Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:05, 28 April 2019

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Misplaced Pages's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Spygate (conspiracy theory) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information Enforcement procedures: Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance. Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established. The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Template:WikiProject Donald Trump Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics: American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This page needs to be edited immediately

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• @Starship.paint and Muboshgu: Certainly I agree with the need to establish a consensus; my concern is that the current "consensus" was prematurely established and is at the moment grossly outdated, being founded on sources from a year or more ago, and is now enshrined by protections that preclude the ability of ordinary editors to correct it. People come to Misplaced Pages for information; this page is inaccurate and inadequate and cannot be modified, and now, as the topic becomes relevant to current events, you say it is time to slow down the correction process? I unreservedly disagree with that aspect of your proposal. What error do you fear?
• If you genuinely believe Barr's "think"ing (investigation by the US Attorney General) is a different and separate topic from "Spygate", would you support the creation of an new, independent article? Or do you believe this new information, derived from reliable sources, might be more relevant here? To be fair, we can always merge the two topics later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs)

• @SK8RBOI: - on a new article, the article needs to be specific about what it is talking about. There needs to be enough reliable source agreeing that they are talking about the same subject. Then the subject, and the article, will be considered notable. This whole talk page is overloading my brain, I can't recommend what to do, sorry. starship.paint ~ KO 00:00, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Starship.paint: What about "Illegal Surveillance on the 2016 Trump Campaign"? Plenty of articles talk about that without mentioning Spygate by name. If Spygate doesn't include in its definition all notable allegations re: illegal spying, then those allegations need a different home under a different title; they constitute parts of a broader topic that includes the narrowly-defined Spygate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 00:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• You'd have to find RS which document it. No "illegal" surveillance has been shown to exist. Also, the words "spy" and "spying" are being thrown around, often without mentioning Spygate, as a means to make the legitimate investigation into Russia's interference in the election and any possible connections to the Trump campaign look bad and illegal. Those investigations were/are legitimate, not illegal. They were never directed at the campaign for political purposes, but because the campaign was so deeply involved with Russians for no legitimate reasons, and they always lied about these secret meetings and contacts. That demands investigation, so it happened.

The only investigation that could be considered political was the production of the Steele dossier, and even then, Steele didn't know he was working for the DNC or Clinton campaign until much later. He was told to find out why Trump was so deeply involved with Russia, and that's when he found information that really alarmed him, and unlike the Trump campaign, he took that information to the FBI, which was the right thing to do. His actions were not political, but because of national security concerns. That's what motivated him to be against Trump. He saw Trump as a threat to national security, and history has shown him to be correct. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• @SK8RBOI: - personally I would go with Allegations of illegal surveillance on the 2016 Trump presidential campaign, since they haven't been proven. If they are eventually proven, then Illegal surveillance on the 2016 Trump presidential campaign. Of course, this article would need to establish notability, read WP:GNG. starship.paint ~ KO 09:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• Very fair points all around. Given the news coverage the last 2 weeks I'd hazard a bet they are notable or are at least becoming notable but I'll definitely look into it. Thanks for the suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 22:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

"False conspiracy theory" in lead

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

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

Survey

• No- As proposer. Given the statement by Attorney General Barr that he believes spying did occur, dismissing this a conspiracy theory is inappropriate. A neutral statement should however include that the allegations are unproven.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• No The Attorney General is "investigating" and "concerned" about the abuses described by the conspiracy theory, even if he would never use the term "Spygate" to describe them. It is dishonest to continue to name the claims enumerated in this article as outright falsehoods when they are just now coming under official scrutiny. "Unproven" is accurate. "False" reflects outdated RSs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 02:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

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

• Forget about Newsweek, then. Allow me to quote my unanswered question. "If you genuinely believe Barr's 'think'ing (investigation by the US Attorney General) is a different and separate topic from 'Spygate', would you support the creation of an new, independent article? Or do you believe this new information, derived from reliable sources, might be more relevant here? To be fair, we can always merge the two topics later." SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 17:46, April 12, 2019‎ (UTC)

This is a SPA account with very few editsVolunteer Marek (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

What exactly are you insinuating, Marek? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 18:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Please see section "False vs. Unsupported" below for more discussion of this point. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Not everyone sees it that way. Some would say step 1 should already have happened, but for some reason has been delayed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs)

• SK8RBOI Even if Step 1 has been delayed, I feel that you still need to take it step by step. Establish what Spygate is via consensus, then elaborate. Now there is no consensus for the other definitions in this article, so the elaborations can't magically go in unless people provide an abundance of reliable sources, which people are NOT doing. There's been like 2 reliable sources, from the same author on Newsweek. There's been 1 Axios and 1 RealClearInvestigations, both of which haven't been confirmed as a reliable source, they need to go to WP:RSN to get confirmed as reliable. Trying to do too much at one time loses the focus of editors, then we can't get consensus on anything much. starship.paint ~ KO 23:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• No It isn't yet clear if it is false. There is also the pointless redundancy of "false" and "conspiracy theory" together. Wingedsubmariner (talk) 03:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • This is a fair point. "Conspiracy theory" is enough. It doesn't also have to say "false". But "unproven" is misleading. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Yes soibangla (talk) 03:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Yes as of now because reliable sources report it to be so. Beyond the Newsweek source SIPPINONTECH brought up just a few hours ago (of which discussion is obviously ongoing), the rest of the sources, as presented in this article, present Spygate as a false conspiracy theory. Right now there are 55 sources in this article regarding this definition of Spygate. The opposers haven’t provided enough reliable sources explicitly connecting to Spygate to even establish an alternative definition as a minority viewpoint. Until then, this article should not be changed. starship.paint ~ KO 04:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Where in the current reliable sources is it said to be false (other than the Vox headline)? The sources consistently call it unsupported, not false. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• No Reliable sources certainly do not all agree. For example: Periander6 (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

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

• Yes - do not change anything until RS say otherwise. Barr saying its real does not make it real, anymore than if Donald Trump says it. --Gonnym (talk) 07:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• No obviously, per my comments in the above sections and the nominator. Anyways, saying something is a false conspiracy theory is an oxymoron and should be improved regardless. Mr Ernie (talk) 10:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Yes - Clearly what reliable secondary sources state, and we follow RS. Spygate is the conspiracy theory that Obama hired spy(s) to infiltrate the Trump campaign to help Hillary Clinton. No evidence of this has ever been provided. No spies have ever been named. Barr's statement has nothing to do with Spygate. Barr was referring to actions approved by multiple FISA judges as a part of an investigation into Russian influence in the 2016 election. FISA judges do not approve of infiltrating campaigns to influence elections. We should not allow imprecise language that suggests the Earth is flat. WP:RS O3000 (talk) 10:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• No as it is a fundamental mischaracterization of both what "Spygate" refers to, and as a result a misrepresentation of the very real and growing public evidence for the underlying scandal. "Spygate" refers to the broader investigation by the United States' intelligence apparatus including the FBI's Counterintelligence Division against members of Trump's Campaign and Transition Team. It is not about Halper or Mifsud specifically, although certainly the alleged attempts at intelligence gathering by human sources should be included under the broader umbrella of "Spygate." The bottom line is that the definition used in this article is far too narrow. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 12:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

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

• Yes, in part because the "no" option prescribes a particular alternative that is much worse. — Rhododendrites \\ 14:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Yes - We follow reliable sources, not the pronouncements of politicians. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• No - it's bad grammar in its redundancy. A theory is basically conjecture. Example: (1) John is spreading false information about a conspiracy theory to dismantle the power grid. (2) John's conspiracy theory is based on false information. Until proven otherwise, a theory remains a theory. Example: (1) The allegations of extortion were fallacious and motivated by conspiracy theories which led to investigations that failed to provide substantive evidence. Further, spying, surveillance, investigation - all similar but not necessarily illegal unless proven to be by a preponderance of evidence. Surveillance did take place without the knowledge of the people who were being surveilled - spying is defined as "secretly obtaining information". Semantics. _Talk 📧 15:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Yes per existing sources. Barr is not an independent source from the subject, so his statements carry zero weight in and of themselves; and currently, secondary coverage is still treating it as a conspiracy theory. --Aquillion (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. We follow what RS say, and Barr's statement does not change the fact that Trump pushed an accusation, without evidence, which has never been proven to be true, but was in fact false. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. Many new editors here misunderstand how Misplaced Pages works. We really do follow what the news reports and other reliable sources say. If they say the theory was debunked, then we say it was debunked. If they say it wasn’t debunked, then we say it wasn’t debunked. That’s how our community standards were made, for American politics as well as every other part of Misplaced Pages, in part to avoid these very sorts of acrimonious debates. If editors have a problem with what the newspapers have written, then you can write letters to their editors or blog or tweet about it. But this recent campaign to depart from the reliable sources here on Misplaced Pages leads to nothing but frustration. R2 (bleep) 00:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
• Yes Per sources. End of the story.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
• Yes per the unanimity of the reliable sources. EllenCT (talk) 02:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
• No. It's clear that members of the campaign were under surveillance, making at least part of the theory true. Contrary to what many are saying here, the reliable sources do not generally declare "Spygate" to be false. They often discuss whether the real surveillance which is known to have happened amounts to what Trump is calling "Spygate." I see the attempt to put the phrase "false conspiracy theory" in the lede as blatantly political, and this sort of political editing has become a major problem in the American Politics subject area. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Every conspiracy theory has an element of truth to it. Your logic seems to be akin to saying that Pizzagate wasn’t false because John Podesta did in fact e-mail people about pizza. R2 (bleep) 07:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

This is quite a bit different from Pizzagate. One of the central claims, of surveillance of members of the campaign, is true. The question of whether or not the surveillance was politically motivated is not settled. There is certainly abundant evidence of anti-Trump bias among some high-ranking officials in the FBI (e.g., the texts which have been published, and the discussions about removing him from office using the 25th Amendment). It's also true that some of the surveillance was leaked to the press in order to damage Trump and his associates (e.g., Flynn's conversations). Calling "Spygate" a "false conspiracy theory" in this context is extremely misleading. It smacks of political posturing, not the type of neutral presentation we're supposed to be giving here on Misplaced Pages. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

The exact same logic could be applied to Pizzagate. One of the central claims, that Podesta discussed pizza, is true. The question of whether he was actually referring to pedophilia is not settled between believers and the reputable media. There is certainly abundant evidence that many of Podesta’s colleagues went out for pizza with him and that many children had birthday parties at his favorite pizzeria. It’s also true that Podesta’s e-mails were leaked to WikiLeaks in order to damage Clinton and her associates. Calling Pizzagate a “false conspiracy theory” in this context is, to its believers, extremely misleading. To its believers, it smacks of political posturing, not the type of neutral presentation we're supposed to be giving here on Misplaced Pages. R2 (bleep) 09:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you find that argument convincing. There's more than a slight difference in plausibility between these cases, as I'm sure you see. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• No.Per WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL, language must remain neutral to avoid bias. Calling it a conspiriacy theory definitely has negative connotations. Mgasparin (talk) 07:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Not how WP:NPOV works. We follow the reliable sources, even if the facts they convey appear biased to some. R2 (bleep) 09:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• Mgasparin - by your logic, we can't call anything a conspiracy theory on Misplaced Pages, let's go change articles like New World Order (conspiracy theory) and Pizzagate conspiracy theory. Also by your logic, we can't have any negative connotations on Misplaced Pages, or positive ones. starship.paint ~ KO 07:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

starship I guess you have a point. Thanks for explaining that. Mgasparin (talk) 08:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. I think saying a "conspiracy theory that has been shown to be false" (current version) is fine. My very best wishes (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
• No- For the same reason that the original dossier has not yet been labelled a conspiracy theory. Shtove 09:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Shtove, but, unlike the Steele dossier, nothing about Spygate has been verified. Some of the dossier has been verified. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
• NO - Basic good LEAD behaviour is first define the topic. Wait until at least line 2 for judgemental remarks, and ideally it would be the closing para of the lead. The “conspiracy theory” is already label enough, and the next few paras provide more. At the moment, the lead ‘shown’ is overkill looking like a big BIASED sign. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
• No, because "unproven allegation" is more suitable to this case. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
• No. Sources provided by "yes" !voters are outdated. The "no" wording can be improved much, though. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 11:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Wumbolo: - if you claim so, where are the up-to-date sources then, could you provide them? We can take this to the Discussion section if you want. starship.paint ~ KO 11:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
• Keep the current wording; there is no doubt whatsoever that this is a false conspiracy theory.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, keep the current lede; (via FRS) there is currently no reliable source that has considered this to be anything more than an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory. As to those who say that it is redundant, a conspiracy theory is not necessarily false, it is only a theory that supposes the existence of a conspiracy, therefore we must in some way note that it is false and/or unsubstantiated. I like how we do that now, but I would also be open to other wordings. StudiesWorld (talk) 09:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
• Yes: If the attorney general saying something made it not false, then the president saying something would also make it not false. Now, if he'd offered evidence that would be different, but he didn't. LokiTheLiar (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Do not mischaracterize my argument. "Fake news" here is not my words, but nevertheless clearly refers to the special treatment of the article title. Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump) is a terrible title, highly controversial, without precedent, and reflects an ugly bias. What is frustrating is the lack of progress being made about affecting that change, and the lack of progress regarding the implementation of RSs that have already been nominated for inclusion in the article, and the lack of progress made regarding changes to the article as a consequence of these RSs, and the lack of serious consideration for the RSs that could be legitimately used if the first sources were to be included. This barricade prevents the development of an article that is becoming relevant to current events, and as such it is not unreasonable to suspect this barricade exists to serve political means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 18:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Just like to point out that 2 editors who haven't edited or actively edited in almost a month found and replied to this RFC in less than 5 minutes, and 1 more editor who hasn't edited in about 3 weeks found the RGC in less than 1 hour. starship.paint ~ KO 03:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Starship.paint: I've also been suspicious of some sort of advocacy campaign to stir this up over the last few days. I already brought this to the attention of Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Well, if there were future meatpuppetry, if they read my comment, they might very well edit some other pages before coming here. starship.paint ~ KO 04:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

