→IG report released: re VM |
155.19.91.37 (talk) |
||
Line 151: | Line 151: | ||
:::::::I don’t follow you there - that was from MSNBC. [[User:Mr Ernie|Mr Ernie]] ([[User talk:Mr Ernie|talk]]) 03:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC) |
:::::::I don’t follow you there - that was from MSNBC. [[User:Mr Ernie|Mr Ernie]] ([[User talk:Mr Ernie|talk]]) 03:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC) |
||
::::::Sure, you can include what Barr said. You just can't assert it as fact. And others can include that the IG didn't characterize it as spying. I'm sure you've heard the many, many characterizations of Barr as acting as Trump's attorney. [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 02:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC) |
::::::Sure, you can include what Barr said. You just can't assert it as fact. And others can include that the IG didn't characterize it as spying. I'm sure you've heard the many, many characterizations of Barr as acting as Trump's attorney. [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 02:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC) |
||
:[https://www.foxnews.com/media/rep-devin-nunes-says-the-fisa-court-needs-to-be-shut-down] Congressman Devin Nunes just said that the FBI was "spying" on the Trump campaign. When a Member of Congress, who is a subject matter expert on government affairs, makes a statement like that, then it is arguably no longer a "conspiracy theory." In order for this article to comply with [[WP:NPOV]], the title needs to be changed, because right now it's taking a side in the debate. [[Special:Contributions/155.19.91.37|155.19.91.37]] ([[User talk:155.19.91.37|talk]]) 15:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:45, 11 December 2019
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
2019 poll
The article contains a poll taken in 2018 showing 33% believe Trump's spying claims. A more recent poll from this year says 38% of American voters now believe Trump’s presidential campaign was spied on during the 2016 election.[1] Can a user add this relevant information to the article? Circulair (talk) 22:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Conspiracy theory?
Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Federalist (website):
- "There's a distinction in connotation between the highly negative term conspiracy theory and less negative phrases (such as allegations of conspiracy). Since the conspiracy theory label is an exceptional claim, we would need multiple high-quality reliable sources that use the exact term conspiracy theory to support its use in any Wikipedia article."
and
- "We all have biases, conscious and unconscious. Some of us are, for what we consider good reasons, Rooting For Team Blue or Rooting For Team Red in the ongoing dumpster fire that is US politics.
- If you look inside yourself and see that you are indeed Rooting For Team Red or Blue, you are likely to have an unconscious bias causing you to not recognize conspiracy theories that attack the other team and to be especially sensitive to conspiracy theories that attack your team.
- You may even have convinced yourself that only the other team has a problem with conspiracy theories or fake news. Please make you best effort to avoid any hint of unconscious bias."
and
- "Since it was uncontroversial that Trump's Spygate theory alleges a conspiracy, it was deemed a conspiracy theory. But of course when we turn to an article where it goes for red and against blue to use 'conspiracy theory', we suddenly get real strict about what it means, and it can only refer to things like alien abductions and black helicopters and so on. So yeah, let's be less partisan in our use of the term, I agree."
