NorthBySouthBaranof (talk | contribs) |
Undid revision 895550739 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)- stop trying to shut down debate, if you think there was a BLP violation (I do not), report it, but there are multiple editors contributing to the discussion, no reason to shut it down Tag: Undo |
||
Line 731: | Line 731: | ||
::::::This won't happen until the majority reliable source viewpoint is that Spygate IS Crossfire Hurricane. Which assuredly, has not been proven on Wikipedia. Simply asserting it does not make it true. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|talk]])''' 14:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC) |
::::::This won't happen until the majority reliable source viewpoint is that Spygate IS Crossfire Hurricane. Which assuredly, has not been proven on Wikipedia. Simply asserting it does not make it true. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|talk]])''' 14:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC) |
||
:::::::Correct - what makes it true is that it’s true, not the fact that someone’s “asserting” anything or if someone is regurgitating the teachings of NPR and Stephen Colbert. That’s why you go to the facts. Every news article referencing Spygate, whether it be written by left-wing writers or right-wing writers, references Crossfire Hurricane one way or another. Why? Because Crossfire Hurricane is part of Spygate. This whole article is about Hurricane. Halper is mentioned 18 times and his photo is in the article. He is central to the FBI’s operation, and that’s not in dispute. Spygate IS Crossfire Hurricane. What we don’t know for a fact yet is whether everything else that we’ve learned was also part of the Operation, such as wiretapping Americans, unmasking Americans, and the “insurance policy” that now-fired FBI agent Strzok discussed in now-fired FBI acting director McCabe’s office. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1012:B02B:443B:BC4F:93BC:DECB:9ACB|2600:1012:B02B:443B:BC4F:93BC:DECB:9ACB]] ([[User talk:2600:1012:B02B:443B:BC4F:93BC:DECB:9ACB|talk]]) 16:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC) |
:::::::Correct - what makes it true is that it’s true, not the fact that someone’s “asserting” anything or if someone is regurgitating the teachings of NPR and Stephen Colbert. That’s why you go to the facts. Every news article referencing Spygate, whether it be written by left-wing writers or right-wing writers, references Crossfire Hurricane one way or another. Why? Because Crossfire Hurricane is part of Spygate. This whole article is about Hurricane. Halper is mentioned 18 times and his photo is in the article. He is central to the FBI’s operation, and that’s not in dispute. Spygate IS Crossfire Hurricane. What we don’t know for a fact yet is whether everything else that we’ve learned was also part of the Operation, such as wiretapping Americans, unmasking Americans, and the “insurance policy” that now-fired FBI agent Strzok discussed in now-fired FBI acting director McCabe’s office. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1012:B02B:443B:BC4F:93BC:DECB:9ACB|2600:1012:B02B:443B:BC4F:93BC:DECB:9ACB]] ([[User talk:2600:1012:B02B:443B:BC4F:93BC:DECB:9ACB|talk]]) 16:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC) |
||
{{hat|Devolved into unproductive personal attacks on living people}} |
|||
* To editors who think this new story on Hurricane Crossfire legitimizes Spygate or proves it true: Last night, PBS Newshour interviewed Adam Goldman, the lead author of the story. During the interview Goldman said, "So far, nobody's provided evidence that it [the operation] was somehow illegal or unjustified." Full clip can be watched [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHKMfLKtKvI here]. [[User:Ahrtoodeetoo|R2]] <small>([[User talk:Ahrtoodeetoo|bleep]])</small> 18:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC) |
* To editors who think this new story on Hurricane Crossfire legitimizes Spygate or proves it true: Last night, PBS Newshour interviewed Adam Goldman, the lead author of the story. During the interview Goldman said, "So far, nobody's provided evidence that it [the operation] was somehow illegal or unjustified." Full clip can be watched [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHKMfLKtKvI here]. [[User:Ahrtoodeetoo|R2]] <small>([[User talk:Ahrtoodeetoo|bleep]])</small> 18:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC) |
||
::Thanks for the clip R2. Goldberg did his best to advance the Democratic Party's message, that this was all on the straight and narrow and the Comey/Obama FBI was just taking normal, perfectly legitimate measures in response to "an unprecedented attack on the very fabric of our democracy" (Russians letting Papadopolous know that they have emails). Michael Schmidt, another one of the Azra Turk story's writers, echoed this sentiment on MSNBC, also adding that "it depends on what your definition of 'spying' is" when asked the obvious question: "How is this not spying?"[https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/05/03/msnbc_host_to_ny_times_reporter_on_fbi_informantpapadopoulos_story_how_is_this_not_spying.html]. The big takeaway here is that it's all a matter of opinion, as they both stated. Was the spying improper? That's a matter of opinion, and you're not a proponent of a "conspiracy theory" if you disagree with the people who think it's okay to be sending in ex-CIA operatives into the opposition party's campaign without a heads-up to the nominee. Was it illegal? TBD. The Attorney General is looking into it, and we still have two pending IG investigations. It's much too early to be pushing readers toward one side or the other with blatantly POV article titles, whether that be "Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump)" or "Spygate (illegal Obama administration attempt to install Hillary Clinton in the White House)". Facts first. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1012:B02B:443B:BC4F:93BC:DECB:9ACB|2600:1012:B02B:443B:BC4F:93BC:DECB:9ACB]] ([[User talk:2600:1012:B02B:443B:BC4F:93BC:DECB:9ACB|talk]]) 19:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC) |