    • FWIW this page was brought to my attention by this unusually worded RfC on another page: "Any further editor input on Talk:Spygate (Donald Trump conspiracy theory) would be appreciated. It seems that as a result of the Barr letter, many on the Right are trying to reopen the debate about the validity of counterintelligence on the Trump campaign or whatever they claim was going on. I have a busy day today IRL." Many on the Right might reasonably suspect "meatpuppetry" or some kind of "advocacy campaign" when editors use language like this. Remember, the reddit thread you pointed to never suggested coming here to combat the many on the Left who are stonewalling the development of this article, so consider where you are throwing your stones from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 19:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Just a note regarding the proposal of this RfC - Rusf10 - you’ve proposed this, which is a content dispute, and offered no reliable sources to back up your claim. starship.paint ~ KO 10:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• The reliable sources are plenty, they are any and all RS that report Barr's statement before congress which is still something that the article still completely ignores. CNNFox News Washington Post, take your pick--Rusf10 (talk) 02:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • None of these sources mention Spygate. Therefore it seems to me that these sources don't relate Barr's testimony to Spygate, and this is exactly why the article 'ignores' it. starship.paint ~ KO 02:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 12 April 2019

It has been proposed in this section that Spygate (conspiracy theory) be renamed and moved to Spygate (2016 United States presidential election). A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

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

Survey

• No It's a conspiracy theory. That's neutral. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support At the very least, "by Donald Trump" needs to be removed. We do not include the author of a conspiracy theory or other idea in its title (No "Evolution (theory by Charles Darwin)"). Wingedsubmariner (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• No. We base our content on RS, not on the latest headlines, developing stories, or unreliable, fringe sources which push this conspiracy theory. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• No — Trump coined the term, he owns it. Darwin did not coin or even use the term “evolution” soibangla (talk) 03:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  Darwin is credited with the idea. If you need a better example though, it is not "Relativity (theory by Albert Einstein)". Wingedsubmariner (talk) 03:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  He is credited with formalizing it with the scientific method, but evolutionary theories predated him. Einstein used math to formulate his theory. Trump just blurted out yet another of his countless baseless notions he makes up from nothing. He owns it. soibangla (talk) 03:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support Conspiracy Theory (conspiracy theory) seems to be a sufficient format for all other claims of this type and calibre. I do not see why this article continues to enjoy such a special treatment. "Spygate (conspiracy theory)" is both neutral and accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 03:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  This is an account with very few edits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  This is an account with too much free time on his hands. I have more enjoyable hobbies than arguing on the internet, as you may have guessed. Considering as you just acquired 5+ edits to your edit count by spamming this message, maybe now you can let it go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 19:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• No - the RFC has barely started, how can this move be based on that RFC? Furthermore, how many comments here advocating for change actually bring up reliable sources to support their stance? starship.paint ~ KO 04:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support Something that is currently being investigated by both the Department of Justice (per AG Barr's comments) and by the Office of the Inspector General should not be titled a conspiracy theory. It is frankly ridiculous that this outrageous example of political bias has been allowed to stand for so long. Periander6 (talk) 05:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Again, this is an opinion piece, only reliable for the author’s opinion and not for statements of facts starship.paint ~ KO 10:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support AG Barr IS investigating spying of Trump by previous Obama/Whitehouse - correct this bullcrap. Misplaced Pages is and has become the world's largest purveyor of fake history thanks to pre$$ure applied by global corporations, politicians and elites. moefuzz (talk) 06:21, April 12 2019 (UTC)

  This is an account with very few edits, especially recently.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support Is it because you disagree with someone that you accuse members out of the blue? Seems like an attack on a long term member, nothing more nothing less moefuzz (talk) 05:05, April 13, 2019 (UTC)
  • Duplicate !vote struck. — Rhododendrites \\ 15:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support With recent development I can not understand how this can be considered just a "conspiracy theory" anymore, more an unproven allegation SJCAmerican (talk) 06:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - You should let the RfC run its course before trying to backdoor it via a page move. This is still a conspiracy theory, like many other Trump ones. --Gonnym (talk) 07:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support The title currently violates neutrality given available sources. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - for the same reasons given in the above RfC. Why do we have two related RfCs at once? The Earth is not flat and Spygate is a conspiracy theory according to reliable secondary sources. O3000 (talk) 11:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support There is ample and growing evidence that this is not a "conspiracy theory," nor do I think it's fair to say that it's "by Donald Trump" as the underlying accusations have been made and repeated by many people, including the Attorney General of the United States. Part of the issue seems to stem from a misunderstanding by the authors of what "Spygate" is referring to. "Spygate" refers to allegations that the FBI and possibly other Federal agencies were conducting a far-reaching intelligence gathering operation against Trump and Trump's Campaign/Transition team. See the section above, in which several contemporary, reliable sources were provided that define "Spygate" in this way. In point of fact - objectively - there is ample public evidence that spying did occur against members of the Trump Campaign. The FISA warrant against Carter Page has been public knowledge for quite some time, and Susan Rice testified before Congress that she personally read intelligence reports on Trump Campaign/Transition Team members in which she unredacted the names and other personal identifying information of Trump Campaign/Transition members. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 12:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Yeah, no. Article title reflects what reliable sources say. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - As with the other RfC, my !vote here is less about passion for the current way things are worded, but an alternative presented that's much worse. In this case, the full phrase "conspiracy theory by Donald Trump" could be reworded/changed in some way, but not to something as unclear as what's proposed. — Rhododendrites \\ 14:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support especially now that the focus is on whether the spying was legal or not rather than if it really happened. -- That Guy, From That Show! 14:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Counterintelligence happened. No spies were inserted into the campaign. That's what Trump claimed. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support - This article accurately reflects anti Trump fervor of left leaning media from back before the Mueller Report was completed and reported on, however is woefully out of date now. It is an embarrassment to Misplaced Pages, and looks like it could have been written by Adam Schiff. This article needs updating to reflect the truth that any reasonable definition of "spy" or "spying" is perfectly accurate to describe what the FBI and/or US intelligence agencies did to Trump and the Trump campaign. It needs to prominently highlight Barr's admissions and his investigation. Wookian (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support Also need to get rid of all of the fake news propaganda and tell what actually happened.Phmoreno (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support move. The Attorney General of the United States, who is a subject matter expert on this topic, just clearly said, in Congressional testimony, that spying was done on the Trump campaign. Therefore, by definition, this can no longer be considered a conspiracy theory. It has been confirmed by one of the highest officials in the US government. AppliedCharisma (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support move. WP is an encyclopedia and what we have as a title now is more like a news headline. _Talk 📧 17:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:RS and WP:V require that a source be independent of the subject; since Barr is not, we cannot treat his personal opinions as facts. We can only treat them as factual if they are reported as fact in secondary sources, which clearly isn't the case yet; absent that, we have to go by what independent sources say, which is that this is a conspiracy theory. Edit: I'd also support "Spygate (Conspiracy theory)" or comparable formulations as long as they mention that it's a conspiracy theory. --Aquillion (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support As per proposal description and Attorney General William Barr's statements on the matter. Aviartm (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support. The parenthetical disambiguation should not be used in a biased way as it is here. Its sole purpose is disambiguation from other articles of the same name, and should be neutral as to the subject matter. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Atsme & Rreagan007; couldn't have said it better myself. Ideally, the parenthetical term would be universally agreed on. Looking at Spygate (permalink), we don't have to be that specific at all, since the other contenders are in the domain of (American) football and Formula One, so I'd even be fine with a shorter title. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Current title is unbalanced, unencyclopedic, and far too wordy. —Torchiest _edits 01:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The title you support is no less wordy, and is even longer: (2016 United States presidential election) at 42 characters and 5 words, while the original (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump) is 35 characters and 5 words. starship.paint ~ KO 07:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
• No because of the proposed alternative title. Movig it to simply Spygate (conspiracy theory) would be fine though. However, given that there has been a coordinated off-Wiki effort to brigade and bias the results of this RM , this particular RM should be closed and a new one should be opened with a proper alternative title and a semi-protected talk page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support - This title is very biased and inaccurate. We know the spy's name. His name is Stefan Halper. He was sent in by the Obama administration to gather intel from the Trump campaign (no collusion with Russia, per Mueller) but not the Hillary campaign (helped purchase dossier of fake Trump dirt from the Kremlin). It's pretty rich for people to use the No Evidence! excuse after shrieking that the president is a Russian agent for over two years. And no, I wasn't sent by reddit. That's a conspiracy theory. Galathadael (talk) 01:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support alternative Spygate (political conspiracy theory). This doesn't mention Trump by name and doesn't hide the fact that it's a conspiracy theory. I believe this is more neutral than either name, and I hope it is a suitable compromise. – bradv🍁 03:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with such a construction, and it's frankly shorter and more elegant anyway. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • That's my preferred title as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I prefer that as well. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • This is better than what is originally proposed. Masem, you were in favour of shortening the title, so I’m alerting you. starship.paint ~ KO 11:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I still think it can be shortened to "(conspiracy theory)" but this works as well and avoids any potential BLP from the name only. --Masem (t) 14:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I support this alternative, especially since others are promoting Spygate now as well. Proposer's version is not NPOV as there's broad consensus among RS it's a conspiracy theory. It also conflates the focus of the article, Trump's unfounded accusations that the FBI was illegitimately monitoring him in early 2016, with the well-known legitimate investigation they were doing on Russian interference in late 2016. I think it's best to keep the "political" part in because the conspiracy isn't about whether the FBI found evidence of criminal activity in the Trump campaign in late 2016 at all, it's about when the investigation started and if it was political. Safrolic (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support. The proposed name is clearly more neutral. As I said below, the way this article is written comes across as politically motivated. This is a part of a broader problem with political editing over the last three years or so in the American Politics subject area. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:00, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support any move in principle as the presence of "conspiracy theory" violates WP:NPOV and is extraneous (a title can be constructed without it easily). Having "conspiracy theory" in titles always limits our available coverage of a topic, because it restricts us to the conspiracy rather than a full treatment. I would also prefer any title which doesn't use "Spygate"+disambiguator and would instead suggest FBI surveillance of Donald Trump campaign. -- Netoholic @ 07:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as suggested. Moving to Spygate (conspiracy theory) would be OK. It is important to clarify in the title what it is about. Otherwise, this might not be obvious for someone unfamiliar with the subject. Clarifying an undisputable majority view here is actually required by WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  That clarification can and should be done in the text of the article, not in a disambiguation phrase. There seem to be aspects of this story emerging that expand the scope beyond the conspiracy theory (Barr's recent testimony, for example), and this title artificially limits our ability to cover it. We must use a title which properly scopes this topic. -- Netoholic @ 21:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support per Atsme. Sir Joseph 04:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• SUPPORT move - so long as the body continues to have mention of Trump and negative views, that would be a better title by WP:TITLE - more precise to a specific event (vs there are a number of Trump conspiracy theories... both ways), and as more neutral WP:NDESC. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PRECISE. Adding "by Donald Trump" is unnecessary disambiguation, and ÷"Spygate (conspiracy theory)" is precise enough to identify the same topic. ~Awilley (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose moved as suggested, although Spygate (conspiracy theory) would be fine. The key reason is that the sources clearly reflect that this is a conspiracy theory, and our title should reflect that. The closing administrator should entirely disregard the army of SPAs and "new" editors that have popped out of the woodwork to offer their policy-free votes. Neutrality 16:39, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support - With second choice being Spygate (conspiracy theory). The current title fails NPOV and is not structured in a way that is consistent with other pages. PackMecEng (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support for neutrality and conciseness. — JFG 18:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • On conciseness, the title you support is even longer: (2016 United States presidential election) at 42 characters and 5 words, while the original (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump) is 35 characters and 5 words. starship.paint ~ KO 07:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I meant conciseness of subject matter, not word count. The current title uses two disambiguators: "conspiracy theory" and "by Donald Trump"; the proposed title uses only one: "2016 United States presidential election". — JFG 07:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - However, I'm fine with "Spygate conspiracy theory". That's more concise, and doesn't suggest that it's a scandal, like Watergate, the first of the -gates. O3000 (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: the name proposed in the RfC is much worse than the original. However, I'm supportive of shorter names such as Spygate (political conspiracy theory) or Spygate (conspiracy theory). --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support – The newer, proposed title is more neutral than the current title, not to mention being a more accurate description of the subject it pertains to. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 04:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose proposed title, support "Spygate (conspiracy theory) Per Muboshgu I oppose the proposal that we replace the parenthetical description with the title of the election, and per WP:CONCISE I'd be willing to just shorten it. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 06:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose proposed title - would be fine with alternative suggestion dropping the 'by Donald Trump' so just Spygate (conspiracy theory), or a Spygate theory or Spygate conspiracy theory. WikiVirusC 15:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - Ok, look folks, here is the problem. The present title is indeed somewhat POVish and clunky. But the proposed title, in a bit of WP:POINT skews completely the other way so it's also POV. The best thing to do would be to close this RfC and start another one with the proposed title simply Spygate (conspiracy theory) which a lot of the opposes might support. I don't see why we HAVE TO choose between two bad options. Restarting the RfC might also drop some of the meat and sock puppets that have popped up since they're attention span tends to be short.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

  (Conversation moved to Discussion) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs)