So, do multiple high-quality reliable sources use the exact term conspiracy theory to refer to spygate? Or is it really true that every allegation of a conspiracy is automatically a conspiracy theory? Or is this only a rule for one side of the ongoing Team Blue / Team Red bare-knuckle brawl? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
- My take is a "Conspiracy theory" is one that is a theoretical conspiracy for which there is zero evidence. But from a wiki perspective, if RS call it a Conspiracy theory, if RS do not neither can we.Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
- Looks like there are enough sources to me. It's, of course, always going to be politicized when it is being applied in a political context as in this article, but the term conspiracy theory itself is politically neutral. There are conspiracy theories that have been argued by Team Blue and conspiracy theories argued by Team Red. I am not convinced by the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS nature of the argument that somehow Wikipedia glad-handles conspiracy theories when they are promoted by Team Blue. jps (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
- We have three good sources calling it conspiracy theory in the article, I added two more. In addition it is objectively a conspiracy theory. Why shouldn't we label it as such? --mfb (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) If indeed multiple high-quality reliable sources use the exact term "conspiracy theory" we should use the term. Your "In addition it is objectively a conspiracy theory. Why shouldn't we label it as such?" argument substitutes your personal opinion for what is in the sources, and thus is not a valid argument for inclusion. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
- The vast majority of major news reports that covered this did not use the conspiracy theory framing. You can see in the archive that I had previously listed fourteen news reports from just about every major news organization did not frame it that way. Meanwhile, we had LA Times and Haaretz (setting aside opinion pieces) that framed it using "conspiracy theory". I see that there is now an additional (August 2019) report from NBC News which calls it a conspiracy theory. Nevertheless, the dominant framing--by my count 14 to 3--is not the "conspiracy theory" angle, but rather frames the story as: Trump made unsubstantiated claims in order to discredit the Mueller report. Because that's how nearly every major news organization broke the story, that's how we should frame it, with a note that some outlets and opinion columns have characterized it as a "conspiracy theory". Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
- WP:SOURCECOUNTING is not how we edit articles. If it is reliably sourced as a conspiracy theory, that's what Wikipedia calls it. I see no source which discounts this categorization. So, WP:ASSERT comes into play as well. jps (talk) 01:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not arguing that we should not mention that several sources call it a conspiracy theory. I'm arguing that we should state the facts along the lines of the way that nearly every major news organization stated the facts, and note that some sources also called it a conspiracy theory. That's accurate, and reflects the actual sources that we have. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- Are there reliable sources that clearly contest that it's a conspiracy theory? —PaleoNeonate – 04:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- Not a good metric. There are zero reliable sources that clearly contest that Ryan Reynolds is the pope in disguise. If there were, that would be an indication that at least some people believe that he is, thus (very slightly) strengthening the claims. To state something as a fact in Wikipedia's voice requires multiple high-quality sources that say it. I am not commenting on whether there are or are not multiple multiple high-quality sources that say it, just pointing out that that is the standard. "Nobody contesting it" is not the standard for putting something in Wikipedia's voice as if it was an established fact. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- Agree with this. My suggestion is a matter of weight. The conspiracy theory angle has some representation, but far less than the framing which states that these were unsubstantiated claims meant to discredit the Mueller Investigation. My fundamental claim is that an accurate description of the available sourcing is something like: "Trump put forward these unsubstantiated claims in order to discredit the Mueller investigation, and some news and opinion outlets called his theory a conspiracy theory". That would accurately reflect the weight on these angles in the available sources. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- Your example would work if we didn't have any sources calling it a conspiracy theory. There are no sources that call Ryan Reynolds the pope so asking for sources that don't is equally absurd. jps (talk) 11:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- Not a good metric. There are zero reliable sources that clearly contest that Ryan Reynolds is the pope in disguise. If there were, that would be an indication that at least some people believe that he is, thus (very slightly) strengthening the claims. To state something as a fact in Wikipedia's voice requires multiple high-quality sources that say it. I am not commenting on whether there are or are not multiple multiple high-quality sources that say it, just pointing out that that is the standard. "Nobody contesting it" is not the standard for putting something in Wikipedia's voice as if it was an established fact. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- Are there reliable sources that clearly contest that it's a conspiracy theory? —PaleoNeonate – 04:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not arguing that we should not mention that several sources call it a conspiracy theory. I'm arguing that we should state the facts along the lines of the way that nearly every major news organization stated the facts, and note that some sources also called it a conspiracy theory. That's accurate, and reflects the actual sources that we have. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- Not every new source calls the sea wet. I have also looked at many sources and they all call it a conspiracy theory, just not in every article on the subject.Slatersteven (talk) 07:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- WP:SOURCECOUNTING is not how we edit articles. If it is reliably sourced as a conspiracy theory, that's what Wikipedia calls it. I see no source which discounts this categorization. So, WP:ASSERT comes into play as well. jps (talk) 01:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- Mfb: thanks for looking for sources. Also reposting here some I have previously linked (we're running in circles): [1] [2] [3] [4] —PaleoNeonate – 21:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
- Are we back to this again? The sources that were given that did not call the sea wet (use the exact term conspiracy theory) were nearly all poor or off-topic. O3000 (talk) 10:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- Nope, they were straightforward news reports from places like the AP and other major news organizations. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- I will repeat what I said the last time you drug out this horse carcass:
You continue to claim that the majority of RS don't call this a conspiracy theory. Yet, you reject many of what we consider RS, and you demand they have the exact two words in order: "conspiracy theory", ignoring those that use words like conspirators or conspiracy. Your claim that a theory about a conspiracy is not the same as a conspiracy theory is simply odd. This is a theory and it is about a conspiracy with no evidence. It is a conspiracy theory.