::Thanks for the clip R2. Goldberg did his best to advance the Democratic Party's message, that this was all on the straight and narrow and the Comey/Obama FBI was just taking normal, perfectly legitimate measures in response to "an unprecedented attack on the very fabric of our democracy" (Russians letting Papadopolous know that they have emails). Michael Schmidt, another one of the Azra Turk story's writers, echoed this sentiment on MSNBC, also adding that "it depends on what your definition of 'spying' is" when asked the obvious question: "How is this not spying?"[https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/05/03/msnbc_host_to_ny_times_reporter_on_fbi_informantpapadopoulos_story_how_is_this_not_spying.html]. The big takeaway here is that it's all a matter of opinion, as they both stated. Was the spying improper? That's a matter of opinion, and you're not a proponent of a "conspiracy theory" if you disagree with the people who think it's okay to be sending in ex-CIA operatives into the opposition party's campaign without a heads-up to the nominee. Was it illegal? TBD. The Attorney General is looking into it, and we still have two pending IG investigations. It's much too early to be pushing readers toward one side or the other with blatantly POV article titles, whether that be "Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump)" or "Spygate (illegal Obama administration attempt to install Hillary Clinton in the White House)". Facts first. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1012:B02B:443B:BC4F:93BC:DECB:9ACB|2600:1012:B02B:443B:BC4F:93BC:DECB:9ACB]] ([[User talk:2600:1012:B02B:443B:BC4F:93BC:DECB:9ACB|talk]]) 19:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC) |
||
Line 741: | Line 741: | ||
:::::::Wikipedia talk pages are not free speech zones, and no, you may not simply say whatever you want. Specifically, as per [[WP:BLP]], you may not use them to make wild speculation or insinuation about living people, and accordingly I have redacted those comments. [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof|talk]]) 21:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC) |
:::::::Wikipedia talk pages are not free speech zones, and no, you may not simply say whatever you want. Specifically, as per [[WP:BLP]], you may not use them to make wild speculation or insinuation about living people, and accordingly I have redacted those comments. [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof|talk]]) 21:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC) |
||
::::::::Nobody called the talk pages “free speech zones” and yes, if I want to explain to someone the relevance of Peter “We’ll stop it” Strzok and his “insurance policy” that was discussed in Andy’s office, you’re not going to bully me or anyone else into shutting up. Go censor a website you own if you want, not this one. I have replaced my comment and ask that you pick somebody else to battle with. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1012:B02B:443B:BC4F:93BC:DECB:9ACB|2600:1012:B02B:443B:BC4F:93BC:DECB:9ACB]] ([[User talk:2600:1012:B02B:443B:BC4F:93BC:DECB:9ACB|talk]]) 22:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC) |
::::::::Nobody called the talk pages “free speech zones” and yes, if I want to explain to someone the relevance of Peter “We’ll stop it” Strzok and his “insurance policy” that was discussed in Andy’s office, you’re not going to bully me or anyone else into shutting up. Go censor a website you own if you want, not this one. I have replaced my comment and ask that you pick somebody else to battle with. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1012:B02B:443B:BC4F:93BC:DECB:9ACB|2600:1012:B02B:443B:BC4F:93BC:DECB:9ACB]] ([[User talk:2600:1012:B02B:443B:BC4F:93BC:DECB:9ACB|talk]]) 22:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC) |
||
{{hab}} |
|||
== Why is latest change visible only when logged in? == |
== Why is latest change visible only when logged in? == |
Revision as of 01:53, 5 May 2019
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RFC: "False conspiracy theory" in lead
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
- 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 Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources In my opinion, really should not be used at all after the University of Virginia rape story. Since it hasn't been discussed since then at WP:RSN, maybe its time to look at whether Rolling Stone should be used as a reliable source at all, but we'll leave that issue for another day.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Rusf10, try the BBC, then. Or any of a number of sources from the green lighted sites. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Both of these were written prior to Barr making his statement to congress.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Rusf10, the statement he walked back during the same hearing after saying he had no evidence to change previous conclusions. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- For at least the third time, that's not exactly what he said, the full quote was "I have no specific evidence that I would cite right now"--Rusf10 (talk) 03:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- I have no specific evidence that I would cite right now that Ted Cruz's father killed Kennedy. That doesn't make it an "unproven" theory. