV? We don't jsut close down a RM because you don't like the way it is going.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
This is not what neutrality is. Under this definition, we would have to rename pages like 9/11 conspiracy theories so as to pander "neutrally" to the supporters of those theories. It's bunk. The sources say one thing. --Calthinus (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I wholly agree with Marek and was thinking along the same lines. "Spygate (conspiracy theory)" solves PRECISE and NPOV and has been mentioned many times by opposers. Compromise is good. O3000 (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I think this is a good compromise as well. Although, let's still allow the RfC to run its course, as there may be other good ideas or arguments that arise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 22:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose OP proposal, but Support move to Spygate (conspiracy theory) as per Volunteer Marek and Objective3000. This is a fundamentally WP:POINT based RfC with an undercurrent of IDLI -- you present sources justifying this, or you don't, but what you don't do is call for "neutrality" when the RS do not give both sides anything close to equal weight. If you then want to complain about alleged media bias, start a blog, Wikipedia is not the place for you to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. --Calthinus (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose OP proposal but suggest move to either Spygate conspiracy theory or Spygate (conspiracy theory). The inclusion of Trump does see bizarrely WP:POINTy, but referring to it as a conspiracy theory is solidly supported by reliable sources. SnowFire (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Recently there have been some editors suggesting that we move this article back to Spygate (conspiracy theory). This is not currently up for discussion and would run against a March 2019 consensus obtained after a move request. (See the talk page archives.) If there's critical mass to overturn that consensus, then it should be done in a dedicated discussion and participants in the prior discussions should be notified. R2 (bleep) 16:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Do you mean Talk:Spygate_(conspiracy_theory_by_Donald_Trump)/Archive 1#Requested move 20 February 2019 ? That RM had smaller attendance than this one and made a nitpicky, WP disambiguation rules centered decision that missed the forest for the trees - that including "by Donald Trump" is a terrible disambiguator that probably helped kick up all the naming fuss you see above. Per WP:NOT#BURO, there shouldn't be any problem with considering all options in this requested move. More seriously, even if the NFL confusion is considered an ironclad problem with just "conspiracy theory", then literally any other extra words would be better than what was picked, including just plain nothing and a hatnote to the NFL article, or "2016 conspiracy theory", or "Spygate conspiracy theory (politics)", or whatever. SnowFire (talk) 23:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Spygate (conspiracy theory) per WP:PRECISION. There is no need for disambiguation to go beyond what is necessary. feminist (talk) 11:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per much of the above, and all this obvious meatpuppetry. But mostly because the OP doesn't understand how WP:Disambiguation works. Spygate is not a "2016 United States presidential election", so that cannot be a disambiguation for it. Prefer the current title; there is nothing faulty about it, though "Spygate (Donald Trump conspiracy theory)" would be shorter and thus better comply with WP:CONCISE policy. Weakly okay with the short alternative proposal, "Spygate (conspiracy theory)"; weakly because removal of Trump's name from it is whitewashing, and it really is a Trump conspiracy theory, not someone else's. Not okay with longer alternatives, like "Spygate (political conspiracy theory)", per WP:CONCISE.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's a conspiracy theory. Maybe delete the "Donald Trump" bit, but it's a conspiracy theory. --Calton | Talk 07:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this is a conspiracy theory, per the article's text, noting that the RfC has yet to change it. There is no need to make the title neutral, as this is exactly what it is. I'm not going to comment on mid thread alt suggestions as that is pointless. If there is a better option, wait for this RM to finish and present the case for it in a more readable way. --Gonnym (talk) 07:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Suggested new name is clearly more encyclopedic.--MONGO (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. While Spygate is verifiably a conspiracy theory, that doesn't mean we're obligated to use that as a parenthetical. The proposed title is clearer, more descriptive, and less controversial. R2 (bleep) 19:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose proposed title, support Spygate (conspiracy theory) - It is a conspiracy theory and should clearly be classified as such, but including the creator seems unnecessary. StudiesWorld (talk) 09:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. The suggested adapted title "Spygate (2016 United States presidential election)" is closer to both neutral and to Department of Justice's statement. On April 10th, 2019 Attorney General William Barr declared that he thinks "spying did occur" against Donald Trump's campaign.[3][4][5][6] Francewhoa (talk) 09:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, largely per Netoholic. I'd also support FBI surveillance of Donald Trump campaign as a new title, although it changes the focus and scope. It is not entirely clear that the conspiracy theory originates with Trump, so a more NPOV title is needed. That could be Spygate (conspiracy theory). I'm surprised nobody has pointed out yet that Vast right-wing conspiracy does not have Hillary Clinton's name in the title. Srnec (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Oppose removal of conspiracy theory because it is one. Oppose removal of "by DT" because that leaves it ambiguous with the NFL one[9]. --В²C ☎ 00:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

WP:POINT by one of the SPA accounts.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
WP:NOTPOINTy. I have no problem with this policy and I am not trying to discredit it. I believe equal evidence should be equally applied. What I have done here in no way resembles the examples given in WP:POINT and is not intended to be disruption, but rather the introduction of what I believe to be genuinely useful and relevant information in a format consistent to that of the information which has already been introduced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 21:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Actually, although its wording of that notice isn't ideal, WP:APPNOTE allows notifications on related Wikipedia articles without violating WP:CANVASS (on the premise that a related article is by default going to have a "representative" or otherwise typical group of editors rather than ones biased towards one point of view, so posting it there isn't likely to unbalance a debate.) A key part of WP:MEAT and WP:CANVASS is that you're trying to attract editors to present one particular point of view; notifications on a neutral, high-traffic venue are therefore allowed. --Aquillion (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
My issue was with the wording, yes. "A key part of WP:MEAT and WP:CANVASS is that you're trying to attract editors to present one particular point of view; notifications on a neutral, high-traffic venue are therefore allowed." The RfC I cited was a legitimate call for editor involvement, but was not neutrally worded. The Reddit thread in question was not neutrally worded, but never called for editor involvement. A case could be made for each to have attracted an imbalanced or misrepresentative sample of editors. I do not think either has necessarily caused much damage, but I think if one is to be noteworthy, then they both are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 01:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