• Oppose OP proposal, but Support move to Spygate (conspiracy theory) as per Volunteer Marek and Objective3000. This is a fundamentally WP:POINT based RfC with an undercurrent of IDLI -- you present sources justifying this, or you don't, but what you don't do is call for "neutrality" when the RS do not give both sides anything close to equal weight. If you then want to complain about alleged media bias, start a blog, Misplaced Pages is not the place for you to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. --Calthinus (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose OP proposal but suggest move to either Spygate conspiracy theory or Spygate (conspiracy theory). The inclusion of Trump does see bizarrely WP:POINTy, but referring to it as a conspiracy theory is solidly supported by reliable sources. SnowFire (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. Recently there have been some editors suggesting that we move this article back to Spygate (conspiracy theory). This is not currently up for discussion and would run against a March 2019 consensus obtained after a move request. (See the talk page archives.) If there's critical mass to overturn that consensus, then it should be done in a dedicated discussion and participants in the prior discussions should be notified. R2 (bleep) 16:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Do you mean Talk:Spygate_(conspiracy_theory_by_Donald_Trump)/Archive 1#Requested move 20 February 2019 ? That RM had smaller attendance than this one and made a nitpicky, WP disambiguation rules centered decision that missed the forest for the trees - that including "by Donald Trump" is a terrible disambiguator that probably helped kick up all the naming fuss you see above. Per WP:NOT#BURO, there shouldn't be any problem with considering all options in this requested move. More seriously, even if the NFL confusion is considered an ironclad problem with just "conspiracy theory", then literally any other extra words would be better than what was picked, including just plain nothing and a hatnote to the NFL article, or "2016 conspiracy theory", or "Spygate conspiracy theory (politics)", or whatever. SnowFire (talk) 23:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support Spygate (conspiracy theory) per WP:PRECISION. There is no need for disambiguation to go beyond what is necessary. feminist (talk) 11:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per much of the above, and all this obvious meatpuppetry. But mostly because the OP doesn't understand how WP:Disambiguation works. Spygate is not a "2016 United States presidential election", so that cannot be a disambiguation for it. Prefer the current title; there is nothing faulty about it, though "Spygate (Donald Trump conspiracy theory)" would be shorter and thus better comply with WP:CONCISE policy. Weakly okay with the short alternative proposal, "Spygate (conspiracy theory)"; weakly because removal of Trump's name from it is whitewashing, and it really is a Trump conspiracy theory, not someone else's. Not okay with longer alternatives, like "Spygate (political conspiracy theory)", per WP:CONCISE.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's a conspiracy theory. Maybe delete the "Donald Trump" bit, but it's a conspiracy theory. --Calton | Talk 07:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - this is a conspiracy theory, per the article's text, noting that the RfC has yet to change it. There is no need to make the title neutral, as this is exactly what it is. I'm not going to comment on mid thread alt suggestions as that is pointless. If there is a better option, wait for this RM to finish and present the case for it in a more readable way. --Gonnym (talk) 07:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support Suggested new name is clearly more encyclopedic.--MONGO (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support. While Spygate is verifiably a conspiracy theory, that doesn't mean we're obligated to use that as a parenthetical. The proposed title is clearer, more descriptive, and less controversial. R2 (bleep) 19:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose proposed title, support Spygate (conspiracy theory) - It is a conspiracy theory and should clearly be classified as such, but including the creator seems unnecessary. StudiesWorld (talk) 09:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support. The suggested adapted title "Spygate (2016 United States presidential election)" is closer to both neutral and to Department of Justice's statement. On April 10th, 2019 Attorney General William Barr declared that he thinks "spying did occur" against Donald Trump's campaign. Francewhoa (talk) 09:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

WP:POINT by one of the SPA accounts.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTPOINTy. I have no problem with this policy and I am not trying to discredit it. I believe equal evidence should be equally applied. What I have done here in no way resembles the examples given in WP:POINT and is not intended to be disruption, but rather the introduction of what I believe to be genuinely useful and relevant information in a format consistent to that of the information which has already been introduced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 21:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, although its wording of that notice isn't ideal, WP:APPNOTE allows notifications on related Misplaced Pages articles without violating WP:CANVASS (on the premise that a related article is by default going to have a "representative" or otherwise typical group of editors rather than ones biased towards one point of view, so posting it there isn't likely to unbalance a debate.) A key part of WP:MEAT and WP:CANVASS is that you're trying to attract editors to present one particular point of view; notifications on a neutral, high-traffic venue are therefore allowed. --Aquillion (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

My issue was with the wording, yes. "A key part of WP:MEAT and WP:CANVASS is that you're trying to attract editors to present one particular point of view; notifications on a neutral, high-traffic venue are therefore allowed." The RfC I cited was a legitimate call for editor involvement, but was not neutrally worded. The Reddit thread in question was not neutrally worded, but never called for editor involvement. A case could be made for each to have attracted an imbalanced or misrepresentative sample of editors. I do not think either has necessarily caused much damage, but I think if one is to be noteworthy, then they both are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 01:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

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

It seems that other articles that cover this sort of topic usually refer to a "controversy" or a "scandal". See, e.g., IRS targeting controversy or ATF gunwalking scandal or Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy or White House travel office controversy. So how about something like: "FBI Surveillance controversy (2016 election)"?Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, those things you mentioned aren't "conspiracy theories". See John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories and other articles in {{Conspiracy theories}} that do include the phrase in the title. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu, consider this piece: . It calls several of the cited controversies "conspiracy theories". Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, I don't subscribe to WaPo, so I can't read the article. Can you provide quotes, or more context? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, I read the article and, sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about. O3000 (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@Objective3000 and Muboshgu:, here's the relevant quote from the piece I linked: The other images on that illustration and the text are broadly prominent conservative conspiracy theories that were popular during the Obama administration. There’s a reference to “Fast & Furious,” an effort to track illegal gun sales early in Obama’s first term that was the subject of a sweeping conspiracy theory. There’s an image of former Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner (between Al Sharpton and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)), the centerpiece of an effort at the IRS to scrutinize groups that claimed tax exemptions while engaging in political work. (Many tea party groups were singled out for scrutiny, prompting another conspiracy theory.) Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, I still don’t understand your point as they were, indeed, conspiracy theories. In any case, this is other stuff. O3000 (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

O3K, I don't know how much clearer I can be. The Misplaced Pages articles I linked on these other scandals call them "scandals" in the titles, and do not call them conspiracy theories in the titles. And yet here is what we are in this context counting as an RS--an "analysis" piece by Bump in WaPo--that calls these scandals "conspiracy theories". So consistency requires that we either change those articles to title them "Conspiracy Theories" or we change this article to call it a scandal. My own preference would be to call everything a scandal. But something has to give. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Argue what you wish on other articles. But, A→B is not the same as B→A. O3000 (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Wut. I'm looking to similar articles, which are not currently so politically hot, to see if there is any insight into how to handle the present case based on what consensus has been reached elsewhere. I see that there is in fact some insight to be had. Articles like this one are usually called "scandals" in their titles. I'm suggesting on this basis that perhaps this is how the present article should be titled as well. Muboshgu's reply was that those other articles are not on anything that RSs describe as conspiracy theories. I provided an article that is being counted as an RS in the present context, and that does call the subjects of those other articles conspiracy theories. So Muboshgu's reply, which was intelligible and on point, is in fact mistaken. Then you showed up, and I frankly can't understand anything you're saying, and for some reason you seem also to be unable to understand anything I'm saying. As a result, it seems that our dialogue is not productive, so I propose that we stop. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

There is zero evidence that this is a scandal. Please keep in mind BLP. O3000 (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, the other articles like this are titled "scandal" even when some RSs call them Conspiracy Theories. That's the point. And, although this was not my original point, the NYT calls spygate a scandal here . Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Please strike this. It is clear that the NYT was quoting Trump when using that word. O3000 (talk) 01:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't find that clear; they said Trump "gave the scandal a name: SPYGATE". That seems to be using 'scandal' in NYT's voice. Also, it is called a scandal in the Axios source cited elsewhere on this page. No doubt also in other RSs, since 'scandal' is a pretty neutral word. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The NYT article used the term scandal four times, three times in direct Trump quotes. They missed using the scare quotes once directly after a Trump quote using the word. Claiming that the NYT called this a scandal is beyond the pale. There is simply no way that the NYT was calling this a scandal in their own voice. Again, I suggest you redact a claim that is behind a paywall. O3000 (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Would either of you mind if we move this thread down to the discussion to keep it going? Shinealittlelight you bring up a good point but I get the sense we are talking past each other here. It seems O3000 is saying along the lines that the other "conspiracy theories" (Fast & Furious, etc) did not become scandals until after they were proven correct, before which they were unproven conspiracy theories. If anything this weakens the claim that conspiracy theories are always false, but we may have to wait until Barr's investigation concludes to use the word "scandal", at least in the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 02:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

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

"(political conspiracy theory)" is better for the reason you've provided. I'd accept either to close this. O3000 (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

"Spygate (political conspiracy theory)" is unwieldy to my eye. I prefer it to the current title, but not the proposed title, "Spygate (2016 U.S. Presidential election)", which would satisfy the same concern about ambiguity. I think a better compromise is to reinstate "Spygate (conspiracy theory)" and include a disambiguation link to the NFL scandal, which would be a consistent and elegant solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 01:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of it til now, but that discussion had very small participation, and I wouldn't have agreed with that move location if I had participated in it. The NFL Spygate wasn't a conspiracy theory it was an actual incident that occurred, so I don't believe it can be confused with this one. Despite the sources that were posted in that discussion which all refer to a conspiracy theory about destroyed tapes from the Spygate incident. The incident itself wasn't a conspiracy theory, nor is that article about one. Either way, a lot of options are available for the name, such as the ones I suggested, but the one suggested in this request, which doesn't label it as a conspiracy theory, I don't think is viable so long as it is just a conspiracy which I believe it will remain. WikiVirusC 13:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

edit: As also suggested, a dab between the two articles would also help. WikiVirusC 13:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Reference citations in this discussion

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

starship, you're gonna love this one from the esteemed MPants:

"The president is possibly the single most unreliable source for any claim of fact ever to grace the pages of WP." -- MPants 04:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

That sums it up pretty well, and would easily get the backing of all professional fact checkers. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

• BullRangifer - what about conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones...? starship.paint ~ KO 07:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

• Good question. Fact checkers don't seem to have paid as much attention to him, likely because he's so off-the-wall crazy (he says he has psychosis). Trump's falsehoods have been fact-checked very thoroughly, and in the same way as other politicians and presidents. He's simply off-the-charts bad. They have never encountered a more deceptive public person and have even created at least one new category of lies just because of him. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

• More about that new category here and here: "Meet the Bottomless Pinocchio, a new rating for a false claim repeated over and over again". This is uniquely Trumpian. Normal people, and even "normal" big liars, don't repeat a debunked lie again and again, unless they are using the Big Lie propaganda technique: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." (Joseph Goebbels) Trump has often been accused of using this Big Lie technique (or would he say "biglier"? ), and his followers do indeed fall for the trick, unlike those who only use RS, hence the huge split in American politics and between editors here.

Here's a good article about his use of the Big Lie technique: When the Big Lie Meets Big Data. Many other RS connect Trump with use of the Big Lie technique, and now fact-checkers have created the Bottomless Pinocchio category for him. Nobody repeats thoroughly debunked lies the way he does. It's not normal, even for big liars, and his broadening and repetition of Spygate is just part of it. It started out as false, and gets more false with each repetition. Those who exist in a filter bubble fed by unreliable sources aren't even aware of what's happening to them. They seem surprised and get angry when confronted with what most Americans and editors here see as plainly common knowledge because they don't exist in that bubble.

While this is relevant to this article, this conversation is starting to get more relevant for the Veracity of statements by Donald Trump article, so have a good day. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

• BullRangifer - no doubt, Trump is the least reliable prominent politician, certainly the person fact-checkers would agree as the most unreliable (because they check him). But to be the most unreliable person ever, that's beyond fact checkers. Alex Jones is definitely a public person as well. starship.paint ~ KO 08:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

• I didn't write "unreliable" public person, but "deceptive public person", of course referring to those who are notable enough to get fact-checked. The two men generally traffic in different types of falsehoods, but, like Alex, Trump has created and also pushed a number of conspiracy theories, some of them theories commonly accepted in right-wing circles, but he really went far astray in his June 5, 2018 tweet based on a theory from The Gateway Pundit, an extremely unreliable source. (I'm not sure if InfoWars is worse than the Gateway Pundit, but they are both extremely unreliable, and possibly blacklisted here.) That is described here:

"Trump, Fox News, and Twitter have created a dangerous conspiracy theory loop. The president tweeted literal “fake news” about the so-called “Spygate” controversy. The story behind the tweet is revealing — and scary." "Late on Tuesday, President Trump tweeted something that’s embarrassing even by his standards: an unfounded conspiracy theory that originated in some of the internet’s worst “fake news” corners."