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- With all due respect an anonymous wikipedia contributor saying something about a topic he has no involvement in and the attorney general of the united states saying something he very much would have involvement in are two very different situations SJCAmerican (talk) 06:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- ... but the attorney general has not said this is Spygate. Relevance has to be established starship.paint ~ KO 08:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- I have provided you with ample evidence in this talk section from sources deemed reputable by Wikipedia, which define "Spygate" as "allegations that the FBI had spied on his 20116 campaign team" Source. This is a contemporary article by a reputable source. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Adding Newsweek is Step 1. Then, we look at adding other things, although it would definitely, 100% be better if whatever article explicitly mentions Spygate. What’s going on is people are putting Step 2 first. starship.paint ~ KO 14:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Both of these were written prior to Barr making his statement to congress.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:23, 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)
- consensus is Rolling Stone is only to be used if attributed, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources In my opinion, really should not be used at all after the University of Virginia rape story. Since it hasn't been discussed since then at WP:RSN, maybe its time to look at whether Rolling Stone should be used as a reliable source at all, but we'll leave that issue for another day.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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: [1] Periander6 (talk) 19:34, 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)
- Yes, in part because the "no" option prescribes a particular alternative that is much worse. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes - We follow reliable sources, not the pronouncements of politicians. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- 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. Atsme 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. -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 Wikipedia. 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)
- 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 Wikipedia. R2 (bleep) 09:57, 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 Wikipedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:22, 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)
- 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia, or positive ones. starship.paint ~ KO 07:14, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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 [2] 15 hours ago, 5000+ upvotes, 280+ comments, is not so 'dead' (the first post, at 5 hours old, can hardly be considered dead either), and also links to this page. starship.paint ~ KO 05:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- "Too many people have tried to edit the fake news out of this title in the past 24 hours, so Wikipedia has locked it from editing" AFAICT This is not an inaccurate assessment. But where does the OP then suggest people go and try to flood the talk page? How many people read that post and commented, and how many new editors arrived? Do you see how your assumptions do not help your case? If I find the treatment of this article alarming and concerning, imagine how the "conspiracy theorists" must feel. People are concerned by the treatment of this article because this treatment convinces them of everything they have been saying. The thread is an expression of genuine concern, not a call to arms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs)
- @SK8RBOI: - the main problem is - the people coming from that thread, they might not be new to Wikipedia, but they are not experienced enough to know how Wikipedia works. If you’re calling this fake news, in my opinion, you don’t know how Wikipedia works in reporting what the reliable sources say, and you probably haven’t read this article and understood it. What people should be doing is bringing out reliable sources to support their view. But this is not what is being done. That’s the problem. starship.paint ~ KO 08:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- 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)
- @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)
- Just like to point out that 2 editors who haven't edited or actively edited in almost a month found and replied to this RFC in less than 5 minutes, and 1 more editor who hasn't edited in about 3 weeks found the RGC in less than 1 hour. starship.paint ~ KO 03:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Starship.paint: I've also been suspicious of some sort of advocacy campaign to stir this up over the last few days. I already brought this to the attention of Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Well, if there were future meatpuppetry, if they read my comment, they might very well edit some other pages before coming here. starship.paint ~ KO 04:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- If you are referring to me, yes I did read the reddit post and yes I did come here and create my account because I find the article egregiously false. Nevertheless, I have provided you with helpful information that is