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

It seems that other articles that cover this sort of topic usually refer to a "controversy" or a "scandal". See, e.g., IRS targeting controversy or ATF gunwalking scandal or Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy or White House travel office controversy. So how about something like: "FBI Surveillance controversy (2016 election)"?Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Shinealittlelight, those things you mentioned aren't "conspiracy theories". See John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories and other articles in {{Conspiracy theories}} that do include the phrase in the title. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Muboshgu, consider this piece: [13]. It calls several of the cited controversies "conspiracy theories". Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Shinealittlelight, I don't subscribe to WaPo, so I can't read the article. Can you provide quotes, or more context? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Shinealittlelight, I read the article and, sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about. O3000 (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
@Objective3000 and Muboshgu:, here's the relevant quote from the piece I linked: The other images on that illustration and the text are broadly prominent conservative conspiracy theories that were popular during the Obama administration. There’s a reference to “Fast & Furious,” an effort to track illegal gun sales early in Obama’s first term that was the subject of a sweeping conspiracy theory. There’s an image of former Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner (between Al Sharpton and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)), the centerpiece of an effort at the IRS to scrutinize groups that claimed tax exemptions while engaging in political work. (Many tea party groups were singled out for scrutiny, prompting another conspiracy theory.) Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, I still don’t understand your point as they were, indeed, conspiracy theories. In any case, this is other stuff. O3000 (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
O3K, I don't know how much clearer I can be. The Wikipedia articles I linked on these other scandals call them "scandals" in the titles, and do not call them conspiracy theories in the titles. And yet here is what we are in this context counting as an RS--an "analysis" piece by Bump in WaPo--that calls these scandals "conspiracy theories". So consistency requires that we either change those articles to title them "Conspiracy Theories" or we change this article to call it a scandal. My own preference would be to call everything a scandal. But something has to give. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Argue what you wish on other articles. But, A→B is not the same as B→A. O3000 (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Wut. I'm looking to similar articles, which are not currently so politically hot, to see if there is any insight into how to handle the present case based on what consensus has been reached elsewhere. I see that there is in fact some insight to be had. Articles like this one are usually called "scandals" in their titles. I'm suggesting on this basis that perhaps this is how the present article should be titled as well. Muboshgu's reply was that those other articles are not on anything that RSs describe as conspiracy theories. I provided an article that is being counted as an RS in the present context, and that does call the subjects of those other articles conspiracy theories. So Muboshgu's reply, which was intelligible and on point, is in fact mistaken. Then you showed up, and I frankly can't understand anything you're saying, and for some reason you seem also to be unable to understand anything I'm saying. As a result, it seems that our dialogue is not productive, so I propose that we stop. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
There is zero evidence that this is a scandal. Please keep in mind BLP. O3000 (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Like I said, the other articles like this are titled "scandal" even when some RSs call them Conspiracy Theories. That's the point. And, although this was not my original point, the NYT calls spygate a scandal here [14]. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Please strike this. It is clear that the NYT was quoting Trump when using that word. O3000 (talk) 01:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't find that clear; they said Trump "gave the scandal a name: SPYGATE". That seems to be using 'scandal' in NYT's voice. Also, it is called a scandal in the Axios source cited elsewhere on this page. No doubt also in other RSs, since 'scandal' is a pretty neutral word. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
The NYT article used the term scandal four times, three times in direct Trump quotes. They missed using the scare quotes once directly after a Trump quote using the word. Claiming that the NYT called this a scandal is beyond the pale. There is simply no way that the NYT was calling this a scandal in their own voice. Again, I suggest you redact a claim that is behind a paywall. O3000 (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Would either of you mind if we move this thread down to the discussion to keep it going? Shinealittlelight you bring up a good point but I get the sense we are talking past each other here. It seems O3000 is saying along the lines that the other "conspiracy theories" (Fast & Furious, etc) did not become scandals until after they were proven correct, before which they were unproven conspiracy theories. If anything this weakens the claim that conspiracy theories are always false, but we may have to wait until Barr's investigation concludes to use the word "scandal", at least in the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 02:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

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

"(political conspiracy theory)" is better for the reason you've provided. I'd accept either to close this. O3000 (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
"Spygate (political conspiracy theory)" is unwieldy to my eye. I prefer it to the current title, but not the proposed title, "Spygate (2016 U.S. Presidential election)", which would satisfy the same concern about ambiguity. I think a better compromise is to reinstate "Spygate (conspiracy theory)" and include a disambiguation link to the NFL scandal, which would be a consistent and elegant solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 01:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of it til now, but that discussion had very small participation, and I wouldn't have agreed with that move location if I had participated in it. The NFL Spygate wasn't a conspiracy theory it was an actual incident that occurred, so I don't believe it can be confused with this one. Despite the sources that were posted in that discussion which all refer to a conspiracy theory about destroyed tapes from the Spygate incident. The incident itself wasn't a conspiracy theory, nor is that article about one. Either way, a lot of options are available for the name, such as the ones I suggested, but the one suggested in this request, which doesn't label it as a conspiracy theory, I don't think is viable so long as it is just a conspiracy which I believe it will remain. WikiVirusC(talk) 13:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
edit: As also suggested, a dab between the two articles would also help. WikiVirusC(talk) 13:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Reference citations in this discussion