O3000 (talk) 11:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC) - There it is Guy Macon. The old consensus was just this: that a conspiracy theory is just a theory about a conspiracy. Obviously absurd to my way of thinking, but here it is. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- You missed out "without evidence".Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- To be clear, Slatersteven, the question is whether a piece like this can be cited as support for the claim that Spygate is a conspiracy theory. O3K thinks it can. I deny that it can. You're saying that it can? If so, it looks like pieces like this support the claim that charges of conspiracy with Russia were a conspiracy theory. After all, the first line in the NPR story is
Special counsel Robert Mueller did not find evidence that President Trump's campaign conspired with Russia to influence the 2016 election.
Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)- This was decided in an RfC. You rejected the consensus and started another long discussion, which ended in the same consensus. And now you are starting the same discussion yet again. O3000 (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- No, that isn't what happened, and please direct any relevant commentary you have about me to AN/I. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- ANI?? Are you saying I can't respond to you on an article TP? O3000 (talk) 13:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- This is a place to talk content, and not to talk about me. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- ANI?? Are you saying I can't respond to you on an article TP? O3000 (talk) 13:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- No, that isn't what happened, and please direct any relevant commentary you have about me to AN/I. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- If you want to argue that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I encourage you to make your case using the NPR source at the relevant article. We are here to discuss wording and sources about Spygate. jps (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments can be valid per the policy, and this matter was brought up precisely to ask whether we're being even handed in our use of 'conspiracy theory', so my point stands. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- This was decided in an RfC. You rejected the consensus and started another long discussion, which ended in the same consensus. And now you are starting the same discussion yet again. O3000 (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- To be clear, Slatersteven, the question is whether a piece like this can be cited as support for the claim that Spygate is a conspiracy theory. O3K thinks it can. I deny that it can. You're saying that it can? If so, it looks like pieces like this support the claim that charges of conspiracy with Russia were a conspiracy theory. After all, the first line in the NPR story is
- You missed out "without evidence".Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- I will repeat what I said the last time you drug out this horse carcass:
If you can't make your point without using tu quoque, I think you've done a bad job of making your point. YMMV. jps (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
The APCnews source does not say it is a conspiracy theory, and thus I would say no it cannot be used to support the claim. This [[5]] does. I was not aware this was all just about the use of one source.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- It's not all about the use of one source; the AP story was just one example. The previous consensus, as O3K stated it above, was that conspiracy theories are by definition just (unsubstantiated) allegations of conspiracy, and that sources like the AP source (there are lots of these, this is one example) can therefore be used to support the statement that Spygate is a conspiracy theory. If you are saying that you agree that we cannot use the AP source for the claim that Spygate is a conspiracy theory, but have to rely on sources that explicitly use 'conspiracy theory', then you're apparently departing from the previous consensus. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- As was just pointed out to you, that is not my claim. Unsubstantiated and "with no evidence" are not close to synonymous. A theory can be unsubstantiated but still have loads of evidence. No evidence means it was a total invention, i.e. conspiracy theory. In any case, life is too short to repeat discussions. O3000 (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- Right, allegations of conspiracy for which there are no evidence are conspiracy theories, unless we're talking about that NPR piece. Exactly my point. If Slatersteven requires that the actual words 'conspiracy theory' are used in the source, he's disagreeing with you, since you don't think that. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- Déjà vu. O3000 (talk) 16:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- No, not the exact words, similar or related terms would be acceptable. wp:v merely requites that any reasonable person reading a source would say "yep that says that". Now I am not sure the APCnews source is that clear cut, it says "no evidence has been produced", which is not the same as saying there is no evidence. But (as I have said) We have sources explicitly saying it, so we can leave this source alone.Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- Déjà vu. O3000 (talk) 16:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- Right, allegations of conspiracy for which there are no evidence are conspiracy theories, unless we're talking about that NPR piece. Exactly my point. If Slatersteven requires that the actual words 'conspiracy theory' are used in the source, he's disagreeing with you, since you don't think that. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- As was just pointed out to you, that is not my claim. Unsubstantiated and "with no evidence" are not close to synonymous. A theory can be unsubstantiated but still have loads of evidence. No evidence means it was a total invention, i.e. conspiracy theory. In any case, life is too short to repeat discussions. O3000 (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- The No. 1 reason Trump’s ‘spygate’ conspiracy theory doesn’t make sense (WaPo). one such conspiracy theory, loosely called Spygate (NBC) Even Conservatives Are Realizing Trump’s ‘Spygate’ Conspiracy Is a Hoax (Rolling Stone). Trump’s nonsensical ‘Spygate’ conspiracy theory ends with a whimper (MSNBC). Republicans distance themselves from Trump’s ‘Spygate’ conspiracy theory. How many is "multiple"? Guy (help!) 17:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- That seems like "multiple" to me. (To be clear, I only objected to the "any theory about a conspiracy is by definition a conspiracy theory" argument while accepting the "say what the sources say" argument.)