very relevant to the construction of this article elsewhere, and I think that information should be treated seriously and respectfully. I have been respectful of Wikipedia and its rules and done my contributions are in good will - I believe there is objective evidence that suggests this artice is inaccurate, both in its definition of "Spygate," and its characterization of it as a "false conspiracy theory." I think you would do well to continue to address those concerns seriously, rather than cry foul because you have a problem with the people bringing those concerns to your attention SIPPINONTECH (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- @SIPPINONTECH: - thank you for telling the truth. I do take your concerns seriously. I do think people are coming in good faith. But, I also do think that we have established policies like WP:RS to follow. You did respond appropriately. I was actually thinking of creating a separate section to discuss how to include the Newsweek source by Zhao, and I was going to advise you to open a WP:RSN on Axios to get it certified as reliable by the community, then we could discuss how to add the Axios source in the article too. But the problem is with the RfC and the requested move, this talk page has gone into chaos. I’m not sure how to get agreement when there are so many discussions at once. Had more editors followed your lead and answered my calls for a reliable source, I think you would have more success. But now the cart is before the horse, and that can’t be undone. starship.paint ~ KO 14:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- If you are referring to me, yes I did read the reddit post and yes I did come here and create my account because I find the article egregiously false. Nevertheless, I have provided you with helpful information that is very relevant to the construction of this article elsewhere, and I think that information should be treated seriously and respectfully. I have been respectful of Wikipedia and its rules and done my contributions are in good will - I believe there is objective evidence that suggests this artice is inaccurate, both in its definition of "Spygate," and its characterization of it as a "false conspiracy theory." I think you would do well to continue to address those concerns seriously, rather than cry foul because you have a problem with the people bringing those concerns to your attention SIPPINONTECH (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- @Starship.paint: I've also been suspicious of some sort of advocacy campaign to stir this up over the last few days. I already brought this to the attention of Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- 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)
Requested move 12 April 2019
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Extended. Please see Requested move 2 May 2019 below. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 04:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump) → Spygate (2016 United States presidential election) – To make the artilce title neutral as per the reasoning in the above RFC. Rusf10 (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC) --Relisted. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 16:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC) --Relisted. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 22:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Discussion about reopening vs. closing and restarting
|
---|
|
Previous closure, reverted per request on talk page.
|
---|
The result of the move request was: There appears to be consensus to remove the "by Donald Trump" part of the disambiguator. There is, however, no consensus over whether "conspiracy theory" should be removed, so there is no prejudice against speedy renomination for further discussion as to whether "conspiracy theory" should be removed, and whether it ought to be replaced with the proposed target, or Netoholic's proposal of FBI surveillance of Donald Trump campaign. I also remind any users who are perhaps here because of this that this process is not a vote and the strength of arguments is taken into account. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC) |
Survey
Please read WP:RM#Commenting in a requested move Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 16:36, 22 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)
- 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)
- This is an account with very few edits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:21, 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. [2] Periander6 (talk) 05:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support AG Barr IS investigating spying of Trump by previous Obama/Whitehouse - correct this bullcrap. Wikipedia is and has become the world's largest purveyor of fake history thanks to pre$$ure applied by global corporations, politicians and elites. moefuzz (talk) 06:21, April 12 2019 (UTC)
- This is an account with very few edits, especially recently.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
SupportIs 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 talk \\ 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)
Massive back-and-forth argument. Please use the extended "Discussion" subsection for this sort of thing, or you make the entire RM difficult for everyone else to follow.
|
---|
|
- Oppose - for the same reasons given in the above RfC. Why do we have two related RfCs at once? The Earth is not flat and Spygate is a conspiracy theory according to reliable secondary sources. O3000 (talk) 11:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Collapse-boxing another long-winded squabble.