References

  1. ^ Robbins, James. "Spygate: Did American intelligence agencies spy on Donald Trump? Barr says we'll find out". usatoday.com. USA Today. Retrieved 12 April 2019.
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Single-purpose_account
  3. ^ https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/440758-republican-senators-request-briefing-on-doj-spying-probe
  4. ^ https://globalnews.ca/news/5153996/barr-spying-trump-campaign/
  5. ^ https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/04/11/barr_says_he_thinks_spying_occurred_against_trump_campaign_140027.html#!
  6. ^ https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/politics/Barr-Senate-Hearing-Mueller-Report-Looms-508360651.html

Alternate proposal: Spygate (conspiracy theory)

Superseded by #Fresh start: Discussion of multiple titles below. Please comment/vote there. ~Awilley (talk) 01:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Pinging participants in March discussion: In ictu oculi Fourthords Old Naval Rooftops Red Slash Born2cycle R2 (bleep) 21:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. My rationale for proposing the move away from Spygate (conspiracy theory) had nothing to do with American politics. It was simply because the parenthetical dismbiguator "(conspiracy theory)" didn't do its intended job of disambiguating this Spygate from the other Spygates. Specifically, the most notable Spygate, as measured by reliable source coverage, is Spygate (NFL), a 2007-2008 controversy about the New England Patriots. That Spygate scandal involved a conspiracy theory. (Examples of sources describing the Patriots scandal as involving a conspiracy theory: [15][16][17]) Therefore, there needed (and still needs) to be a way to further distinguish the subject of this article from Spygate (NFL) to avoid confusion. R2 (bleep) 21:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Here's a relevant source that explains the confusion between these two Spygates. R2 (bleep) 21:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Improper RFC, but if we're really going to start all over based on this, then support. The confusion appears implausible, since the other Spygate is both far less well-known and hasn't really been termed a conspiracy theory; any hypothetical confusion could be clarified with a disambig notice at the top in any case. Either way, I feel this new RFC is improper; all the issues raised here were already raised above, so I don't think there's a valid argument for stopping implementation of the above RFC and starting the entire process over again. The original RFC got very little attention, had very little participation, and has clearly already been overturned by the far-higher participation rate in the one above, which mostly dismissed its concerns. "We had a previous RFC on this" is absolutely not a reason to try and ignore, overturn, or delay implementation of a newer RFC, especially when the newer one had far higher participation and therefore represents a stronger consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
A few responsive points here: (1) This isn't an RfC. (2) There are actually more reliable sources about Spygate (NFL) than there are about the subject of this article. Regardless, that doesn't make sense as a reason for opposing. (3) Spygate (NFL) has in fact "really been termed" a conspiracy theory, as evidenced by the sources I provided in my !vote. (4) We have no clarity on whether most of the editors who participated in this move request would support a move to Spygate (conspiracy theory). I suspect that many of the editors who !voted to support the move to Spygate (2016 United States presidential election) would not support the move to Spygate (conspiracy theory), for the reasons stated in their !votes. R2 (bleep) 22:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose move. I've stated this in the past; even if Spygate (NFL) is not itself a conspiracy theory, reliable sources have referred to it as such, and it can reasonably be said to contain a conspiracy. That makes the proposed title ambiguous. ONR (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
    ONR, we're going in circles here, but I proposed Spygate (political conspiracy theory) above, for precisely this reason. Would that satisfy your objection? – bradv🍁 23:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, it would certainly work as a good disambiguation. (And for future reference, I don't get notifications for the shortened form of my username.) ONR (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
    Old Naval Rooftops, the talk page link in your sig is a redirect, which is confusing the reply-link script. – bradv🍁 23:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
    Fixed. ONR (talk) 00:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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