This time Trump went even further down the rabbit hole in his attempts to convince his followers that he was the victim of illegal "spying". That's why we have this article. It's all a deceptive attempt to label legal, appropriate, and necessary national security investigations as "spying" and wrong. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

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

"Whether proper or improper, the issue of surveillance of the Trump campaign has been widely documented."``Phmoreno (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• "Countersurveillance" =/= "Spying". Comey's right on that. This is a key distinction a lot of people don't seem to be understanding. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Phmoreno, are you serious? You just provided a source which contradicts your belief. Read what Comey actually says. He makes the point that there is a difference. They are not the same. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• No one is denying that there was surveillance of members of the Trump campaign. In fact, the whole Russian election interference campaign was started as a RICO investigation. Those suspected of crimes and treasonous behavior should be surveilled, and it was not political. It was a matter of national security. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

We won't know for certain if it was politically motivated or not until after the Inspector General & Barr release their findings. _Talk 📧 17:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

False vs. Unsupported

The article again says in the first line that Spygate is a false theory. In support, three sources are given. None of those sources say that the theory is false. Rather, they all say that it is not supported by evidence. Except for one place: the Vox headline says that the theory is false. Other than that, all we have is that one of the pieces (the WaPo piece, which is an "analysis" piece--that's what you call an opinion piece when you don't want to admit that it is an opinion piece, I guess) compares Spygate to other examples in which Trump has made false claims. But even that piece never directly says that spygate is false, but says that it is unsupported. So, again, in the body of these three articles, the theory is never said to be false. Why then do we insist on saying it's false when this isn't supported by the available sources? Do you guys want me to explain the difference between "false" and "not supported by evidence"? Surely you understand that difference, right? Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Why does your user page only consist of the character '!'? Also, why did you create a new section when there are already two sections about the same thing: #"false conspiracy theory" and #"False conspiracy theory" in lead? - MrX 🖋 20:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Response to your off-topic question. _Talk 📧 23:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

This is a page for discussion of improving the article, not my user page. The other sections were initiated to discuss whether the allegations are in fact false. This is an error; we don't need to decide that. We only need to decide whether the RSs support the claim that the "Spygate" theory is false. I have initiated a new section to reorient the discussion on that question. I've also argued that the sources do not support the claim that the theory is false. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

The dominant attitude on the talk page seems to be against the addition of new sources, and in general against the alteration of the article lede or body in any way, so it appears to me the article is doomed to remain poorly sourced, grammatically unappealing, unencyclopedic, and factually inaccurate into perpetuity. Or at least until the news cycle shifts. Is there any other way to resolve this inconsistency? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 21:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Assume good faith. There are a lot of new editors on this page, and they don't all seem to understand all the relevant wikipedia policies. This has caused a lot of unhelpful discussion. But I don't think anyone has addressed at this point the argument I've made that the sources for the claim that the "spygate" theory is false simply do not say that it is false. So let's see if anyone has a reply to that. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I admire your optimism! Yours is a good point to be sure, and should be taken seriously as it is a legitimate criticism of the encyclopedic quality of the article. Wikipedian principles are not being adhered to and this represents a problem, regardless of intention. But you have to wonder why this has not already been corrected. I recommend pinging Starship.paint as he seems to have had a substantial hand in the article's drafting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 21:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

"Assume good faith. There are a lot of new editors on this page, and they don't all seem to understand all the relevant wikipedia policies." - Funny, cuz some of these "new editors on this page", like the one right above this comment, appear to be quite versant in Misplaced Pages policy to the extentent that they see it fit to lecture others about it. Good faith isn't a suicide pact. We also have WP:DUCK.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:Ping me if you ever get a response to your question, Shinealittlelight. _Talk 📧 23:00, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Atsme, SK8RBOI, and Shinealittlelight: - while yes, I wrote a lot of the article since the last time I checked, I don’t think I’m the editor who has been adding “false”, and I won’t be checking if I did, that’s too much work. Now, about your question on “false”... starship.paint ~ KO 00:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• The Kessler source rates the “Spygate” allegation of May as Four Pinnochios. That, in his definition , refers to “whoppers”, which are gross untruths. This, the source is saying Spygate is false. starship.paint ~ KO 00:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• The Bump source says “We’ve seen this dance before... conspiracy theory ... false claim ... time and again ... now it’s Spygate”. To me, Bump is saying, this is the same as before, and in the situation of “before”, he made false claims. Therefore the logical conclusion is that this is also a false claim. We can’t have “seen this dance before” unless what is currently being seen is also “this dance”. That makes Spygate false. starship.paint ~ KO 00:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• The Vox source has “false” in the title. Is that reliable? I’m not sure, perhaps someone with more expertise could comment. Although, Vox is treated as a reliable source. However, there seem to be many other small phrases pointing to false. The subtitle: Stefan Halper, a professor and FBI informant, didn’t “spy” on Trump. A header: “The phony case that Halper was “spying” on Trump” elsewhere in the text: If you look at Trump’s rhetoric on the Halper case, you notice a few repeated assertions that aren’t borne out by the facts we currently have ... Trump’s misconceptions ... Trump is pushing a narrative on this meeting largely spun out of one right-wing commentator’s theory, one that bears very little relation to observable reality ... Trump is wrong about the Halper situation ... a ginned-up controversy Overall, I see Vox as saying Trump is wrong about the facts. That makes his allegations false. starship.paint ~ KO 00:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• Personally, it seems that these sources are saying Trump’s allegations are false starship.paint ~ KO 00:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• When someone makes conspiratorial allegations of enormous consequence without evidence, particularly when it requires involvement from large numbers of people, it's a conspiracy theory. Has any conspiracy theory ever proved correct in history? Likely so. But that's rare. This particular conspiracy theory has innumerable adherents trying to find proof -- in vain. We must be honest here. If someone (particularly with a history of making stuff up) states something that is conspiratorial sans any evidence, and RS debunk these claims, let us be honest. Now, mayhaps we should use the word debunked instead of false. That adjective is not a "truth" word. But, we do need an adjective in the lead such that we are not a part of conspiracy peddling. O3000 (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the reply, @Starship.paint:. I reply to each point.
    • The Kessler piece is currently not cited in support of the claim of falsity in the first sentence of the article.
    • Kessler says that "four pinocchios" means "whopper" and you're interpreting this to mean "false". I must say, this is from my perspective a bit tenuous. I have very little confidence that Kessler never applies "four pinocchios" to an extremely reckless claim that is totally unfounded but nevertheless not known to be false.
    • The Bump source compares Spygate to other claims that Bump says are false. He does not directly say that Spygate is false. I have little confidence about whether Bump means that Spygate is currently known to be false or whether he's just saying that, as in the past, it likely will turn out to be false. Bump just doesn't say.
    • My understanding is that titles (and subtitles) are not RS. They surely shouldn't be--they aren't written by the author typically, and they are written to grab attention, and are sometimes overly compressed. I'm open to further discussion here. I can't find the matter directly addressed in wikipedia policy.
    • At any rate, Vox is the most partisan source we're using, and it seems to me undue to place their partisan perspective in the first sentence without an in-line citation. They can't be the primary source here.
    • The Vox piece says: "Not borne out by the facts we currently have." This is exactly what I'm talking about: this is saying "unproven" not "false".
    • This remark means that "misconceptions"--which is a tricky word--probably means "conceptions that are at odds with correct standards of evidence" and not "conceptions that are known to be false".
    • And again, "...theory...that bears very little relation to obervable reality" is best interpreted, in light of the other statement, as saying that we don't have evidence for the theory.
    • You've provided an out of context and misleading quote with "Trump is wrong about the Halper situation". The full quote is "In some ways, though, it doesn’t matter if Trump is wrong about the Halper situation." Obviously this doesn't support your interpretation.
    • "Ginned up" may mean "made up" rather than "false".
    • As for O3K's remark, I don't think you're responding to my point, which is that the RSs do not say that the theory is false, but only that it is unfounded. They also do not say "debunked". What they say is that he hasn't got sufficient evidence for the theory.Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• Shinealittlelight - I concede the point about the "if Trump is wrong about the Halper situation". I'm sorry about my mistake. I also concede the "gin up" point. I stand by the rest of my comments. The Kessler piece was present when I was writing my reply. Anyway, the word "false" is gone from the first sentence, it's now at the end of the lede, not by my doing. starship.paint ~ KO 03:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: No prob about the mistake; all this is very challenging, and I didn't think you did it in bad faith. Too bad you're not going to say why you're unpersuaded by each of the arguments I gave, but I understand that we're all busy people. I wanted to make a few other points about the Kessler piece:

• The Kessler piece oddly enough defines 'spygate' differently than we do in this article. Here's the passage in which Kessler defines 'spygate': President Trump, in a continuing effort to discredit the criminal investigation into his campaign’s possible links with Russia entities, has now seized on “spygate.” This refers to the news that the FBI obtained information from an informant — Stefan Halper, an emeritus professor at the University of Cambridge — who met with at least three members of Trump’s campaign staff suspected of having links to Russia.
• Awkwardly, he actually seems to think that spygate in his sense is in fact not a conspiricy theory but true! For in his sense the term only refers to the claim that Halper met with some folks in the Trump campaign, and that's known to be the case.
• In any case, Kessler doesn't apply four Pinocchios to spygate in either his sense of the word or to spygate in the sense in which we're using the word in the wikipedia article. Rather, the quote in this piece where he mentions four pinocchios is this: While Trump claims “large dollars” were paid to Halper, it’s unclear what he received for his help on the counterintelligence probe. Halper was paid a little over $1 million for separate work for the Defense Department’s Office of Net Assessment between 2012 and 2017 — and about 40 percent of the money was paid before Trump entered the presidential race. But no dollar figures for his assistance in the Russia probe have been reported. This latest claim, clearly worthy of Four Pinocchios... In other words, he is saying that the claim that Halper was paid large dollars is "worthy of four pinocchios" because it is (not known to be false but) unsupported!
• So takeaway: this Kessler piece does not support the claim that spygate (in the sense of the wikipedia article) is false, and it also vindicates my earlier points about the loose way in which he applies 'four pinocchios' to theories that he regards as both reckless and totally baseless, but that are not known to be false. That leaves us with the Vox piece and the Bump piece, neither of which call the theory false, as I've explained. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• I didn't reply to all of your points because I mostly disagree with those interpretations, and I already explained my stance above, so I would just be repeating myself, or I have no comment. I'd reply to your recent Kessler critique later. starship.paint ~ KO 14:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
• I don't think it is desirable, or even possible, to seriously debate what a professional journalist means by "whoppers", when there is a clear and obvious definition for the word. When we further see that the 'pinnocchio' scale (again an obvious reference to falsehoods) specifies "three pinnocchio" as the realm of "mostly false.", I can't imagine how there could be any doubt where this takes "four pinnocchios", except further into the same realm. --Escape Orbit 16:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Your argument appears to be with Kessler, not me. He says that the claim that Halper was paid large dollars for his assistance is a four-pinocchio claim even though "no dollar figures for his assistance ... have been reported." Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Not really. Misplaced Pages doesn't care if I, or you, take issue with Kessler. It only cares that we reflect accurately what he says. And he says "four pinnocchios" which is a "whopper" of a falsehood. His thinking in reaching that conclusion is not for me, or you, to dissect. --Escape Orbit 20:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not dissecting. He clearly says that the claim that Halper was paid a lot of money is worthy of four pinocchios because "no dollar figures ... have been reported". He clearly does not say that spygate is worthy of four pinnochios. To report what he says, we do have to read it. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

By the way, another point relevant to the Bump source. In another piece here, , Bump says that the IRS targeting controversy and the ATF gunwalking scandal were conspiracy theories. Should we use this piece to change those titles to "IRS targeting conspiracy theory" and so on? Or can we instead recognize that Bump's "analysis" pieces are really opinion pieces? Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• Excellent breakdown Shinealittlelight, thanks for doing the dirty work. I would just like to point out that a lot of the arguments made in defense of including the word "false" in the introductory paragraph were rebuffed when made in defense of including Barr's testimony to congress within the article body. If the source does not say "Spygate", even when the subject matter seems to be the same topic, then, I'm told, it cannot be included in the Spygate article; if the source does not say "Spygate is false", even when the implication seems to be a debunking of Spygate, then the descriptor "false" should not be used. A more consistent way to include the same information while still excluding the AG's testimony would be to note that claims central to the Spygate conspiracy theory were rated as "Four Pinnochios" by Kessler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 19:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Except that the claim to which Kessler gives "four pinnochios" is not central to the Spygate theory as we are using 'Spygate'. He gave four pinocchios to the claim about Halper recieving lots of money. That's no part of spygate as we understand it in the article (namely, the theory that the Obama administration placed a spy in the Trump campaign).Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Hm! Good point, can't argue with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 21:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight - sorry, I said I would reply to you further on the Kessler piece, here is my reply: I think Kessler's award of Four Pinocchios is wider than you describe it to be, than just the money paid. In my view, the Four Pinocchios is for Trump's entire May 24, 2018 tweet at the top of the article - this includes a debunking of Trump's first sentence Clapper has now admitted that there was Spying in my campaign. starship.paint ~ KO 10:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

That's just not what it says. He applies four pinocchios to what he calls "this latest claim". The tweet of May 24 was not what he was referring to; he was referring to the latest claim Trump had made--mentioned just before that--to the effect that Halper had received a large payment. Your reading is just not reasonable, I'm sorry. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• Shinealittlelight - half o the article, , before the background info Here is a guide to the various "scandals" about the probe that Trump has promoted since he became president..., is a refutation of Trump's May 24 tweet, which includes the payment portion. The last sentence of the refutation part, Democratic leaders, after a closed-door briefing from the FBI on the informant, said they were shown no evidence that supported Trump's claim of spying. is a further clue that Kessler wasn't only intensely focused on the payment portion of the claim as you are representing. It doesn't say no evidence that supported Trump's claim of payment of a spy/informant. starship.paint ~ KO 14:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

starship.paint, I agree that he talks about a lot of other stuff in the article, and he generally has a negative assessment of Trump's basis fo his claims. But his specific application of "four pinocchios" is unambiguously to the "latest claim" that Trump made about a big payment. You can try to make a different argument that, aside from his application of "four pinocchios," he saysa that Spygate is false. But I'm addressing his application of "four pinocchios". If you want to go on to make this other argument, it would serve clarity for you to first concede that his application of "four pinocchios" is not to Spygate but to a more specific claim about payment. Or, if you think that he is applying "four pinocchios" to spygate, you need to explain how, when he says "latest claim," he could possibly in this context be referring to Spygate. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Shinealittlelight: my analysis of the source is that the “latest claim” is the entire May 24 tweet. I think that the Clapper sentence, as part of the tweet, is also part of the “latest claim”. Since you think it only refers to a portion of the tweet on payment, I think we have to agree to disagree on this matter. starship.paint ~ KO 15:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the matter of payment was an important part of Trump's Spygate allegation:

"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!" Donald Trump, Twitter, May 22, 2018

BullRangifer (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure, Trump said that. But the article currently defines "spygate" as the theory that "the Obama administration planted a paid spy inside 2016 presidential campaign in an effort to help Trump’s rival, Hillary Clinton, win the general election." So if this is how we're understanding 'spygate', then Trump's additional claim about payment is just that--additional to the claim that we're calling spygate, not a part of it. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Then we need to fix that definition, because Spygate is based on Trump's claims, which include the payment element. We can't define Spygate on just part of Trump's claims at the time. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I tried to improve it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

No RS uses 'spygate' with the specificity you're now suggesting, and which you've implemented without consensus. I can now see that there's a huge problem with the definition of 'spygate'. It is defined in a number of non-equivalent ways in the RSs, and Misplaced Pages now defines it differently than all of them. I'm going to elaborate when I get a chance, probably tomorrow. But my basic suggestion is that we need to have a subsection devoted to spelling out the varying uses of 'spygate', and the article itself needs to be on a more general topic--something like "Allegations of illegal surveillance on the 2016 Trump presidential campaign"--since there is no such single topic as 'spygate'.Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• I only looked at the first source cited, and it already does support the claim. . Trump and Republicans say that Halper was a spy planted in the Trump campaign by the Obama administration “for political purposes” — in other words, to hurt Trump’s electoral chances. The president has dubbed this “SPYGATE,” ... Trump has even expanded on the theory in his tweets, arguing Monday night that Halper was a paid operative working for Clinton. ... There is no evidence that Halper was paid some extravagant fee for his work as an informant, and it’s not clear what Trump is referring to. starship.paint ~ KO 14:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• The quote provided does not say that Halper was paid a massive amount of money, which is part of how you've now idiosyncratically defined "spygate" in the article. That edit is totally out of step with RS as far as I can tell, and there is no consensus yet. Seems important to build a consensus before making an edit like that, given that people like me can't revert and follow the normal BRD process. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• Trump himself said the spy was paid a “massive amount of money”. Vox embedded that tweet from Trump saying that in the article. Then Vox replied about no evidence of extravagant fee. So that’s really part of Spygate too. starship.paint ~ KO 15:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• He was paid a million dollars, and Trump thought that was a huge amount.