|
---|
|
- Support There is ample and growing evidence that this is not a "conspiracy theory," nor do I think it's fair to say that it's "by Donald Trump" as the underlying accusations have been made and repeated by many people, including the Attorney General of the United States. Part of the issue seems to stem from a misunderstanding by the authors of what "Spygate" is referring to. "Spygate" refers to allegations that the FBI and possibly other Federal agencies were conducting a far-reaching intelligence gathering operation against Trump and Trump's Campaign/Transition team. See the section above, in which several contemporary, reliable sources were provided that define "Spygate" in this way. In point of fact - objectively - there is ample public evidence that spying did occur against members of the Trump Campaign. The FISA warrant against Carter Page has been public knowledge for quite some time, and Susan Rice testified before Congress that she personally read intelligence reports on Trump Campaign/Transition Team members in which she unredacted the names and other personal identifying information of Trump Campaign/Transition members. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 12:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - Yeah, no. Article title reflects what reliable sources say. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - As with the other RfC, my !vote here is less about passion for the current way things are worded, but an alternative presented that's much worse. In this case, the full phrase "conspiracy theory by Donald Trump" could be reworded/changed in some way, but not to something as unclear as what's proposed. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support especially now that the focus is on whether the spying was legal or not rather than if it really happened. -- That Guy, From That Show! 14:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support - This article accurately reflects anti Trump fervor of left leaning media from back before the Mueller Report was completed and reported on[5], however is woefully out of date now. It is an embarrassment to Wikipedia, and looks like it could have been written by Adam Schiff. This article needs updating to reflect the truth that any reasonable definition of "spy" or "spying" is perfectly accurate to describe what the FBI and/or US intelligence agencies did to Trump and the Trump campaign[6]. It needs to prominently highlight Barr's admissions[7][8] and his investigation. Wookian (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
And another threaded discussion ...
|
---|
|
- Support Also need to get rid of all of the fake news propaganda and tell what actually happened.Phmoreno (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
And another ...
|
---|
|
- Support move. The Attorney General of the United States, who is a subject matter expert on this topic, just clearly said, in Congressional testimony, that spying was done on the Trump campaign. Therefore, by definition, this can no longer be considered a conspiracy theory. It has been confirmed by one of the highest officials in the US government. AppliedCharisma (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
And another ...
|
---|
|
- Support move. WP is an encyclopedia and what we have as a title now is more like a news headline. Atsme Talk 📧 17:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. WP:RS and WP:V require that a source be independent of the subject; since Barr is not, we cannot treat his personal opinions as facts. We can only treat them as factual if they are reported as fact in secondary sources, which clearly isn't the case yet; absent that, we have to go by what independent sources say, which is that this is a conspiracy theory. Edit: I'd also support "Spygate (Conspiracy theory)" or comparable formulations as long as they mention that it's a conspiracy theory. --Aquillion (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support As per proposal description and Attorney General William Barr's statements on the matter. Aviartm (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
And another ...
|
---|
|
- Support. The parenthetical disambiguation should not be used in a biased way as it is here. Its sole purpose is disambiguation from other articles of the same name, and should be neutral as to the subject matter. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Atsme & Rreagan007; couldn't have said it better myself. Ideally, the parenthetical term would be universally agreed on. Looking at Spygate (permalink), we don't have to be that specific at all, since the other contenders are in the domain of (American) football and Formula One, so I'd even be fine with a shorter title. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support - Current title is unbalanced, unencyclopedic, and far too wordy. —Torchiest talkedits 01:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- 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 [9], this particular RM should be closed and a new one should be opened with a proper alternative title and a semi-protected talk page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support - This title is very biased and inaccurate. We know the spy's name. His name is Stefan Halper. He was sent in by the Obama administration to gather intel from the Trump campaign (no collusion with Russia, per Mueller) but not the Hillary campaign (helped purchase dossier of fake Trump dirt from the Kremlin). It's pretty rich for people to use the No Evidence! excuse after shrieking that the president is a Russian agent for over two years. And no, I wasn't sent by reddit. That's a conspiracy theory. Galathadael (talk) 01:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
And another ...