Latest comment: 5 years ago77 comments17 people in discussion

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

Extended content
Unreal. So now we find out that the Obama/Comey FBI sent in a "blonde bombshell" to covertly gather intelligence from Papadopolous, an employee of the opposing party's campaign, to support the Stefan Halper operation. It's like something straight out of The Americans, except instead of Russians spyi...excuse me, "performing a perfectly legitimate secret intelligence gathering operation without the target's knowledge" on Americans, it's Americans targeting Americans. Authorized by the FISA court, based on a collection of disinformation outlined in a dossier, written by a former MI-6 agent, who got the disinformation from the Russian government, and was paid for by the campaign of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee. And the New York Times admitted this? This is pretty seismic. Obviously lead-worthy. I'd add it myself but the article is locked. Do you have time to put this in, soibangla? Also why is the article still calling this a “conspiracy theory”? The events in question aren’t in dispute. The FBI says they secretly sent people in to gather intel on the Trump campaign with the reason given being “to make sure he wasn’t colluding with Russia.” It’s not a theory. They did it. The only question now is 1) was it illegal, 2) who ordered the operation, 3) and did Obama know, and if so, when did he know it? 2600:1012:B02B:443B:D516:B506:FBF0:C8E0 (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC) Edits by site banned User:Hidden Tempo stricken per WP:DENY
I have no idea what you are talking about, why you are quoting “blonde bombshell” which I can’t find, what this has to do with Obama, not mentioned in the article, or your other odd extrapolations. One thing: You have clearly displayed why we should use the words "conspiracy theory" as you are clearly promoting such. Someone else fold this. O3000 (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
New York Post confirms that Ms. Azra Turk, the woman sent in by the FBI in a covert op to gather intelligence on the Trump campaign and other Americans, is in fact a "blonde bombshell" (https://nypost.com/2019/05/02/fbi-sent-a-blonde-bombshell-to-meet-trump-aide-papadopoulos-report/). We have no idea yet if any of this involves Obama or if he was even aware of the operation. All we know at this point is that the operation was performed during his administration. Let's wait for the two ongoing Inspector General investigations to conclude before we even THINK about implicating Obama in any of this. Facts and evidence only. No, we're not going to "fold," bury, or erase this New York Times breaking news. It's a huge piece of the puzzle that's coming together. We don't yet know if there was a conspiracy, which is why we shouldn't be using the term. Nobody disputes that Stefan Halper and Azra Turk were sent in by the FBI to gather intel on Americans. The three questions I listed above are what we still don't know, and we should be discussing the content, not the editors who are working to get this right. 2600:1012:B02B:443B:D516:B506:FBF0:C8E0 (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
The New York Post is a tabloid and we should not be looking to them for any serious analysis. We know the FBI investigated Papadopoulos. This news doesn't seem to change anything that we know about Trump's conspiracy theory. soibangla, in the future, please don't just put a link down here without context. Use the talk page to discuss what you think should be done with the link. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
It's easy to track down the "blonde bombshell" comment. The NY Post was quoting Papadopoulos's book. R2 (bleep) 23:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
With all the sources available to us for related stories, I hope we don’t stoop to using a tabloid like the NYPost, or using tabloid terms like “blonde bombshell”. Unless you can prove that Jean Harlow was the person referenced. O3000 (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
When the dust settles, let's make sure that it's noted that the Spygate theory was universally regarded as a conspiracy theory. It'd be a shame for all these RS sources that have just been obsoleted to be forgotten entirely, and it's definitely a notable aspect of Spygate. Maybe it could be an example of how occasionally a conspiracy theory turns out to have substantial elements of truth on the Conspiracy Theory article too, but that's another discussion SeanusAurelius (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Sounds like WP:OR to me. In general, articles are about their topics, not the the media coverage of those topics. The media coverage of the topic can occasionally become noteworthy, but only when there are additional reliable sources covering the media coverage. In this case I haven't seen any reliable sources about the media coverage of Spygate--yet. R2 (bleep) 18:41, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • This New York Times article admits that spying occurred and specifically mentions Spygate. From the article "The American government’s affiliation with the woman, who said her name was Azra Turk, is one previously unreported detail of an operation that has become a political flash point in the face of accusations by President Trump and his allies that American law enforcement and intelligence officials spied on his campaign to undermine his electoral chances. Last year, he called it Spygate." So either Spygate is not a conspiracy theory or the New York Times is promoting conspiracy theories. Which is it???--Rusf10 (talk) 02:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
    • It was a law enforcement operation. This is one of the techniques they can use. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
      • With all due respect, you seem a bit confused about what the article is actually saying. This was not a traditional "law enforcement operation," it was a counterintelligence operation against a member of a political campaign. It says it right in the article. Although I fail to understand what your point is in calling it a "law enforcement operation," I surmise from your other comments here that you aim to downplay the significance of what happened to George Papadopolous in London. Let's be absolutely clear about what this article is saying: the FBI's counterintelligence division was running an active operation against a campaign worker on foreign soil using a spy. Yes, spy. She was using an assumed identity operating outside of US soil. That is pretty major news even on its own, and would completely destroy the notion that this was somehow a "conspiracy theory" when the NYT is corroborating it. It is very obvious that you are having problems judging critical source material for this article in NPOV. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 02:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
        • The FBI was following up on credible allegations of Russian interference and cooperation from the Trump campaign. Again, nothing shady about that. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Papadopoulos has said that Azra Turk was working for the CIA. Even if she was FBI, it'd be counter-intel, not law enforcement. FWIW Spygate is obviously not a conspiracy theory as by definition a conspiracy theory has no evidence for it except supposition. It was a basically true allegation that was widely dismissed as a conspiracy theory, "shady" or not. SeanusAurelius (talk) 03:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
        • SeanusAurelius, you're supposing that the Trump campaign was spied upon, when really there was a valid investigation. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Calling a legitimate and necessary investigation of foreign meddling and potential treasonous activity "spying" is... well, it's gaslighting. THAT is the "conspiracy theory". That FBI doing it's fucking job was somehow a nefarious plot rather than... FBI doing its job.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Source: "'HE called it Spygate"

Rusf10: "New York Times is promoting conspiracy theories"