I don't know of any RS which imply that it was about some other person than Halper. Trump's first uses of the term have that specific context. That he later muddies the waters by throwing around the terms "spy" and "spying" are another matter. He's an expert at sowing confusion. It has served him well in business as a short-term strategy, but has, of course, been terrible as a long-term strategy, because it undermines his credibility, and even the banks learned they couldn't trust anything he said. The same applies now to his international relations. No one trusts him, and by extension, they no longer trust America.

You want a "subsection devoted to spelling out the varying uses of 'spygate'." That would be a good idea, but I suspect what you're seeking (lots of material) is varying uses of the words "spy" and "spying" applied by Trump and supporters to the various aspects of the Russia investigation, which includes Spygate and several other things. Only the use of those words, as applied to Halper and Spygate, would be on-topic here. A different article could cover their general use of the words "spy" and "spying" for those other things. We must stay on-topic. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that even if you just look at how NYT, WaPo, CNN, and other such sources gloss the actual word 'spygate', you find substantive variation that affects how we are deciding the "false vs unsupported" issue, as well as how we decide various other things. I don't have time to make a complete case, but here's just one example: . Here we have spygate glossed without the big payment part. Again, there are loads of other examples. They often say nearly the same thing with slightly different levels of specificity, but you can find RSs that say Spygate is just the theory that there was improper spying. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

A few concerns

I’m not here at the behest or to weigh in on any of the present RFCs, or commenting on them generally. But I will note that it seems there is some overlap between them, which likely requires some uninvolved administrator(s) oversight. And while I’m sure some might welcome such, wherever they might happen to blow in the ideological wind, the fact that there’s an obvious large scale off-Wiki canvassing/meatpuppetry concern should give regular editors pause. I’m not sure whether there’s any remedy to this, to be honest, but I’m sure it’s been a topic of some precedent. Perhaps more veteran editors than myself can enlighten me. Regardless, all these changes seem premature, and given the obvious political trenches for some, couldn’t we err on the side of caution and wait just a few days? If not for more information, than for a breather. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Symmachus Auxiliarus - Agree, slow things down. I'm generally in favor of the RFCs taking the full 30 days, and a 48-hour waiting period for any breaking news. To me allowing time is a practical necessity because it takes time for responses to show up, and for whatever the WEIGHT will be to become apparent. Slowing things down curbing mob enthusiasms or puppetry seems a likely side benefit. But I haven't seen such be put in as a control, there is a large following (on all sides) that hate to wait, and admins seem to go for availability of discretionary sanctions. Stay tuned -- it's an interesting case. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

While Barr’s testimony is disputed...

can we at least include language like this under an April 2019 subsection?

Trump’s Spygate allegations were widely debunked at the time, but gained renewed interest in April 2019 after attorney general William Barr testified to Congress that “spying did occur” on the Trump campaign, although his characterization of “spying” was ambiguous and he declined to provide specific evidence. He stated he was assembling a team to examine the matter, although the Justice Department inspector general had been looking into it and related matters for some time and was expected to release his report within weeks

soibangla (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• I support this. Neutrally worded, accurate, current information that is bourn out by the available sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 19:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
• That looks fine to me too. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah, totally missed the "spying did occur" error. He said "I think spying did occur". – Muboshgu (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
• Looks good to me. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
• Not sure "widely debunked at the time" really works. There was no evidence presented for such debunking. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe "viewed as false" (by RS) at the time would work better. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• Strike that. They are still viewed as false by RS, so those words are misleading and should be left out. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• Weigh in at False vs. Unsupported— Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 21:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
• Maybe just "Trump’s Spygate allegations gained renewed interest in April 2019 after attorney general William Barr testified to Congress that “spying did occur” on the Trump campaign, although his characterization of “spying” was ambiguous and he declined to provide specific evidence. He stated he was assembling a team to examine the matter, although the Justice Department inspector general had been looking into it and related matters for some time and was expected to release his report within weeks." to keep it simple. How many times do we need to clarify this is a conspiracy theory?— Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 21:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

That works for me. soibangla (talk) 01:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, my problem is that we need a source for the Trump’s Spygate allegations gained renewed interest... bit before we could go anywhere else. A non-opinion piece (so we can cite it for statements of fact) which mentions Spygate by name (so the connection isn't WP:SYNTH.) And if / when we have such a source, we'd have to rely on its framing and tone. --Aquillion (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, I'd hesitate to use AG Barr’s Testimony Reignites ‘Spygate’ Debate soibangla (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• Clearly not, according to WP:RSP. The Daily Caller was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes "false or fabricated information". starship.paint ~ KO 01:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I know. soibangla (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

What is the process for whitelisting a single article from a deprecated source? Would that require another RfC? Some of the DC's articles are quite objective, even if the bulk of the publication ranges from heavily sensationalized to totally unverified. This particular article doesn't look like it deviates from the current discussion at all, and it's comprised mostly of quotes. If this is the only source keeping up with the discussion let's run it through the gauntlet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 00:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

With all the sources for a story like this; why would you want to whitelist an article from such a poor source? Find a good source. O3000 (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Have you read the article? It's a good article.
(Why would anyone ever want to whitelist an article from a poor source? Yet there are still provisions for that.)
If there were another article, from a reliable source such as Newsweek for example, I would prefer to use that one. However, this article clearly reflects the current information surrounding the controversy, and shows that people do in fact consider Barr's investigation to be related to Spygate, and that Barr's testimony to Congress has reignited the debate. The DC is not great, but this article is fine. It reflects everything already reported on cable news and is one of the only sources in print that does so. It deserves consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 00:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Having been forced to read it – it looks quite disjointed. But, that hardly matters as it simply makes no sense to say that we should use a deprecated source because it’s nowhere else. If it is only in a deprecated source, that alone suggests we shouldn’t use it. O3000 (talk) 02:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

SK8RBOI, you ask: "Why would anyone ever want to whitelist an article from a poor source." There is one situation where we do that. Let's say Rush Limbaugh wrote some typically nonsensical stuff on a very unreliable website we have blacklisted. If that statement was worth quoting in his own article, as an example of his beliefs on the subject, we could make an exception for that specific use of the article. It's a one-time thing. I've seen that happen. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Would using the Daily Caller, a website that promotes conspiracy theories, to define a conspiracy theory then not also be a reasonable move? I only suggest this because we're not trying to establish the Spygate claims as factually true, we're trying to establish that these additional claims are also part of Spygate, or are becoming part of Spygate. Our favored sources do not use "Spygate" to refer to these new claims, although the claims are clearly related to Spygate, but the Daily Caller (among other far less reliable sources) actually does. I think that out of these sources that have updated the conspiracy theory, the DC is the most palatable, or is at least the least objectionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 22:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

In articles about themselves, we can quote content from the unreliable source, as long as it isn't "unduly self-serving". Outside of articles about themselves (the unreliable sources or persons), we only use RS, never unreliable sources. When RS quote or refer to what unreliable sources say, then we can quote the RS about it.

I have sometimes found content in unreliable sources that was really sharply written (like WOW!), and I wondered if it could be used. To deal with that, I have searched to see if RS have picked up their specific wordings. Sometimes I find a RS in that way, and can thus justify entering content which is a fringe view normally only found on unreliable websites.

It's a due weight matter. We weigh due weight between various RS, but never between RS vs unreliable sources. We don't pit them against each other. When a RS describes a conspiracy theory, we document it, but give it less weight. We must, after all, document the theory, even when it's false. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Hold up, please! Soibangla - where are the sources? Also, I would say add “allegations of May 2018 and June 2018” to the first sentence. starship.paint ~ KO 00:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Pretty much all of it is here. We can add "of May 2018 and June 2018,” but wasn't that already established earlier? soibangla (talk) 00:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Soibangla: - first, you've sourced the easy stuff. I think your source doesn't cover "Trump’s Spygate allegations ... gained renewed interest in April 2019 after attorney general William Barr testified to Congress" Second, yes it was established earlier, but apparently many people still have their own idea of what Spygate is, so no harm to reinforce our message that it's the May/June 2018 stuff that is being debunked. starship.paint ~ KO 01:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, Spygate wasn't in the press much for months before Barr testified, as far as I see, but I could be wrong about that. Just the sudden meatpuppetry here seems to confirm renewed interest. soibangla (talk) 01:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• Soibangla - we can't use meatpuppetry here to write an article, unless this is covered by reliable sources. starship.paint ~ KO 01:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that. soibangla (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Do we have sources using the term 'spygate' specifically in reference to Barr's opinions? I don't feel we can include it without that unambiguous connection, since that's the focus of the article. --Aquillion (talk) 01:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support either one of the proposed. I just read an May 21, 2018 article in WaPo (yeah, I know I'm way behind) wherein they identified one of the FBI's "secret informants" (isn't that what a spy is?) so it appears that Barr is technically correct but maybe not politically correct. If we need sources to verify "secret informant" following are 3 more that covered the counterintelligence part naming Stefan Halper before WaPo released his name: WSJ, NY Mag, and Axios. _Talk 📧 01:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Those sources don't mention Spygate or Barr at all. We need to stay on topic, not just WP:SYNTH up whatever random articles editors here feel are cool. I mean, I'm glad you personally got something from those articles, but we can't Atsme, a Misplaced Pages editor, read these articles and was of the opinion that they meant Barr was correct, because, they argued, isn't an informant who gave the FBI information about possible Russian influence basically exactly like the Obama administration planting a paid spy? We can't do that - you need sources specifically stating the points you want to make (ie. ones mentioning Spygate by name, and ones unambiguously connecting those to Barr.) Then we would have to rely on the interpretation of reliable sources. --Aquillion (talk) 01:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• Either seem fairly reasonable. Heck could pick just about any source scattered around this talk page to support it as well. At this point it looks like there is consensus to include. PackMecEng (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• No, there is no consensus to include when the sources haven't even been decided yet. Are we going to add the text without sources? If it's so easy to provide the relevant sources, why don't you do it, PackMecEng? starship.paint ~ KO 01:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• Well two oppose and six support is good enough. Sure I will bite. Also yes opinion pieces are perfectly acceptable for certain things such as for subjective things like gaining renewed interest. PackMecEng (talk) 02:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• @PackMecEng: - vote numbers can't beat WP:V + WP:OR. In my view, none of these articles cover "Trump’s Spygate allegations ... gained renewed interest in April 2019 after attorney general... " Can you point me to specific quotes that back up this phrase? By the way, per WP:NEWSORG (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.. starship.paint ~ KO 02:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• Gained renewed interest is a subjective term. Are you saying this whole incident did not spark new interest in the subject? That would be a rather odd things to say considering the amount of sources that came from him talking about it. Also the sources satisfy verifiability so not even an issue there. You asked for sources that support the text and several have been provided by me and others so I assume there is no issue now correct? Otherwise this is getting disruptive. PackMecEng (talk) 02:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• @PackMecEng: - you've missed my point entirely. I know that there are sources on Barr's testimony. That's not in contention. I am saying that if we want to write that this incident sparked interest, we must have the source to say it. My question is which reliable source says that there has been renewed interest in Spygate in April 2019 due to Barr's testimony? Quote, please? starship.paint ~ KO 02:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• As everyone else is mentioning, it is the number of sources presented. If that is your sticking point what would you suggest for alternative wording that satisfies your personal view of police? Even though consensus says it is fine. PackMecEng (talk) 02:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• It' not an issue of wording. Were I to remove the phrase in contention (Spygate allegations ... gained renewed interest after), then the whole paragraph would lack a link to this article on Spygate. starship.paint ~ KO 02:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

When googling "spygate trump" before April 2019, the last reference to it I see is in June 2018. Do we really need to provide a RS to prove that it has gained renewed interest? soibangla (talk) 02:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• In my view, we definitely need a reliable source, otherwise that's really original research. starship.paint ~ KO 02:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