- Merriam-Webster definition of conspiracy theory:
- "A theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators"[6]
- Oxford English Dictionary definition of conspiracy theory:
- Wictionary definition of conspiracy theory:
- 1. A hypothesis alleging that the members of a coordinated group are, and/or were, secretly working together to commit illegal or wrongful actions including attempting to hide the existence of the group and its activities. In notable cases the hypothesis contradicts the mainstream explanation for historical or current events.
- 2. (dismissive, derogatory) Hypothetical speculation that is commonly considered untrue or outlandish."
- Wictionary Usage notes:
- "The phrase conspiracy theory is sometimes used in an attempt to imply that hypothetical speculation is not worthy of serious consideration, usually with phrasing indicative of dismissal (e.g., "just a conspiracy theory"). However, any particular instance of use is not necessarily pejorative. Some consider it inappropriate to use the phrase "conspiracy theory" in an attempt to dismissively discredit hypothetical speculation in any form."[9]
- Wikipedia Conspiracy theory article:
- A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful actors, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable. Conspiracy theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it, are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth, and the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than proof.
- Research suggests, on a psychological level, conspiracist ideation—belief in conspiracy theories—can be harmful or pathological, and is highly correlated with psychological projection, as well as with paranoia, which is predicted by the degree of a person's Machiavellianism. Conspiracy theories once limited to fringe audiences have become commonplace in mass media, emerging as a cultural phenomenon of the late 20th and early 21st centuries."
Y'all are gonna do what you're gonna do. But there's a permanent record of this stuff, and there's an actual U.S. attorney now who's opened a full criminal investigation of this so-called "conspiracy theory", so don't think you're not hosing Wikipedia's credibility.
For balance, one from Vox: [10] And one from Fox: [11]
--HenryV1415 (talk) 00:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- That Vox source explicitly refers to it as a "conspiracy theory." So we're good to go here. Thanks for finding that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- HenryV1415, the AG is pushing a US attorney to investigate a conspiracy theory as if it was real, yes. That is a thing that is happening. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, as I said, you're gonna do what you're gonna do. Just don't think you're helping Wikipedia's reputation as an unbiased source. It's an increasingly blatant illegal Super PAC, and watching it defend itself from the coming litigation is going to be hilarious. Good luck raising money! --HenryV1415 (talk) 01:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
No, you have it wrong, buddy. I find Wikipedia highly valuable. It's worth taking action to wrest it from the sort of people who are turning it into Pravda. Which you are more guilty of than most. But then, you're probably one of those guys who thinks al Baghdadi is an "austere religious leader". --HenryV1415 (talk) 04:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC) |
IG Report
I think that a report in the NYT from anonymous sources who were briefed on a draft of the report is undue and of no encyclopedic value. We should wait two weeks for the report to be released before including something about this. We should then be able to incorporate the material better and provide more context. As it stands, we have an absurd one sentence section and a mention in the lead? That's clearly not the best way to do this. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- We've discussed this before and no one has come to your defense in the matter. The previous NYT story was published above the fold on front page. The NYT has reported this in its voice, regardless of citing unnamed sources. I created a subsection to accommodate your comment, and it can serve as a stub until the full report is released. soibangla (talk) 04:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- As I see it, you reintroduced the material against consensus. We will see what others have to say. Perhaps consensus will agree with you. It isn't yet clear. Shinealittlelight (talk) 04:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- Soibangla, why would you put a report based on anonymous sources in the introduction to an article like this when you could just wait until the report comes out? LOL, the National Enquirer just called, and they want their spin-tactics back. AppliedCharisma (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- By the way, should we be using the New York Times as a source? Remember, last year it was revealed that one of their reporters was sleeping with a source in Washington DC in exchange for classified information (the poor mark was convicted of perjury over it). Should we be using a source that engages in such ethical lapses? AppliedCharisma (talk) 19:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- Soibangla, why would you put a report based on anonymous sources in the introduction to an article like this when you could just wait until the report comes out? LOL, the National Enquirer just called, and they want their spin-tactics back. AppliedCharisma (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- As I see it, you reintroduced the material against consensus. We will see what others have to say. Perhaps consensus will agree with you. It isn't yet clear. Shinealittlelight (talk) 04:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