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

I already provided the full quote above. The title of the article is "F.B.I. Sent Investigator Posing as Assistant to Meet With Papadopoulos in 2016". Do you know what an investigator posing as an assistant is? that's a spy! Spy: "1. a person employed by a government to obtain secret information or intelligence about another, usually hostile, country, especially with reference to military or naval affairs. 2.a person who keeps close and secret watch on the actions and words of another or others. 3. a person who seeks to obtain confidential information about the activities, plans, methods, etc., of an organization or person, especially one who is employed for this purpose by a competitor" [18] If she wasn't a spy, she would have just told him who she was and not pretended to be someone else.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Source says Trump called it Spygate. You claim that the NY Times is supporting a conspiracy theory. See the problem? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
He called it spygate, you can call it something else if you want. But it is not a conspiracy theory because the spying actually happened. See the problem?--Rusf10 (talk) 05:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
There was no "spying". There was an investigation. The problem was Russian interference and Trump campaign cooperation. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Are you serious??? The investigator sent by the FBI was spying by definition. The only question is whether it was legal or not. The problem was Russian interference and Trump campaign cooperation. And after two years of investigation, Bob Mueller came to the conclusion that the Trump campaign did not cooperate with the Russians but you still believe that it did? You need to accept the facts. The Trump campaign did not collude with the Russians.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
You we can all benefit from bringing down the tension level and sticking with the facts. No one is convincing anyone that so-and-so did such-and-such, nor does anyone need to. If we all remember that our standard is verifiability, not truth then we can focus on what the sources, not on our personal beliefs. R2 (bleep) 19:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
The report reads clear in that the Trump campaign was open and receptive to Russian help. It does not say that they violated any laws, potentially due to incompetence, such as Don Jr not knowing his Russia meeting violated law. This is off the topic anyway, the investigation was needed, and as far as we know, conducted appropriately. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
No, this is important because you seem reluctant to accept the underlying facts which are that the Trump campaign did not collude with Russia. And now you're putting your own spin on it saying that the wanted to collude but were too incompetent to do so.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
The truth is pretty clear. I know this is an op-ed, but the title should make it clear it's not "my" spin: "Mueller’s findings: Too stupid to conspire. Too incompetent to obstruct." – Muboshgu (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
As you said its an op-ed (and a poorly written one too). 100% spin in that piece, the writer is cherry picking the report. Mueller never called anyone incompetent or stupid in the report. He only quoted part of Meuller's reasoning which also included a lack of evidence. What the Mueller report actually says about the decision of whether to charge anyone with a crime: The Office considered whether this evidence would establish a conspiracy to violate the foreign contributions ban, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; the solicitation of an illegal foreign-source contribution; or the acceptance or receipt of "an express or implied promise to make a [foreign-source] contribution," both in violation of 52 U.S.C. § 3012l(a)(l)(A), (a)(2). There are reasonable arguments that the offered information would constitute a "thing of value" within the meaning of these provisions, but the Office determined that the government would not be likely to obtain and sustain a conviction for two other reasons: first, the Office did not obtain admissible evidence likely to meet the government's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these individuals acted "willfully," i.e., with general knowledge of the illegality of their conduct; and, second, the government would likely encounter difficulty in proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of the promised information exceeded the threshold for a criminal violation, Doing something willfully has nothing to do with intelligence. Willful is a legal term, it means intentional. For example, when someone is charged with murder it must be proven they did so willfully (ie. not by accident).--Rusf10 (talk) 00:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

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

No, that's not what the Times is saying. The Times is detailing the FBI doing a legitimate investigation. Which is not spying. And the article title requires consensus to change. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
You and the other fellow are confused. Spying can be legitimate or illegitimate. It's only necessary attributes are secrecy and an information gathering or sabotage motive, in this case information gathering. Trump was ridiculed because the actual allegation of spying was considered baseless. Whether it was legitimate or not, spying occurred. ::Whether the spying was for nefarious political interference or legitimate counterintelligence is unknown by the public as the original unredacted FISA warrants have never been issued. You don't know, and nor do I if the investigation was legitimately premised. It's certainly not a conspiracy theory, as a) it is falsifiable and b) there is some circumstantial evidence that the White House was involved (e.g. Strzok's texts) and c) Prominent, well placed individuals such as Bill Barr regard it as an open question. Speculative material doesn't belong in an encyclopedia; and unfortunately, the motives for the spying are now speculative on both sides.
The article should reflect that the spying (call it surveillance if you like) did occur.
WP:UNDUE requires that the article represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. SeanusAurelius (talk) 09:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
@SeanusAurelius: - Wikipedia can state it is spying only if reliable sources call it spying. Wikipedia can state this is Spygate only if reliable sources call this Spygate. We're not going to use your definition of spying, my definition of spying, your definition of legitimate etc. We use reliable sources, period. starship.paint (edits | talk) 10:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
The NYT article in question refers to it as Spygate:
"The American government’s affiliation with the woman, who said her name was Azra Turk, is one previously unreported detail of an operation that has become a political flash point in the face of accusations by President Trump and his allies that American law enforcement and intelligence officials spied on his campaign to undermine his electoral chances. Last year, he called it Spygate." This RS refers to the body of accusations by Trump as Spygate, and this is a part of it. *You* may not think it's part of Spygate, but the RS does, and as such the article is required to cover it.
And as you quoted spied on his campaign to undermine his electoral chances. Whether you call it spying or any other term, it is a debunked conspiracy theory. There is no evidence that anyone spied on his campaign to undermine his electoral chances. O3000 (talk) 12:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