How about . It says Barr's remarks caused pundits to talk about all the spygate-related issues.Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• I'm going to quote that part here: Barr’s comments kicked up a lot of dust in the world of political punditry, dust that Trump is happy to keep aloft. Conservatives and Trump supporters have seized on the semantic question of what constitutes “spying” as a rationale for demonstrating that the Trump-Barr presentation of what happened is accurate ... That to me, seems to be saying that Barr generated interest in "spying". However two links are missing: that "spying" is equal to "Spygate allegations", and that there is "renewed" interest. starship.paint ~ KO 02:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. He goes on to talk about how Trump is glad to use this situation to encourage pundits to argue about whether his campaign was targeted. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Here's another quote that might help: As with “spying,” arguing that his campaign was targeted serves a robust political goal. Instead of talking about how a candidate who was fighting the Republican establishment was forced to welcome help from sometimes-sketchy outsiders, Trump would instead rather talk about how the Deep State was out to get him. And so, inevitably it seems, we do.Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• Shinealittlelight - Again I struggle to equate that quote you just listed as a source for to "Trump’s Spygate allegations ... gained renewed interest in April 2019 after attorney general... ". I'm starting to question my sanity here. starship.paint ~ KO 02:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

starship.paint, let me try again. After summarizing Barr's testimony and the reactions of Trump and conservatives in the media, Bump says "But before we dig into the specifics of what Trump and his supporters are arguing, let’s review what we know happened." He then details all the conceivably spying-related occurrences over the last couple of years, and he argues that this does not add up to "spying on the campaign". He closes by suggesting that Trump will nevertheless continue to talk about this, since for political reasons he wants us all to debate whether there was spying on his campaign, and we will "inevitably" continue to do so. He thus presents an overall picture according to which Trump and conservatives in the media are successfully using Barr's testimony to reignite discussion of whether the campaign was spied on. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• Shinealittlelight - notice that in your reply, you do not mention Spygate. Instead, you refer to conceivably spying-related occurrences over the last couple of years. Reading the article, this does not seem to be equivalent to Spygate, but something wider. Bump talks about Manafort and Flynn, both of whom aren't involved in Spygate. Bump talks about the FISA warrant on Page, which isn't related with Spygate. It talks about the FBI investigation into Papadopoulos, which isn't Spygate either. As for your comment about inevitably, per this quote: Trump would instead rather talk about how the Deep State was out to get him. And so, inevitably it seems, we do. - I interpret it as Bump saying as we discussing how the Deep State is out to get Trump. That, too, is related to, but not exactly Spygate, as this article is presented now. However, this article you presented may be useful in other ways, from Trump's comments themselves. starship.paint ~ KO 08:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• Exactly. This article isn't about any uses of the terms "spy" and "spying". It's about a specific use by Trump, made in a specific historical context. We must stay on-topic. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Soibangla: - in a point unrelated to my above arguments, per Associated Press - a significant point is that Barr never said there was illegal spying -> exact quote from Barr -> "I am not saying that improper surveillance occurred. I am saying that I am concerned about it and looking into it." Furthermore, your text says Barr testified to Congress that “spying did occur” when Barr actually said: "I think spying did occur". The below is my suggested change: starship.paint ~ KO 03:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

... attorney general William Barr testified to Congress: “I think spying did occur” on the Trump campaign, although his characterization of “spying” was ambiguous and he declined to provide specific evidence. Barr then clarified that he was "not saying that improper surveillance occurred", but that he was assembling a team to examine the matter ...

My preference would be to avoid a slippery slope of qualifying his remarks beyond "ambiguous," as he was kinda all over the place, and it invites others to come back with "yeah, but he also said..." which is why this topic is so contentious and seemingly deadlocked, but I suppose your alternative is reasonable. soibangla (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Aftermath section in light of Trump's April 2019 comments

This Washington Post source, provided by Shinealittlelight, quotes Trump's reaction to Barr's comments,Trump agrees with Barr and says: “There was absolutely spying into my campaign. ... in my opinion it was illegal spying, unprecedented spying ... There was spying in my campaign ...” starship.paint ~ KO 09:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

In my view, Trump's allegation, while he not explicitly connected to Spygate, seems related and similar enough to his past Spygate allegations to warrant a mention. Here's what he alleged previously: If the person placed very early into my campaign wasn't a SPY ... The spy was there early in the campaign ... counter-intelligence operation into the Trump Campaign As such, I propose an Aftermath section on this related development, where you would include this comment by Trump, and also you can include Barr's comment as proposed above, both as related developments, but not exactly Spygate. Thus, the following proposal: starship.paint ~ KO 09:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

On April 10, 2019, attorney general William Barr testified to Congress: “I think spying did occur” on the Trump campaign, although his characterization of “spying” was ambiguous and he declined to provide specific evidence. Barr then clarified that he was "not saying that improper surveillance occurred", but that he was assembling a team to examine the matter, although the Justice Department inspector general had been looking into it and related matters for some time and was expected to release his report within weeks. (paragraph break) On April 11, Trump wholeheartedly endorsed Barr's comments, declaring: “There was absolutely spying into my campaign. ... in my opinion it was illegal spying, unprecedented ... There was spying in my campaign, and answer was a very accurate one.”

PackMecEng, pinging you because you earlier asked for alternative wording that would satisfy me. This is it. starship.paint ~ KO 09:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh well I might as well just tag everyone who has participated in this discussion so far: @Soibangla, Shinealittlelight, Aquillion, and Atsme: and @SK8RBOI, Objective3000, BullRangifer, and Mr Ernie: and @Phmoreno: who earlier raised this quote on the talk page. starship.paint ~ KO 10:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping starship. I think this is a worthy inclusion and well worded at that. The only criticism I have is the "Aftermath" header; I think something in the vein of "April 2019 Developments" (but more well phrased) would be more appropriate. We can't be certain that this is the aftermath, in that the controversy has ended and these developments are occurring only in the wake of the conspiracy theory. "Ongoing controversy" would be similarly inaccurate since we cannot be certain that the story will continue to develop. To say they are developments and they occurred in April 2019 is unexciting but appears to be relatively safer. Just my 0.02. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 21:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• @SK8RBOI: - the whole problem is that the reliable sources are not explicitly connecting this to Spygate, the closest one is a USA Today opinion source. Had the sources said "Barr's comments are related to Spygate!" and "Trump's comments are related to Spygate!", we wouldn't have this mess. This is why I'm putting it in Aftermath. starship.paint ~ KO 00:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• And yet it isn't an aftermath to Spygate. It's just another use of the words "spy" and "spying".

Spygate does not refer to all alleged spying on the Trump campaign, and not all alleged spying on the campaign refers to Spygate. There was surveillance of specific individuals as part of the investigation into Russian interference, and that ended up including the whole campaign, including Trump. He is the chief suspect, the spider in the center of the web, whose spiders do nothing without his orders, or at least his approval. This was still not a politically motivated investigation, but was part of the investigation into Russian interference. Trump and his campaign members were obviously deeply involved with Russians and Trump clearly benefited from the interference. This included many secret meetings (with Trump literally trumping Don Jr and Kushner to issue a false press report about the Trump Tower meeting), and then lying repeatedly about all of it. All of this created justified suspicions that they were party to the interference and made all the investigations completely justified and legitimate. Never before has an administration and president acted in this manner.

So should this even be included here? Not if it isn't clearly about Spygate (Halper). This is about "Other uses" of the terms "spy" and "spying" by Trump and Co., which is a different article, actually a disambiguation page I'm working on. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

This is unreasonable because as Starship.paint made clear, a neutral observer can read Trump's new comments as being a continuation of his previous accusations. Trump's core accusation is that he was spied on, and that such spying was illegitimate and partisan in motivation and effects. His allegation of details has changed, however the core accusation has not. Clearly, as referenced by the primary accusers who use the term (Trump, Bongino, Solomon, Carter, Nunes, etc.) the term "SpyGate" is used to denote illegitimate spying on the Trump campaign and/or presidency by members of the Obama administration. Parts of that are as yet unsubstantiated (e.g. calling the predication "illegitimate") and are still under investigation or criminal referral by Barr, Nunes, and various journalists. Parts are well substantiated. It's all fair game for encyclopedic mention. Wookian (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Wookian: I'm going to correct your depiction of my remarks: in my view, Trump's April 2019 comments are sufficiently close to his Spygate allegations that this is an Aftermath. In my view, just "spying" is not close enough, because I agree with Aquillion that we can't lump every spying-related bit of commentary into the article. But, since he said "spying in/into my campaign", I do think that is close enough. starship.paint ~ KO 02:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

A (hypothetical) neutral observer might choose to hold that opinion, though I'd tend to disagree - based on my search for sources earlier, the only people making that connection are decidedly non-neutral opinion pieces. But we can't cite hypothetical neutral observers, nor can we rely on opinion pieces (especially ones from non-WP:RS outlets) to make a connection in the article voice. If we want to connect something to Spygate in the article voice, we need a non-opinion source doing so directly. Without that, we can only use "Spygate" to refer to Trump's May 2018 statements - we can't just lump every spying-related bit of commentary under that label ourselves. --Aquillion (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. Besides, Trump, Bongino, Solomon, Carter, Nunes, etc. are not RS. They are just using the term "spying" to rebrand ("Trump privately said that he wanted "to brand" the informant as a "spy" as using a more nefarious term than "informant") the legitimate and sometimes court-ordered and non-political investigations into his campaign, which were all part of national security matters. No one is denying that investigations into Trump's campaign occurred, and if Trump wants to rebrand those investigations, we can't stop him. That doesn't change the fact that at one point in time, he started using the term Spygate in a specific manner to refer to Stefan Halper's contacts with three campaign members. That is the original Spygate accusation, and "we can't just lump every spying-related bit of commentary under that label ourselves." -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Aquillion and BullRangifer: Confusions like these appear to be a persistent problem on this talk page. Perhaps a notice should go at the top to disambiguate it, especially for certain editors which may spend more time reading here than the mainspace? --Calthinus (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Good idea. I have created a FAQ. Feel free to improve it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ahrtoodeetoo: - you removed the link to the FAQ, so I am linking it here: Talk:Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump)/FAQ. starship.paint ~ KO 02:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

My creation of that FAQ was in response to the request above to prevent confusion. It disambiguates the various things that "spy" and "spying" may refer to. Without it, we'll still go in circles and allow fringe theories and rebranding attempts by Trump and Co. to confuse us. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Spygate originated with Louise Mensch and the NY Times in November of 2016 (no evidence other than the NYTimes publishing that the US government was spying on Trump's campaign)

The President accused former FBI lawyer Lisa Page and former FBI agent Peter Strzok and "hundreds of others" of treason and implied they could be punished for it

Scope of theory

I'm not convinced that the Spygate theory is limited to the Stefan Halper claims, as the FAQ indicates. That appears to have been true in May 2018, but by June 2018 Trump was apparently referring to Spygate to refer to political spying more broadly. For instance, this June 5, 2018 NY Mag Intelligencer source, which we cite 4 times, says nothing about Halper or informants. And this Vox source, which explains the origin of Trump's June 5 tweet, indicates that it was based on allegations by the Gateway Pundit that the Obama administration had planted "multiple spies." No mention of Halper. R2 (bleep) 00:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

The Gateway Pundit is not a RS. They have just expanded on Trump's original conspircy theory about Halper by making it "multiple spies". Still no evidence for that one. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

The source even says: "Assuming that is what the texts mean, nothing in the messages makes any reference either to the Trump campaign or to Russia." It's not relevant here on several levels. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Ahrtoodeetoo: - it's not limited to Halper, and our article does not claim so, see the third paragraph of the lede. The June 2018 claims (I'm correcting your obvious typo of 2016 above) are also referring to Spygate, and they are covered in the article. The Vox source reporting on the June 2018 claims says: "The best way to analyze “Spygate” is not as a partisan dispute, but rather a conspiracy theory". They are viewing it as one big conspiracy theory. starship.paint ~ KO 01:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Barr may not have been talking exclusively about Halper, because he said "I’m not talking about the FBI necessarily but intelligence agencies more broadly”

He may have been talking about this: Still, the wiretap order enabled FBI agents to obtain and read older emails in Mr. Page’s account, including when he was working with the campaign. The inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, has asked those involved in that effort why they did not use a so-called filter team to review the messages and screen out any sensitive but irrelevant information before adding them to the Russia investigation case file. However, there appeared to be no rule requiring such a step, according to a person familiar with the inquiry.

So they didn't just intercept Page's traffic, they hacked his email to read his history. And maybe (?) the NSA actually did the hacking and gave the FBI the results, hence "intelligence agencies more broadly.” If the FBI accepted Jason Miller saying “He’s never been a part of our campaign. Period.” when Page was summarily jettisoned after the Isikoff story the previous day, and didn't use a filter team because of that, Barr may be Monday morning quarterbacking by asserting, despite what Miller said, that Page was named to the campaign in March and was there until September, so looking at Page's emails from March thru September should not have been authorized — in his view. soibangla (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

And just because the words "spy" and "spying" are used, does not mean they are necessarily talking about Spygate. Most of the time they aren't. Let's not start making that mistake here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, "Barr may not have been talking exclusively about Halper", because he never mentioned Spygate, but just used "spying". Not relevant here. Let's stay on-topic. That FAQ really is necessary. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer, I agree an FAQ is necessary but my concern is that it describes Spygate too narrowly. I'm not suggesting that Spygate encompasses all spying allegations, god no. I'm saying that it seems to be broader than just Halper. I support reinserting the FAQ once it's consistent with the sources. R2 (bleep) 16:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Is 'Spygate' ambiguous?

The reliable sources use ‘spygate’ in many different ways. Does ‘spygate’ include the claim that an FBI informant was “in” or “implanted in” or “infiltrating” the campaign? Or is it just the idea that an informant was collecting information from the campaign? Does it include the claim that the use of an informant was politically motivated to help Clinton? Sources conflict on these things. Some reliable sources, oddly enough, define ‘spygate’ as a claim that it is in fact plainly known to be true! (For example, see the second example below.) None of the reliable sources seem to define it the way the Misplaced Pages article presently defines it, as including a claim about big payment. Here’s a list of the many varying definitions in the reliable sources (note that none of them define it the way we currently define it in the article, to include a claim about a large payment):

The New York Times says that Spygate is the claim that the Obama administration “planted” a spy “deep inside” the Trump campaign to help Clinton win.