IG report released
[12] The IG report, released today, confirms that confidential human sources were used to record conversations with Carter Page and Papadopolous. So, it appears that the title of this article needs to be changed. It is no longer a conspiracy theory (it never was, actually). The FBI really did spy on the Trump campaign. 173.66.156.205 (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- The IG report confirms that the investigation was not politically-directed or politically-motivated, and that the agents conducting the investigation were not politically biased against Trump. The IG report, in fact, confirms that this was a conspiracy theory. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Spying, even if as part of a legitimate investigation, is still spying. We need to update the article to include that. Our government spies all the time, and is legally allowed to do so. Spying just describes the tactics. Which were clearly used against the Trump campaign per the IG Report. Barr and Durham have also intimated more is coming. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- The IG did not characterize FBI activities as "spying." soibangla (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- A rose by any other name and all that. Using confidential human sources and wiretaps are commonly used tactics falling under the umbrella of "spying." To "spy" is to "observe someone furtively." I think that's a pretty accurate description of confidential human sources and wiretaps, and so does Bill Barr. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- The Trump campaign was “clearly spied upon,” is the quote from Bill Barr today on MSNBC. The AG at the moment knows more than anyone else about what’s happened, as the boss of both Horowitz and Durham, as he is likely privy to their completed and ongoing, respectively, investigations. Note that Durham has a wider scope than Horowitz. I think we need to report what he says. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Whether he knows more than anyone else is one question (maybe maybe not). Whether he's telling the truth is another. And no way we're using Foxnews for THIS particular piece of info. Volunteer Marek `
- For at least the hundredth time, Fox News is a reliable source (It's been debated countless times at WP:RSN) We do not exclude Fox News just because you personally do not like what they have to say.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- I don’t follow you there - that was from MSNBC. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Sure, you can include what Barr said. You just can't assert it as fact. And others can include that the IG didn't characterize it as spying. I'm sure you've heard the many, many characterizations of Barr as acting as Trump's attorney. soibangla (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Whether he knows more than anyone else is one question (maybe maybe not). Whether he's telling the truth is another. And no way we're using Foxnews for THIS particular piece of info. Volunteer Marek `
- The Trump campaign was “clearly spied upon,” is the quote from Bill Barr today on MSNBC. The AG at the moment knows more than anyone else about what’s happened, as the boss of both Horowitz and Durham, as he is likely privy to their completed and ongoing, respectively, investigations. Note that Durham has a wider scope than Horowitz. I think we need to report what he says. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- A rose by any other name and all that. Using confidential human sources and wiretaps are commonly used tactics falling under the umbrella of "spying." To "spy" is to "observe someone furtively." I think that's a pretty accurate description of confidential human sources and wiretaps, and so does Bill Barr. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- The IG did not characterize FBI activities as "spying." soibangla (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Spying, even if as part of a legitimate investigation, is still spying. We need to update the article to include that. Our government spies all the time, and is legally allowed to do so. Spying just describes the tactics. Which were clearly used against the Trump campaign per the IG Report. Barr and Durham have also intimated more is coming. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- [13] Congressman Devin Nunes just said that the FBI was "spying" on the Trump campaign. When a Member of Congress, who is a subject matter expert on government affairs, makes a statement like that, then it is arguably no longer a "conspiracy theory." In order for this article to comply with WP:NPOV, the title needs to be changed, because right now it's taking a side in the debate. 155.19.91.37 (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)