Basically Spygate originally was claims of a spy being implanted into the campaign early on. But now an undercover agent talking with a member of campaign who was already under investigation in September of 2016 is being used as "confirmation of it" by some. Still nothing to show a spy being implanted into campaign, which a conversation at a bar is not. Still nothing "early on" since September was a year after he announced candidacy, and 4 months after he became presumptive nominee(or roughly in middle between official nomination and election). It has evolved to the point where any action by FBI that invovled trump campaign is going to be lumped into it. Might need to decide in future(after current MR is finished, whether the article needs to be renamed(and severally rescoped) to Operation Crossfire Hurricane with just one section on the conspiracy theory, or the Operation to get split to its own page and the conspiracy theory parts mostly remaining here. WikiVirusC(talk) 12:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I think the SpyGate article should be about SpyGate. I think a follow up section can be added which adds all the subsequent accusations of spying on Trump, none of which were "politically motivated surveillance of his campaign".O3000 (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
@WikiVirusC: The supreme irony of you trying to dictate the definition of "Spygate" is that it is completely at odds with how the New York Times article defines it. Here how the article defines Spygate: "accusations by President Trump and his allies that American law enforcement and intelligence officials spied on his campaign to undermine his electoral chances. Last year, he called it Spygate." According to the article, Spygate is the accusation that American law enforcement and intelligence officials spied on his campaign. Where are you even getting the idea that it was specifically about a spy literally being planted inside the Trump campaign? I see elsewhere in the talk page that people want to define it like that but the NYT itself does not agree with that definition as of 5/2/2019. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I have not at any point tried to dictate the definition of Spygate, I simply stated my opinions about it. In the comment you replied to, I said what it was originally described as, and what it has now evolved to now. I get the idea about it specifically being about a spy implanted into the campaign from when the original story about Spygate came about. This Wikipedia article has been up long before yesterday's NYT article that you quoted, and my definition of Spygate's origin come from roughly a year of coverage on the story. Read the lead sentence in the lead paragraph Spygate is a conspiracy theory initiated by President Donald Trump in May 2018 that the Obama administration had implanted a spy in his 2016 presidential campaign for political purposes. It has four sources included with it, including one from the NYT as well[19]. Last week, President Trump promoted new, unconfirmed accusations to suit his political narrative: that a “criminal deep state” element within Mr. Obama’s government planted a spy deep inside his presidential campaign to help his rival, Hillary Clinton, win — a scheme he branded “Spygate.” Stop acting like I am making stuff up out of nowhere. WikiVirusC(talk) 16:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Considering there is no connection between this story and the "Spygate" allegation, yes. But, I expect that reliable sources will, if they haven't already, connect the story to the conspiracy theory. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
If they do we add it. If they don't we don't. starship.paint (edits | talk) 14:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: "There is no connection between this story and the "Spygate" allegation" - this is intentionally mischaracterizing the article; you are completely wrong. Did you even read the article? Here is a quote directly from the New York Times article: "The American government’s affiliation with the woman, who said her name was Azra Turk, is one previously unreported detail of an operation that has become a political flash point in the face of accusations by President Trump and his allies that American law enforcement and intelligence officials spied on his campaign to undermine his electoral chances. Last year, he called it Spygate." It has everything to do with Spygate. It is literally a confirmation that Spygate is not a conspiracy theory. It is very obvious what you are doing here and I think you should take a step back and assess whether you are capable of coming at this from NPOV, because it is apparent that NPOV is not important to you at all. You are intentionally mischaracterizing what the article is saying because you don't like the idea that it completely vindicates Trump's allegations of spying on his campaign, which it absolutely does. You are embarrassing yourself. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
SIPPINONTECH, I'll say this again: the NYT is reporting one new detail of an FBI investigation. They did not confirm that the FBI did anything inappropriate. As far as your comments about my supposed POV, pot meet kettle. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: This is beyond ridiculous at this point - it is spying whether or not it was conducted appropriately. You continue to create strawman arguments to deflect from the central issue with the Wikipedia article, which is that there was actually spying on the Trump campaign. Whether that spying was conducted appropriately (which remains to be seen as it is the subject of an ongoing investigation by the Attorney General of the United States) is completely irrelevant in terms of characterizing the behavior of the FBI as spying. It absolutely was spying, and this is pretty obviously no longer just a "conspiracy theory." SIPPINONTECH (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree with you, Starship,paint. And the aspects of Crossfire Hurricane that are relevant to Spygate can be mentioned in this article, summary style. There's clearly a connection between the two, as evidenced by the fact that sources like the new NY Times story discuss both in combination, but it should be made clear somehow that Spygate and Crossfire Hurricane are separate things and that the argument that the existence of Crossfire Hurricane proves Spygate to be true is still a fringe theory. R2 (bleep) 15:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Yep. Too many editors ate conflating the two, which is making for all of these circular conversations. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
@Ahrtoodeetoo: Where are you getting the idea that these are "separate things?" According to the NYT article, Spygate refers to "accusations by President Trump and his allies that American law enforcement and intelligence officials spied on his campaign to undermine his electoral chances. Last year, he called it Spygate." Crossfire Hurricane is part of Spygate, it is absolutely not a "separate thing." Crossfire hurricane was literally "law enforcement and intelligence officials spy(ing) on (Trump's) campaign." SIPPINONTECH (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
If you're going to say that Spygate and Hurricane Crossfire are the same thing, then you need to find reliable sources that say that expressly. Just because two things are mentioned in the same source doesn't make them the same thing. (Please don't ping me, since I'm watching this page.) R2 (bleep) 15:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
SIPPINONTECH, you state: According to the NYT article, Spygate refers to "accusations by President Trump and his allies that American law enforcement and intelligence officials spied on his campaign to undermine his electoral chances. Yes, that is what SpyGate is -- a hoax. Nothing in that article says that any gov’t agency was spying on Trump’s campaign to undermine his electoral chances. It’s a conspiracy theory. O3000 (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • As more information comes out about Hurricane Crossfire, I'm actually starting to lean toward the position that we should expand that new article that Starship.paint has created -- focusing primarily on the verifiable facts about it, rather than the fringe allegations -- and then, after that, merge this article into it as a section. The final product would look something like Murder of Seth Rich. Like this topic, it's about a real, non-fringe event that has a section about a notable fringe theory about the event. R2 (bleep) 15:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree with this. We'll no doubt have to discuss just what to include. But I'm on board with the basic idea. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