The Chicago Tribune says that Spygate is the claim that the FBI obtained information from Halper, who met with three members of Trump’s campaign.

NBC News says that Spygate is just the claim that the FBI used an informant (presumably on the Trump campaign).

MSNBC says that Spygate is the claim that the FBI “infiltrated” his campaign by “implanting” a “spy” in his “operation”.

ABC News says that Spygate is the claim that the Obama Administration used a spy to “infiltrate” the Trump campaign.

Vox says that Spygate is the claim that Halper was a spy who was “implanted” in the campaign to help Hillary.

Vox elsewhere says that Spygate is the claim that the FBI put a spy in the campaign.

Newsweek says that Spygate is the claim that the FBI spied on the Trump campaign.

In addition to these pieces, there are a bunch in which ‘Spygate’ is used but unclearly. Often with no definition at all. But in many cases, the source will describe several paragraphs of facts, and then say “this is what Trump calls Spygate,” which leaves it unclear exactly what is supposed to be included. Here are what I take to be the unclear sources: , , , , , , , .

In light of all this, I want to suggest that ‘Spygate’ is not uniquely defined by reliable sources. As a result, I think that the article should be titled something like “Controversies about FBI Surveillance in the 2016 Presidential Campaign”. We should then have a sub-section that details the many varying uses of ‘spygate’ to refer to different parts of this controversy, including several uses on which it refers to a conspiracy theory. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I share your concern to some extent about the ambiguity of the conspiracy theory, but (1) I disagree with your proposed solution, which seems to blend fringe subjects with non-fringe subjects, and (2) I think you're misconstruing some of these sources. To take an example, you say that the Chicago Tribune source says that Spygate is "the claim that the FBI obtained information from Halper, who met with three members of Trump’s campaign." This isn't accurate. The source says that Spygate refers to this claim, not that it is this claim. The source makes clear that Spygate is false because Halper didn't "spy" on the Trump campaign because "spying" requires the use of tradecraft to obtain information. I believe you similarly misread the NBC source as well. R2 (bleep) 16:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

In fact, when you adjust for those inaccuracies, it appears to me the sources you've linked are pretty consistent in their portrayals of Spygate, namely that the FBI under the Obama administration implanted a spy in the Trump campaign. R2 (bleep) 17:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Good point R2 about "refers to" the claim--I agree with you that I was interpreting this, and perhaps mistakenly. To say exactly what Kessler means by 'spygate' in that article then requires us to make some inferences, and I doubt everyone here is going to agree on the correct interpretation. But thanks for saying that you share my general concern to some extent. I definitely recognize that some of my descriptions of what the sources say may be controversial or mistaken, but I think that even though that's true, my general point about ambiguity is right. What do you think should be done? My suggestion was just that--a suggestion--and I'm open to other ideas. I just think the article currently gives the impression that 'Spygate' has some clear unambiguous meaning, when it really doesn't.Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree with R2. Yes, the term is ambiguous. Partly because conspiracy theories are often ambiguous as they are built upon sand and tend to morph. Partly because Trump tends to change his stories. I think we need to include the various claims. I think the suggested title: “Controversies about FBI Surveillance in the 2016 Presidential Campaign” is highly misleading as it suggests wrongdoing on the part of the FBI and legitimizes Spygate. The title “Spygate conspiracy theory” is more accurate and concise. Or, theory could be plural. O3000 (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

We just moved from "Spygate (conspiracy theory)" in March after a move request (initiated by moi) and we're not going back (with or without parentheses) without explicitly overturning that consensus. R2 (bleep) 17:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

We appear to be on track toward that move. O3000 (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Read why we moved away from that title in the first place before jumping on the train. Not a single person who recently stated support for the move back has said anything about football. R2 (bleep) 17:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I missed your second point, R2, before posting my last comment. Two replies. First, if the understnading of 'spygate' that you suggest is right, it differs from what is currently in the wiki article. Second, I disagree that the sources are consistent. Does it matter whether there was a political motivation? The NBC source says that the FBI just used an informant, not that the informant was part of the campaign. Does the spy have to be in the campaign? (Does 'embed' mean the same as 'in' or 'inflitrate'?) Etc. O3, do you think all the uses I detailed above count spygate as a conspiracy theory? Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Those differences are pretty small. All conspiracy theories come in a variety of flavors. R2 (bleep) 17:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I disagree. It's highly relevant to whether the theory has been shown to be false. The more the theory builds in, the less credible it is, and more conspiracy-theory-ish. If it's just the claim that the campaign was spied on (per NBC news and Newsweek above), that's way harder to show it to be false.Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

And yet...sources like the ChiTri article say it was false because it alleged spying, not because it alleged implantation in the campaign. R2 (bleep) 17:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

So you disagree, then, with several other editors who have argued at length above that it is important to represent spygate as including, not just the claim that there was spying on the campaign, but that the spy was a member of the campaign. This is my point. Everyone is using the term differently, and this includes varying uses among those who think the the theory has been shown false. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into a point-for-point on whom I agree with and whom I disagree with on specific points. I believe that if various sources are describing slightly different variations on the theory then we should describe those variations to the extent they're reliably sourced and noteworthy. R2 (bleep) 17:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like we have a disagreement about how important the differences are. I do not agree that they are slightly differerent, but I have argued that they are substantive differences that interact in a complex way with the discussion above about whether spygate has been shown to be false.Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any inconsistency between these sources and our basic definition of Spygate. They are just different ways of wording it. They may emphasize or mention (and not mention) different aspects, but they don't contradict any part of the full Trump tweets, which are the basis for the conspiracy theory. They are all describing the same basic ideas. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

So if I say, per NBC and Newsweek, that spygate = the claim that the campaign was spied on by the FBI, you agree with that description of it? Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Of course, because that is a basic part of the Spygate accusation by Trump. It's not the whole thing, but certainly a basic part of it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Er, '=' doesn't mean 'is a part of'.Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

You are again misrepresenting the NBC source. R2 (bleep) 17:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Here's the quote I was going on: Trump has been referring to the FBI's use of an informant as "spygate". Seems like what I said, but maybe there's another way to read it. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, I want to make sure I understand you correctly, since you seem to be focusing unnecessarily hard on a very specific detail to the exclusion of what isn't said there, even though that is the unspoken context. Are you implying that Trump and NBC are talking about a different person than Halper? If so, then that would indeed be a very different defintion, but I know of no RS which implies otherwise. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what Trump and NBC had in mind in this regard. I find it plausible that they mean Halper, but many people have thought that Trump was not referring to Halper but to someone who was "deeply embedded" (NYT) or in some sense a member of the campaign. Some have claimed on this very page that the theory is false for this reason--that he wasn't just saying Halper did what he did, but that he was saying something else for which we have no evidence, that there was an unidentified spy "inside" (whatever that means) the campaign. I myself don't know what they mean. I only maintain that there are many different claims going under the title of "Spygate" in the reliable sources and even in our discussion here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Right, the NBC source refers to the use of an informant, not just spying. R2 (bleep) 17:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think those terms are equivalent here, but maybe I'm wrong. Either way, it seems to make no difference to what we were talking about. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Correct. Trump chose to call him a "spy" as it has a more onerous implication than "informant". That's just rebranding by Trump. It's still about the same person. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Without singling out an individual editor I would like to say that narrowly defining what spygate should be could be pursued by editors to restrict it to details Trump got wrong to continue to call an actual event a conspiracy theory. I think you will be wise to pick your battles carefully and let this one go. We all know Trump shoots from the hip often with little factual basis but he knew something was going on, and further investigation reveals he wasnt wrong on spying. Reliable sources claiming a CT at the time do not make this a historically significant story. I suggest a review of the Dewey beats Truman story. The newspaper was in error. They werent conspiracy theorists. IN SUMMARY I wholly agree with the OP and his suggested renaming.Batvette (talk) 00:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

"he knew something was going on, and further investigation reveals he wasnt wrong on spying" - ummm, no.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Batvette. I agree that people here are trying to narrowly define 'spygate', and I agree this is a problem. However, if some RSs say that 'spygate' means the theory that there was a spy who was a member of the campaign, and they claim that this is an unproven conspiracy theory (e.g., the NYT), then we should say that in the article. (That's how Misplaced Pages works, right? We say what the RSs say.) The problem is that not all the RSs define 'spygate' narrowly and call it a conspiracy theory. In fact, some define 'spygate' as a claim that is now known to be true. So what's wrong is not that we should ignore some RSs, but that we should pay attention to all of them, and not pick and choose the ones that fit a certain political narrative. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

-gate means scandal. What RS claim this is a scandal, as opposed to a conspiracy theory? Are you claiming the conspiracy theory is not?O3000 (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Some RSs use 'spygate' for the claim that the FBI spied on the Trump campaign and do not call it a conspiracy theory. See, for example, the Newsweek article linked above. On the other hand, the NYT (for example) uses 'spygate' for an unproven theory that they call a conspiracy theory. So different RSs use 'spygate' in substantively different ways. The article should not pretend otherwise. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Break down of the original Spygate accusation by Trump

Let's break down the original Spygate accusation by Trump. Trump made the following accusations without providing any evidence:

"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!" Donald Trump, Twitter, May 22, 2018

1. "The person", labeled a "spy". (This is about ONE person, who is Halper.)
2. Put there "very early" into campaign. (Therefore NOT about ANY later instances of supposed "spying".)
3. Placed "into" the campaign. (Not just snooping/talking to three members, with no attempt to infiltrate and join the campaign.)
4. Put there by Obama administration. (IOW, the FBI, CIA, Justice Dept., whatever...)
5. Put there "for political purposes" (As opposed to the national security purposes of the Russia investigation.)
6. Paid a "massive amount of money". (Halper was paid money as an informant over a period of many years, mostly before the Trump campaign.)
7. Put there "to help Crooked Hillary win".

Not every description in RS is going to mention every single aspect, but that doesn't put them against each other or mean they are wrong. They just aren't being complete, which isn't always necessary for a news story.

We should just stick to history and base our definition on the Trump origins. That it may have morphed later is another matter. Such morphing could be added to this article under sections like "Further developments", or be the basis for new articles.

When the terms "spy" and/or "spying" are used to refer to other articles, it should be added there, not here. For example, when "spying" is referring to Carter Page's FISA warrant surveillance, then it should be dealt with at the Carter Page article, not here. We should not allow the deliberate confusion spread by Trump to influence us and cause us to fold every instance of legal investigation and surveillance into this article, because it doesn't belong here. This article isn't about ALL alleged spying, IOW all investigations that might tangentially have touched him and his campaign. It's about three specific instances of intelligence gathering by Halper.

Trump was talking about Halper, and we need to limit this article to that topic, and any further developments shouldn't change that basic definition. As mentioned above, such developments might be dealt with in section(s) further down in this article, but they don't change the basic and original definition. History locked that one down when Trump made his false accusations. Later history gets dealt with in later sections and/or other articles. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

That might have been the theory in May 2018, but then Trump tweeted a different, broader variation on June 5. According to Vox, that second tweet was based on a theory by the Gateway Pundit involving more than one informant implanted into the trump campaign. Isn't the subject of this discussion identical to "Scope of theory" above? How about we consolidate these discussions? R2 (bleep) 18:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

This comes under the category of "further develoments" I mention above: "any further developments shouldn't change that basic definition. As mentioned above, such developments might be dealt with in section(s) further down in this article, but they don't change the basic and original definition.... Later history gets dealt with in later sections and/or other articles."

What do you think of that way of including it here? -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Normally we would never include anything from The Gateway Pundit, but, because Trump made it notable (or was it just Vox which made a synthesis?), we can include it, but give it very little weight. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

References

1. Cite error: The named reference Tatum_5/22/2018 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

The tweet you cite is a primary source in this case. Furthermore, as has been said of other sources many times on this page, it does not refer to 'spygate' explicitly. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Let's break down the original Spygate accusations by Trump

President Trump's theory....