|
---|
|
- 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 support this alternative, especially since others are promoting Spygate now as well. Proposer's version is not NPOV as there's broad consensus among RS it's a conspiracy theory. It also conflates the focus of the article, Trump's unfounded accusations that the FBI was illegitimately monitoring him in early 2016, with the well-known legitimate investigation they were doing on Russian interference in late 2016. I think it's best to keep the "political" part in because the conspiracy isn't about whether the FBI found evidence of criminal activity in the Trump campaign in late 2016 at all, it's about when the investigation started and if it was political. Safrolic (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support. The proposed name is clearly more neutral. As I said below, the way this article is written comes across as politically motivated. This is a part of a broader problem with political editing over the last three years or so in the American Politics subject area. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:00, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support any move in principle as the presence of "conspiracy theory" violates WP:NPOV and is extraneous (a title can be constructed without it easily). Having "conspiracy theory" in titles always limits our available coverage of a topic, because it restricts us to the conspiracy rather than a full treatment. I would also prefer any title which doesn't use "Spygate"+disambiguator and would instead suggest FBI surveillance of Donald Trump campaign. -- Netoholic @ 07:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose as suggested. Moving to Spygate (conspiracy theory) would be OK. It is important to clarify in the title what it is about. Otherwise, this might not be obvious for someone unfamiliar with the subject. Clarifying an undisputable majority view here is actually required by WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- That clarification can and should be done in the text of the article, not in a disambiguation phrase. There seem to be aspects of this story emerging that expand the scope beyond the conspiracy theory (Barr's recent testimony, for example), and this title artificially limits our ability to cover it. We must use a title which properly scopes this topic. -- Netoholic @ 21:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Atsme. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- SUPPORT move - so long as the body continues to have mention of Trump and negative views, that would be a better title by WP:TITLE - more precise to a specific event (vs there are a number of Trump conspiracy theories... both ways), and as more neutral WP:NDESC. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Support per WP:PRECISE. Adding "by Donald Trump" is unnecessary disambiguation, and ÷"Spygate (conspiracy theory)" is precise enough to identify the same topic. ~Awilley (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)When I first voted for some reason I thought that the proposed target was Spygate (conspiracy theory). Since that is apparently not the case, and since my initial !vote was mostly a demonstration to make a point elsewhere, I'm just striking it altogether. ~Awilley (talk) 00:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)- Oppose moved as suggested, although Spygate (conspiracy theory) would be fine. The key reason is that the sources clearly reflect that this is a conspiracy theory, and our title should reflect that. The closing administrator should entirely disregard the army of SPAs and "new" editors that have popped out of the woodwork to offer their policy-free votes. Neutralitytalk 16:39, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support - With second choice being Spygate (conspiracy theory). The current title fails NPOV and is not structured in a way that is consistent with other pages. PackMecEng (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support for neutrality and conciseness. — JFG talk 18:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- On conciseness, the title you support is even longer: (2016 United States presidential election) at 42 characters and 5 words, while the original (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump) is 35 characters and 5 words. starship.paint ~ KO 07:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- I meant conciseness of subject matter, not word count. The current title uses two disambiguators: "conspiracy theory" and "by Donald Trump"; the proposed title uses only one: "2016 United States presidential election". — JFG talk 07:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose - However, I'm fine with "Spygate conspiracy theory". That's more concise, and doesn't suggest that it's a scandal, like Watergate, the first of the -gates. O3000 (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
A matter that is resolved.
|
---|
|
- Oppose: the name proposed in the RfC is much worse than the original. However, I'm supportive of shorter names such as Spygate (political conspiracy theory) or Spygate (conspiracy theory). --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support – The newer, proposed title is more neutral than the current title, not to mention being a more accurate description of the subject it pertains to. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 04:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose proposed title, support "Spygate (conspiracy theory) Per Muboshgu I oppose the proposal that we replace the parenthetical description with the title of the election, and per WP:CONCISE I'd be willing to just shorten it. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 06:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose proposed title - would be fine with alternative suggestion dropping the 'by Donald Trump' so just Spygate (conspiracy theory), or a Spygate theory or Spygate conspiracy theory. WikiVirusC(talk) 15:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - Ok, look folks, here is the problem. The present title is indeed somewhat POVish and clunky. But the proposed title, in a bit of WP:POINT skews completely the other way so it's also POV. The best thing to do would be to close this RfC and start another one with the proposed title simply Spygate (conspiracy theory) which a lot of the opposes might support. I don't see why we HAVE TO choose between two bad options. Restarting the RfC might also drop some of the meat and sock puppets that have popped up since they're attention span tends to be short.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
"Conversation moved to Discussion" means conversation moved to Discussion.