Extended content
It really is rich to listen to Adam Schiff's "Trump colluded with the Russians!!!" thoroughly debunked conspiracy theory get parroted by The New York Times, The Washington Post, and by anyone else sympathetic to the Democratic Party for over two years straight, a whopper of a theory that would all be revealed by the venerable Robert Mueller, get completely shut down by Mueller and his team of Hillary and Obama donors, and then watch these people have the temerity to haughtily label undisputed spying operations as "conspiracy theories." Operation Crossfire Hurricane should be merged with Spygate. When people use the phrase "Spygate," they are referring to any efforts by the Obama administration to covertly gather intelligence on the Trump campaign, on our soil and overseas, whether or not YOU personally think it was justified and proper. This includes Manafort getting wiretapped, Susan Rice/Samantha Power unmasking all kinds of Trump folks (which Rice denied with an eloquent retort: "I didn't do nuthin' to nobody"), CIA veteran Stefan Halper and a woman using the assumed identity "Azra Turk" attempting to gather intel on Trump folks, and everything else we don't know yet that the IG investigations are looking into. This probably also includes Peter "We'll stop it" Strzok's actions as well.
So, why is this title so controversial? Lay the facts out, let the reader decide if all this amounts to a "conspiracy" or not. Adam Schiff and James Clapper would have us believe that all of these actions are completely legal. Many others believe that all of these actions are tantamount to a coup attempt, and we can expect indictments to start getting handed down as early as June. We just don't know yet. If you can honestly look at the first paragraphs of this article and say that it's neutral, you're either being disingenuous or are letting your biases override your judgment. If you're attacking CNN as "alt-right," you're doing it wrong. If you are engaging in a FUD campaign against MSNBC because even they are now waking up to the facts, you are certainly doing it wrong. “The Trump campaign was improperly spied on” is an opinion. We shouldn’t be pushing any opinions, which is why this article is embarrassing and makes all of us look terrible.2600:1012:B02B:443B:D516:B506:FBF0:C8E0 (talk) 05:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
When people use the phrase "Spygate," they are referring to any efforts by the Obama administration to covertly gather intelligence on the Trump campaign, on our soil and overseas[citation needed] Seriously, instead of typing 350+ words here in a talk page, why don't you contribute 350 words to the article that obviously needs expansion? And if that page is to be merged with Spygate, isn't it in your interest to work on that page anyway? starship.paint (edits | talk) 05:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
As I mentioned earlier, the article is locked to prevent anyone with less than 500 edits from making the article neutral. The ludicrous "Conspiracy by Donald Trump!!!!" title is in stone. You could have Stefan Halper give a press conference tomorrow, say: "I spied on Trump for the FBI, and I was wrong for doing so" and that title wouldn't change. How do I know? Because "Russian collusion!!!" is not labeled correctly as a conspiracy theory anywhere on Wikipedia. I couldn't find a single instance correctly describing the absurd conspiracy theory that Trump or his associates worked with the Russian government to help his campaign. It's always given great gravitas and loaded with links to newspapers like The Washington Post and magazines like the New Yorker to perpetuate the FUD campaign and further confuse your average person who doesn't have time to follow this closely. Besides. I think we both know that if I started making the article neutral, I would get reverted immediately by someone who gets their "news" from people like Jake Tapper and Paul Krugman, and therefore have been taught that it’s perfectly legitimate to wiretap the opposing party’s presidential nominee’s campaign manager, unmask his staff members, deploy at least two assets into his campaign, and forget to tell anyone about it and forget to give the nominee a defensive briefing to alert them to potential impropriety or Russian collusion. One thing at a time. The building is burning down right now (“conspiracy theory by Donald Trump”) - we can deal the stains in the carpet (the merge) afterward. 2600:1012:B02B:443B:D516:B506:FBF0:C8E0 (talk) 06:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
This article. Operation Crossfire Hurricane This article. Operation Crossfire Hurricane This article. Gosh. starship.paint (edits | talk) 06:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Gosh is right. Now you see why they should be merged. When “Trump and his allies” use the term Spygate, they’re talking about Operation Crossfire Hurricane, which the left has decided is proper and legitimate before the facts are known, and the right has decided that we need to get to the bottom of it and find out more to make sure it was all on the up and up. Same topic, two different articles. 2600:1012:B02B:443B:BC4F:93BC:DECB:9ACB (talk) 14:19, 4 May 2019 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE O3000 (talk) 11:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
This won't happen until the majority reliable source viewpoint is that Spygate IS Crossfire Hurricane. Which assuredly, has not been proven on Wikipedia. Simply asserting it does not make it true. starship.paint (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Correct - what makes it true is that it’s true, not the fact that someone’s “asserting” anything or if someone is regurgitating the teachings of NPR and Stephen Colbert. That’s why you go to the facts. Every news article referencing Spygate, whether it be written by left-wing writers or right-wing writers, references Crossfire Hurricane one way or another. Why? Because Crossfire Hurricane is part of Spygate. This whole article is about Hurricane. Halper is mentioned 18 times and his photo is in the article. He is central to the FBI’s operation, and that’s not in dispute. Spygate IS Crossfire Hurricane. What we don’t know for a fact yet is whether everything else that we’ve learned was also part of the Operation, such as wiretapping Americans, unmasking Americans, and the “insurance policy” that now-fired FBI agent Strzok discussed in now-fired FBI acting director McCabe’s office. 2600:1012:B02B:443B:BC4F:93BC:DECB:9ACB (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE O3000 (talk) 11:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • To editors who think this new story on Hurricane Crossfire legitimizes Spygate or proves it true: Last night, PBS Newshour interviewed Adam Goldman, the lead author of the story. During the interview Goldman said, "So far, nobody's provided evidence that it [the operation] was somehow illegal or unjustified." Full clip can be watched here. R2 (bleep) 18:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Extended content
Thanks for the clip R2. Goldberg did his best to advance the Democratic Party's message, that this was all on the straight and narrow and the Comey/Obama FBI was just taking normal, perfectly legitimate measures in response to "an unprecedented attack on the very fabric of our democracy" (Russians letting Papadopolous know that they have emails). Michael Schmidt, another one of the Azra Turk story's writers, echoed this sentiment on MSNBC, also adding that "it depends on what your definition of 'spying' is" when asked the obvious question: "How is this not spying?"[20]. The big takeaway here is that it's all a matter of opinion, as they both stated. Was the spying improper? That's a matter of opinion, and you're not a proponent of a "conspiracy theory" if you disagree with the people who think it's okay to be sending in ex-CIA operatives into the opposition party's campaign without a heads-up to the nominee. Was it illegal? TBD. The Attorney General is looking into it, and we still have two pending IG investigations. It's much too early to be pushing readers toward one side or the other with blatantly POV article titles, whether that be "Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump)" or "Spygate (illegal Obama administration attempt to install Hillary Clinton in the White House)". Facts first. 2600:1012:B02B:443B:BC4F:93BC:DECB:9ACB (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE O3000 (talk) 11:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Sigh. This isn't Democrats vs. Republicans. This is facts vs conspiracy theory. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
We don't make these determinations. We use reliable sources. O3000 (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
We can all agree on that. Democrats don't get to have their narrative pushed in their article, and neither do Republicans. What's the conspiracy theory that Democrats and their media corporations say is being pushed, exactly? That Republicans consider the spying that was performed on Trump campaign is improper? That's just an opinion. The legality of said spying is yet to be determined. Many "reliable" sources don't have the integrity to label their opinion pieces as such, so their readers are fooled into believing that the author's viewpoints are indisputable facts. Neither side's viewpoint should be given extra weight, especially not before the investigations are concluded or we know basic information like the details of the “insurance policy” Peter Strzok discussed in Andy's office to “stop” Trump’s election or how many other assets attempted to extract intel from Trump campaign officials. 2600:1012:B02B:443B:BC4F:93BC:DECB:9ACB (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE O3000 (talk) 11:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
If you have a problem with the reliability of a source, this is the wrong place. Take it to WP:RSN. Also, your last sentence is wild speculation that does not belong here. O3000 (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
You can take it to WP:RSN if you want, I won't try and stop you. We'll stay here and continue discussing Spygate (2016 election controversy). We need to be really mindful about telling other people what does or doesn't belong on this page. Nobody owns it, and that includes you. If I want to say that we don't have the details about what Peter Strzok, who promised to “stop” Trump’s election with his "insurance policy,” I will say it. It might be relevant to Spygate, and we need to keep in mind that we have very little understanding of exactly what was going on during this operation, who was involved, who ordered it, who knew what, and when. Maybe Adam Schiff and New York Times reporters feel they have enough information to make conclusions, but we have a higher standard here. 2600:1012:B02B:443B:BC4F:93BC:DECB:9ACB (talk) 20:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE O3000 (talk) 11:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk pages are not free speech zones, and no, you may not simply say whatever you want. Specifically, as per WP:BLP, you may not use them to make wild speculation or insinuation about living people, and accordingly I have redacted those comments. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Nobody called the talk pages “free speech zones” and yes, if I want to explain to someone the relevance of (Redacted) and his “insurance policy” that was discussed in Andy’s office, you’re not going to bully me or anyone else into shutting up. Go censor a website you own if you want, not this one. I have replaced my comment and ask that you pick somebody else to battle with. 2600:1012:B02B:443B:BC4F:93BC:DECB:9ACB (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE O3000 (talk) 11:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
This is the second time that you have placed a derogative nickname on this page for a living person. This is a gross violation of WP:BLP. O3000 (talk) 02:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
It doesn’t violate policy to put someone’s promise to subvert democracy via text message on a talk page. You can ask a moderator if you want I guess, if that’s how you want to spend your Saturday evening. This Baranof person wants to spend his changing around people’s comments because he doesn’t want people to know who Peter Strzok is, so obviously there’s worse things to expend your energy on. 2600:1012:B02B:443B:BC4F:93BC:DECB:9ACB (talk) 02:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE O3000 (talk) 11:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Hey look, it's possible to discuss living people without taking cheap shots at them. Congratulations, you figured it out. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I've deleted the last comment in the thread - the IP is pretty clearly Hidden Tempo evading his block. I'll try to find time to strike their edits. User:Doug Weller 10:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Just a massive waste of editors' time ... on a talk page. Meh. starship.paint (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

