Talk:Spygate (conspiracy theory)/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Clapper

See here: [1]. Might want to incorporate, since this is contrary to his earlier statements that are reported in the current version of the article. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I agree that it should be added in light of the current content. However it should be added with appropriate context. The first question is whether the source is reliable and should be used to explain the context, or whether we should go back to the primary source (CNN footage). I don't have a firm answer for that. According to WP:RSP, there's no consensus whether the Washington Examiner is generally reliable, but there is consensus that it's a partisan source that requires in-text attribution. In any case, even the Examiner source says, Clapper said that “it’s not a term of art used by intelligence people“ but admitted that “I guess it meets the dictionary definition of surveillance or spying, a term I don't particularly like.” Something like that would be required at a minimum. In addition to that we have Christopher Wray saying he would not describe the bureau's traditional surveillance as “spying”. [2] There may be additional noteworthy (and non-fringe) viewpoints out there. R2 (bleep) 16:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Presumptions about surveillance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The recent Kessler piece here [3] says that the Steele dossier is a "controversial aspect" of the FISA warrant application. For my part, I don't see a lot of difference between the warrant application having "controversial aspects" and the surveillance being "questionable". Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regulations applicable to FBI investigation

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

Two articles or one?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current definitions of Spygate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One other source:

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

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

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

And another:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[R] [4] (5/2019) simply - Spygate conspiracy theory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requested move 2 May 2019

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

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

---

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

Let's see if we can make a fresh start here. The above discussion is a complete trainwreck, because the proposed new title was changed partway through, so that it's pretty much impossible to tell what version people are referring to when they say "support" or "oppose". By my count at least seven titles were proposed here. I'll list them and we can discuss them by number: what we support and how strongly, what we oppose and how strongly, and what we could at least accept. If people prefer they could rank their preferences. The whole idea is to have one section where it is clear what people are supporting and what they oppose. Some titles were proposed by one person but not taken up by anyone else, and I have omitted them, but people could add other proposals here if they choose. R2 mentioned and linked an RM discussion in February,[6] saying it obtained consensus to add "by Donald Trump". That brief discussion had four supports, one oppose, and two comments; not exactly overwhelming. I am hopeful we may be able to get a broader consensus here if we can stay on topic and be clear what we are talking about. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Proposed titles for this article

1. Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump)

2. Spygate (conspiracy theory)

3. Spygate conspiracy theory

4. Spygate (political conspiracy theory)

5. Spygate (Donald Trump conspiracy theory)

6. Spygate (2016 United States presidential election)

7. FBI surveillance of Donald Trump campaign

People's choices

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  --В²C ☎ 16:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

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

  Update: Oppose all titles including "conspiracy theory" – Now that the New York Times has published this: "F.B.I. Sent Investigator Posing as Assistant to Meet With Trump Aide in 2016"[7], there is no basis for calling this affair a conspiracy theory. — JFG ^talk 05:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support Spygate (political conspiracy theory), okay with Spygate (conspiracy theory), per my concurrence with Bradv above. Okay with other options which specify "conspiracy theory". Spygate (2016 United States presidential election) is completely unacceptable, as it gives legitimacy to a completely unsubstantiated conspiracy theory. Safrolic (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support 2, 3, 4 in that order as supported by sources and in compliance with the article title policy, which directs us to be both concise and accurate; oppose all others for the reasons stated above (because we don't need Trump's name in the article, and because we have substantially better alternatives); strongly oppose 7 because, even under the most generous reading, it conflates lawful investigations with the unsubstantiated conspiracy theory that Trump and allies have promoted. (I think we already have (several) articles on the actual investigations into Trump; if someone wants to add more well-sourced information to those articles, they are welcome to do so; but we absolutely owe it to our readers to do what the reliable sources do, which is clearly separate fact and fiction.) Neutrality^talk 18:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support 2,3,6,4 I stand by what I said in the previous discussions. I think that moving it to 7 would be significantly broadening the scope of the article, while 1 and 5 are unnecessarily specific. Added: I don't necessarily oppose 6 as other users do, but I agree that it may cause confusion. StudiesWorld (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC) (moved and edited: 18:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC))
• 5, 1, 4. Option 5 is accurate and WP:CONCISE. Opt. 1 is accurate and less concise. Opt. 4 isn't wrong but seems to whitewash; this really is about Trump and what Trump says and allegedly thinks (though most people I know are convinced Trump doesn't believe what he says, but just depends on FUD tactics to confuse the public). The outright failures: Opt. 3 isn't viable because it's not how WP disambiguates (a WP:NATURALDIS has to actually be natural, and the phrase "Spygate conspiracy theory" isn't because sources don't use it with any frequency). Opt. 6 isn't viable, because Spygate is not a 2016 US presidential election; that's blatantly false and confusing pseudo-disambiguation. Opt. 7 isn't viable because we can't state in Wikipedia's own voice that there was FBI surveillance of his campaign (especially since the truth appears to be the opposite; and because of Neutrality's point, just above). Option 2 also seems to fail, per Ahrtoodeetoo's arguments in the discussion section below; RS have also frequently described Spygate (NFL) as a conspiracy theory.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC); rev'd. 21:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Option 6 is appropriately neutral. It doesn't matter whether the "spy" was "inside" the campaign just as it doesn't matter whether someone was murdered with garden hoe versus an axe. The point is that undercover informants (plural - see NYT[8]) were spying on the Trump campaign - asking questions about the Trump campaign, and not merely about individuals who were associated with the Trump campaign. The Attorney General of the US calls it "spying," and everyone in political commentary who is not carrying water for the Democrats use the term "spying" as well. Note that the NYT article ties itself back to Trump's Spygate tweet. Wookian (talk) 01:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oppose all others. Option 6 is POV because FBI director Christopher Wray has now denied the spying claims [9]. Options 1-5 are wrong because AG Barr made a spying claim that does not involve conspiracy [10]. wumbolo ^^^ 17:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