Why this article should be deleted

Several problems exist. First and foremost its intent seems to be a political hit piece, intended on ridiculing the President. While reliable sources declared two years ago it was a conspiracy theory, that was based upon info available at the time. The reliable sources declaring it a conspiracy theory have been superceded by new sources reporting spying. The spying was not exactly what Trump claimed in the past but the underlying issue is being proven true. So maybe we should reduce the article to "Trump got the details wrong". Which makes it not significant enough to even exist. Instead people are pushing for this article to exist probably to suggest thst spying never happened and that Trump is crazy for suggesting it did. Batvette (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

That sounds more like a reason to improve the article than to delete it. However, if after reviewing our deletion policy you still feel the article should be deleted, then you're free to nominate it for deletion via the standard AfD process. R2 (bleep) 20:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

In my view, a more neutral approach than deletion would be to recognize that 'spygate' is now being used by reliable sources in ten or so substantively different ways (see discussion of this above). We could then improve the article's neutrality by writing it in a way that reflects this fact, with one sub-section devoted to the relevant conspiracy theory as reported in some reliable sources. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Please do not spam every discussion with your view, which you've already amply communicated. This discussion is about deletion. R2 (bleep) 21:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Nope, the discussion was both about deletion and about a contrary suggestion, due to you, that the article should be improved rather than deleted. I then chimed in along the same lines to suggest a way of improving the article that you disagree with, but that--given Batvette's remarks--Batvette might find congenial. So my remark was on target and not out of order at all. The talk page is long, and newcomers to the discussion may benefit from brief pointers to previous parts of the page. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I think shinealittlelight has the right idea. My feelings that instigated the comment about deletion are that its really no longer a conspiracy theory, (possibly a matter of Trump claiming erroneous details) and that label "conspiracy theory" continuing to be placed upon the idea that Trumps campain was under surveillance is being revealed to be untrue. Is there an article on the issue of actual spying/legitimate surveillance on the campaign? Perhaps a merge with that is in order? If not then improvement of this article might start with renaming it "surveillance of the trump campaign" because Trumps belief in it 2 years ago had some basis in reality, and it may have had legitimate law enforcement status so spygate might be inappropriate. We dont know that yet. In summary deletion is surely premature but as it stands the article is just wrong, appearing as a hit piece which ignores new facts with endless available sourcing.Batvette (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I also had the thought of a separate article with a broader focus. But then I realized that some reliable sources use 'spygate' with exactly this broad meaning. Again, see my list in the above section, especially CNN: . So I tend to think that this article is the one where all this material belongs, together with a disambiguation of the main uses of 'Spygate' in the reliable sources, including the way it is sometimes used for a totally unproven claim (e.g., the claim that a spy was a member of the Trump campaign). Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

There should be a broader article with any conspiracy theory aspect a subsection. But I have to inject, does Trump being in error at the time about some details make it conspiracy theory? At that time perhaps but with current breaking news I dont think so. 2 years ago his claims were greeted with cynical criticism. Now not so much. Can other editors see precedent in other historical events that reliable sources can be proven wrong in time? Or are they intent on preserving a past time when they could ridicule a President-like establishing the article as a time capsule, instead of moving on when more facts come to light? Batvette (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

What is this "current breaking news"? Sources please.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm hearing a lot of sound and fury here, but no reliable sources. What has changed? O3000 (talk) 00:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, sources that were once considered reliable can absolutely be proven wrong. But to prove them wrong you're going to have to find new reliable sources that contradict them directly without using inference or original research to fill in the gaps. I hate talking about "sides" of a Misplaced Pages dispute, but those new sources are what's been consistently missing from your "side" of the debate that's been raging on this page for the past few weeks. Present the sources--again, with no inference or original research filling in the gaps--and you will find me to be much more sympathetic. R2 (bleep) 15:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Very well put, R2. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Objective3000, Ahrtoodeetoo, BullRangifer, and Volunteer Marek: - from somewhere above in this page, Newsweek 1, Newsweek 2 (same author), and Axios. See Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Axios_(website) for Axios. This is the total of what was produced from the tons of discussion before the Mueller report was released, after it was released I didn't read this talk page much. And before anyone brings up that USA Today piece, that is an opinion piece only reliable for the author's opinion and not for statements of fact. Anyway, we need to address these sources in the article. This is a legitimate concern since there are sources, few as they may be (until someone provides more). Maybe an Other definitions section, but certainly not expanded with sources that do not mention Spygate. starship.paint ~ KO 12:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• All three are RS and use the word Spygate to refer to Trump's use of the word. The first Newsweek article cites Tucker Carlson, who is never a RS (and he's that part of Fox News we all agree is not reliable), so not worth citing. Besides, he's only talking about generic "spying" on the Trump campaign, not Spygate specifically. The second Newsweek source mentions James Comey's comments about Barr's use of the word spying, and how he has no idea what Barr is talking about. There are many other and more detailed sources about this, some which might be better to use if we choose to discuss Comey's reaction to Barr. If so, then Comey's remarkds are enlightening. The Axios source uses the word spygate, but only in passing when mentioning Barr's comments: "The so-called "spygate" scandal, which relates to alleged FISA abuses by the intelligence community, has been frequently promoted by defenders of President Trump. It has not been corroborated."

I don't see how we can use any of these sources, unless we open up the article to discuss the use of the words "spy" and "spying" by Trump and Co. to refer to ALL the legal counterintelligence investigations that involved the Trump campaign as part of the legal investigations into Russian interference. That's how Trump and his supporters are now using the terms. In #TrumpWorld, "spying" (especially after Barr's usage) has become a catchword for any type of potentially critical investigation of Trump, no matter how necessary and legal, just as "fake news" has become their catchword for any negative reporting about Trump, no matter how true. They are pushing the idea that Trump is above the law and must not be investigated or criticized.

Do we want to go there with the words "spy" and "spying"? Maybe so, because there are plenty of RS which discuss this, but I don't think this article is the place to do it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• "We" do not all agree that Tucker Carlson or any part of FoxNews is officially deemed unreliable.--MONGO (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• I meant "we" as in "Misplaced Pages RS" etc. There is agreement there that only the official Fox "News" portion of Fox News (that doesn't even make sense, but so it is) can be considered a RS, and even then with care, since there is, with few exceptions, no clear separation between their "news" reporting and their GOP spin doctoring. The exceptions are Shep Smith and 2-3 other actual journalists who report honestly and with balance, sometimes chastising Hannity, Carlson, and others for their dishonest commentary. Obviously, the other commentators are always considered RS for their own opinions, but since most of them, including Hannity and Carlson, are extremely fringe, we don't usually use them for anything but at their own articles. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

The articles cited define 'spygate' in their own voice, and they do so differently than it is currently defined in the wikipedia article. The fact that 'spygate' has no fixed definition in RSs should definitely be reflected in the article. These are not to be relegated to an "other definitions" section, either. These definitions are as legitimate as the NYT definition, which, by the way, also differs from how the wikipedia article currently defines it. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Ummm....actually, the logical place would indeed be an "Other uses" section. We could easily populate it with may RS which use/abuse the term "spygate". -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: - let me explain to you why we should be relegating them to "Other uses". Here's an example, let's say the Washington Post defines Spygate as people liking fishsticks. Let's then say we have 1,000 articles on people liking fishsticks, but they do not even mention Spygate in it. We're not going to give equal credence to the people liking fishsticks definition, and then write an equal amount of the article on people liking fishsticks, because there aren't many articles that both report people liking fishsticks and call that Spygate. This is the situation we are facing now. Lots of articles on spying, very few (as provided so far) on spying as Spygate. starship.paint ~ KO 16:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Almost no two sources that talk about spygate by name define it the same way, and none of them define it as it is currently defined in the wikipedia article. So the way you describe the situation is not, as I see it, in line with what the RSs say. We can't define it ourselves based on our reading of Trump's texts, and we can't cherry pick the NYT or Vox as a definitive source. Sure, if there was broad agreement and a few outliers, then that would make sense, but that's not what it looks like to me. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, you can't ignore what RS and Trump said about this subject when it was accepted as notable enough for an article here. Then it was ONLY about what Trump tweeted, and what RS said about that. That is history, and it makes no difference if RS never again mention that. We will always preserve it, and we don't allow later commentary to erase the history and original definition of Spygate. That will always belong in a "Background" or "Origins" section, and all else since then in an "Other uses" or "Something else" section. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Even the early sources differ on the correct definition. Moreover, no early source (or any other source) defines 'spygate' as it is currently defined in the Wiki article. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not decided on this, but I think the best approach is to lay out Trump's tweets and describe the various ways reliable sources have summarized them. We shouldn't say or imply that the sources are in conflict, as even that's unclear. Best of luck drafting! ;p R2 (bleep) 19:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree. But it seems to me that this would require dropping 'conspiracy theory' from the title of the article, since only a few RSs call it that. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

The title is being addressed in a separate RfC. Repeatedly bringing it up here isn't helpful. R2 (bleep) 21:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

R2, I did not repeatedly bring it up here, but rather mentioned it one time. I was simply pointing out what seemed to me a consequence of your proposal that you might not have noticed, and also in effect inviting comment on whether you think the issues are separable. This whole talk page is out of hand. I think we all see that. Frankly, your proposal, which which I agree, doesn't belong in this section give that this section is called "Why this article should be deleted". But I realize that we're doing our best with a difficult topic with lots of developing ideas, and acting like my comment alone is somehow out of place seems unfair to me. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I misattributed something Batvette wrote as coming from you. My mistake. In any case, I don't think my proposal would require us to remove "conspiracy theory" from the article title. I don't think it's an accurate to say that any of the reliable sources say that Spygate is not a conspiracy theory. R2 (bleep) 22:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

No apology necessary. I appreciate your help and you clearly have more experience than I do, so thanks for taking what I say seriously. I agree that no RS says it isn't a conspiracy theory. However, the sources that do call Spygate a conspiracy theory say exactly what theory they mean. Meanwhile, sources that do not call Spygate a conspiracy theory do not use 'Spygate' for the theory identified as a conspiracy theory in the other sources. So, by my lights, that seems to suggest that some sources use 'Spygate' for a theory that they regard as a conspiracy theory, and other sources do not use it for that theory. The article should reflect that. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we can draw that inference. All of the sources could simply be describing the same exact same theory in different ways, and some could be calling it a conspiracy theory, while others are are simply silent on that question. R2 (bleep) 23:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that's very plausible. But hey, maybe you're right. Unfortunately, we don't have an RS which tells us whether you're right, so we can't assume that you're right. So we have to go with what the sources explicitly say. And many of them explicitly say that spygate is something other than the theory identified by some sources as a conspiracy theory. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

No, they don't explicitly say that. Hence the conundrum. R2 (bleep) 23:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Lol, you're right, I misspoke. What I meant was this. What's said to be a conspiracy theory is that the Obama administration got a spy "inside" the campaign for political reasons. There are other sources that say nothing about "conspiracy theory" but identify spygate with something other than this specific allegation. And while your speculation that they really mean the same thing is possible, we'd need something other than your opinion on this. We'd need an RS which said that they two other sources meant the same thing. But there is no RS of course. So the default is to simply report what they explicitly say. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand your position. How are you proposing we handle the multiple sources that call Spygate a conspiracy theory? Omit the words "conspiracy theory?" R2 (bleep) 00:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm suggesting that we report what the RSs explicitly say. So we should say that sources differ in how they use the term 'spygate', that some use it for a very specific theory they call a conspiracy theory, and that others use it for various broader allegations of spying on or surveillance of the Trump campaign. We should then give a few examples of the varying uses. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:29, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I think you should go ahead and start a new section here on this talk page with exactly what you are proposing. Show your proposed text, references, subheadings, etc. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight - maybe use your sandbox, transfer this article there, edit it as you wish, and let us have a look at it when you're done. starship.paint ~ KO 04:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Will do. Probably take me a few days. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Spygate is not a conspiracy theory. If there was surveillance of any kind on anyone associated with the campaign then it was spying. The fact that people want to redefine what spying doesn't change the normal language used by virtually everyone (spying) when someone is surveiled. This title (and the fact that there is a debate about this) is just more evidence that Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source of factual information. A conspiracy theory is a theory (an unverified hypothesis) that someone has conspired to do something. Spygate is something that actually took place and is verified. People associated with the Trump campaign were spied upon by government agencies. The former agency heads have themselves said that there was surveillance under oath. Donald Bowers (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Your opinion doesn't trump reliable sources. WP:RS WP:OR O3000 (talk) 16:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Donald Bowers, you're missing the point. Nobody denies that surveillance occurred. This article isn't about any and all surveillance that included Trump and his campaign. It's about specific, limited, and false claims made by Trump. He engaged in conspiracy theory creation and mongering. Yes, Halpern did contact three campaign members, but it was later in the campaign, and he never joined the campaign.

Yes, other surveillance also occurred, whether Trump (and you) misleadingly call it "spying" or not, but it was legal, not for political purposes, and was part of the necessary and proper investigation of the Russian interference in our democracy and elections. If Trump and his campaign hadn't had over a hundred documented, secret, and lied about contacts with Russians, for no legitimate purpose, but mostly proven to be about the election, then Trump wouldn't be involved in this at all. It's his own fault. Now the Mueller Report contains many proven instances of collusion with Russians, but apparently not quite enough to meet the standard of "beyond a shadow of a doubt" necessary for a court case. Mueller deliberately didn't try to create an impeachment case, but instead collected plenty of evidence and passed it on to Congress. Now we'll see whether they take that evidence of collusion and try to impeach Trump. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

"Spying" definition expanded to UK

It appears we're entering new territory:

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
"Former CIA analyst Larry Johnson accuses United Kingdom Intelligence of helping Obama Administration Spy on the 2016 Trump Presidential Campaign." @OANN WOW! It is now just a question of time before the truth comes out, and when it does, it will be a beauty! 4:04 AM · Apr 24, 2019

So now Trump's use of "spying" includes the UK intelligence community. Yes, they and about four other allied foreign intelligence agencies were indeed spying (as in real spycraft electronic surveillance) on Russians (as in doing their job of "spying on the enemy"), when they all overheard conversations between Russians discussing their meetings and conversations with Trump campaign members about how they would seek to win the election for Trump. That really alarmed our allies and they immediately alerted the FBI and CIA that the American electoral system and democracy was under attack by the Russians, with particpation from Trump campaign members.

Should we include this in (our) expanded coverage of Trump's expanding use of the terms "spy" and "spying" on his campaign? I'm pretty sure RS will cover this. This is now an international matter. Any professional intelligence agency espionage which incidentally captures actions by Trump and Co. seems fair game. This blames the car for hitting the pedestrian who suddenly placed themselves in the path of a car and a traffic cam at the intersection showed what happened. The traffic cam was "spying" on the pedestrian who was in the wrong place. It's the camera's fault. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• BullRangifer - your posts are really long. starship.paint ~ KO 16:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• Brevity has never been my strength. There is a background history to what Trump tweeted, and that means we need to think about how to deal with this new territory. That's all. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

No mention until reliable sources connect it to Spygate. R2 (bleep) 21:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Attorney General statement

April 2019

I suggest to add a paragraph about the April 24th, 2019 statement from the AG. How about the draft paragraph below? I tried to include both point of views (POV), with their respective sources.

On April 10, 2019 Attorney General William Barr declared that he thinks "spying did occur" against Donald Trump's campaign. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she didn’t trust Barr.

Francewhoa (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

We have discussed this quite a bit above. Because it's off-topic, it has engendered some controversy. The question is: Should we expand the article to include any and all later mentions of "spying" by Trump that are not directly related to his original, false, Spygate conspiracy theory about Halper? We're still discussing that issue. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class politics articles
• Unknown-importance politics articles
• Start-Class American politics articles
• Unknown-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Start-Class United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• Start-Class United States articles of Unknown-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment
• Requested moves