National Review

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

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

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

Thanks for the link, though it seems you're misrepresenting the situation in multiple ways. First off, your statement that "NR is a perennial RS" is at odds with WP:RSP, which indicates that there's no consensus as to the reliability of the National Review. I haven't reviewed the underlying WP:RSN discussions, but it bears mention. Second, the relevant source paragraph is:
It’s a curious answer. One would think that if Steele and Halper had been the only Confidential Human Sources used against the Trump campaign, Moffa would have had no difficulty answering that there had been two CHSs, although the second sentence leaves some ambiguity. He was clearly involved in meetings where the use of CHSs was discussed, and he appears to assure lawmakers that he isn’t trying to pretend he’s “not aware of any CHSs.” He just “legitimately can’t tell you the overall number that are engaged.” That he can’t tell “the overall number” of Confidential Human Sources — that “I just don’t know it” — leaves open the possibility that there were more than just a few.
That's pretty clearly speculation and isn't reliable, regardless of whether NR is a generally reliable outlet. R2 (bleep) 22:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) SeanusAurelius, I think you're misunderstanding UNDUE. This is one report, which you suggest isn't definitive ("there may have been") based on a confidential transcript they got ahold of, but aren't sharing. Seems like WP:RSBREAKING is the more appropriate policy. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
That's some nifty conjecture there, with a dash of sleight of hand, to make something of a doc they got exclusive access to. Alas, unpersuasive. soibangla (talk) 22:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Sounds very speculative. Omit for now, review if/when more information emerges, for example in the upcoming IG report. — JFG talk 03:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
No wonder Moffa couldn't answer since Steele was never a "Confidential Human Sources used against the Trump campaign." He was a paid CHS used before the Trump campaign, but unrelated to the Russia investigation in any sense. While he was collecting info from his sources for the dossier, the FBI discussed, and intended, to pay him as a CHS, but that status and agreement was canceled and he never received any payment. This is muddied info. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spygate_(conspiracy_theory)/Archive_5&oldid=1091483229"