New Discussion

• I hope editors will remember that the purpose of a parenthetical is to disambiguate from other topics of the same name, i.e. other Spygates. As such, please bear in mind that Spygate (NFL) has actually received more RS coverage than the subject of this article and has been described as a conspiracy theory by various sources (ex: [11][12][13]). Also, although this Spygate is verifiably a conspiracy theory, there's no requirement that our article be labeled as such its title. As far as I know the practice of putting "(conspiracy theory)" in the article title is a purely Trump-era phenomenon. We have dozens of articles on conspiracy theories that don't have titles like that. R2 (bleep) 23:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  I'll thank you not to edit my comments. If you want me to strike something, you can ask me to do so. I've removed the strike you placed in my comment. Halper was paid by the DoD, as reported here: [14]. He certainly was an informant, and he certainly was paid under the Obama administration, and that's what I meant by 'paid informant'. The repeated claim that 'spygate' refers to a conspiracy theory is out of step with the RSs, which conflict on this matter. Some RSs (NYT and Vox, for example) say that 'spygate' refers to all of Trump's unsubstantiated claims, which they characterize as a conspiracy theory. But other sources do not use 'spygate' for the conjunction of all Trump's unsubstantiated claims, but just for the broader claim that there was spying on the campaign, or for the claim that Halper was sent to surveil the campaign. See the discussion about 'spygate' being ambiguous. Barr is concerned enough about possible wrongdoing to investigate the matter, a fact that is widely reported. So there is obviously disagreement and controversy about whether there was wrongdoing. Finally, you said that there was no surveillance. Now you've backed off to claim that there was no surveillance "of the sort Trump described". These are different claims. I was taking issue with the former claim. There was surveillance, because four members of the campaign were surveilled by Halper, who was an informant for the FBI who received payments from the DoD under the Obama administration. The Halper affair was part of Crossfire Hurricane, the investigation which Comey himself described before congress as an investigation of the Trump campaign. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

  Also, this edit [15], which you made after I criticized what you said, and which made my criticism look off target, but which was not noted here, is completely outrageous. Editing my comment, and then covertly editing your comment to make my remarks appear to be in error, is really beyond the pale. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You have cropped out the most substantive part of my argument, so I will repeat it: Something is a conspiracy theory if it meets the definition given in a major dictionary, not if Vox says so. WP:RS does not say what you are claiming that it says. It directs us to make "sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered." I ask that all parties to this discussion refrain from "attacks on the characteristics and authority of the writer," per WP:TPNO.[16] Slithytoad (talk) 04:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Mr Ernie: - even in your own OR, you admit Trump got it wrong - without the correct details. He did get it wrong, that's why sources called it a conspiracy theory. That's no reason to scrap this article. Trump said something wrong and reliable sources called him out of it. You don't get to say anything you want and mean literally anything, but this is what Trump does, and it's wrong. Example: [17] "I don’t know if you remember, a long time ago, very early on I used the word ‘wiretap,’ and I put in quotes, meaning surveillance, spying you can sort of say whatever you want," If Operation Crossfire Hurricane had misconduct, so be it. It can have its own article, doesn't have to encroach on this one. starship.paint (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

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

This seems to be what you're talking about:

• Surveillance of the Trump campaign (disambiguation)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Closure

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

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

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

2. Spygate (conspiracy theory) - 20 supports

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

3. Spygate conspiracy theory - 15 supports

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

4. Spygate (political conspiracy theory) - 20 supports

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

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

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

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

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

7. FBI surveillance of Donald Trump campaign - 10 supports

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

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

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

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

---

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

Reaction to the closure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additionally lets look at the caveat provided by WaPo.

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

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

Your comments above are reasonable, however I am sure the question will be asked about whether a reliable source considers the facts the same way. The challenge in this discussion has been getting recognition for journalistic sources who have been doing the most significant digging and analysis on the legitimacy of the predication of the investigations, e.g. Solomon and Carter. On a side note, the question of 'whether the investigation crossed a line into spying on the Trump campaign itself' appears to be answered by the NYT[18], which reported that the undercover agent "Azra Turk" asked direct questions about the campaign and Russia. That is spying on the campaign, not just on "Trump campaign officials" as individuals. Wookian (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• Surveillance of the Trump campaign

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, in addition to a Pulitzer prize winning journalist who received her prize for reporting on the Trump campaign, we have: [19][20][21][22][23][24][25] And, a source that doesn't directly call it a conspiracy theory in its own voice is NOT a !vote that it isn't. And, we also have the English language. This is a theory about a conspiracy. O3000 (talk) 14:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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