|
---|
|
- Oppose OP proposal, but Support move to Spygate (conspiracy theory) as per Volunteer Marek and Objective3000. This is a fundamentally WP:POINT based RfC with an undercurrent of IDLI -- you present sources justifying this, or you don't, but what you don't do is call for "neutrality" when the RS do not give both sides anything close to equal weight. If you then want to complain about alleged media bias, start a blog, Wikipedia is not the place for you to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. --Calthinus (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose OP proposal but suggest move to either Spygate conspiracy theory or Spygate (conspiracy theory). The inclusion of Trump does see bizarrely WP:POINTy, but referring to it as a conspiracy theory is solidly supported by reliable sources. SnowFire (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. Recently there have been some editors suggesting that we move this article back to Spygate (conspiracy theory). This is not currently up for discussion and would run against a March 2019 consensus obtained after a move request. (See the talk page archives.) If there's critical mass to overturn that consensus, then it should be done in a dedicated discussion and participants in the prior discussions should be notified. R2 (bleep) 16:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- Do you mean Talk:Spygate_(conspiracy_theory_by_Donald_Trump)/Archive 1#Requested move 20 February 2019 ? That RM had smaller attendance than this one and made a nitpicky, WP disambiguation rules centered decision that missed the forest for the trees - that including "by Donald Trump" is a terrible disambiguator that probably helped kick up all the naming fuss you see above. Per WP:NOT#BURO, there shouldn't be any problem with considering all options in this requested move. More seriously, even if the NFL confusion is considered an ironclad problem with just "conspiracy theory", then literally any other extra words would be better than what was picked, including just plain nothing and a hatnote to the NFL article, or "2016 conspiracy theory", or "Spygate conspiracy theory (politics)", or whatever. SnowFire (talk) 23:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support Spygate (conspiracy theory) per WP:PRECISION. There is no need for disambiguation to go beyond what is necessary. feminist (talk) 11:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per much of the above, and all this obvious meatpuppetry. But mostly because the OP doesn't understand how WP:Disambiguation works. Spygate is not a "2016 United States presidential election", so that cannot be a disambiguation for it. Prefer the current title; there is nothing faulty about it, though "Spygate (Donald Trump conspiracy theory)" would be shorter and thus better comply with WP:CONCISE policy. Weakly okay with the short alternative proposal, "Spygate (conspiracy theory)"; weakly because removal of Trump's name from it is whitewashing, and it really is a Trump conspiracy theory, not someone else's. Not okay with longer alternatives, like "Spygate (political conspiracy theory)", per WP:CONCISE. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. It's a conspiracy theory. Maybe delete the "Donald Trump" bit, but it's a conspiracy theory. --Calton | Talk 07:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - this is a conspiracy theory, per the article's text, noting that the RfC has yet to change it. There is no need to make the title neutral, as this is exactly what it is. I'm not going to comment on mid thread alt suggestions as that is pointless. If there is a better option, wait for this RM to finish and present the case for it in a more readable way. --Gonnym (talk) 07:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support Suggested new name is clearly more encyclopedic.--MONGO (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support. While Spygate is verifiably a conspiracy theory, that doesn't mean we're obligated to use that as a parenthetical. The proposed title is clearer, more descriptive, and less controversial. R2 (bleep) 19:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose proposed title, support Spygate (conspiracy theory) - It is a conspiracy theory and should clearly be classified as such, but including the creator seems unnecessary. StudiesWorld (talk) 09:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support. The suggested adapted title "Spygate (2016 United States presidential election)" is closer to both neutral and to Department of Justice's statement. On April 10th, 2019 Attorney General William Barr declared that he thinks "spying did occur" against Donald Trump's campaign.[4][5][6][7] Francewhoa (talk) 09:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support, largely per Netoholic. I'd also support FBI surveillance of Donald Trump campaign as a new title, although it changes the focus and scope. It is not entirely clear that the conspiracy theory originates with Trump, so a more NPOV title is needed. That could be Spygate (conspiracy theory). I'm surprised nobody has pointed out yet that Vast right-wing conspiracy does not have Hillary Clinton's name in the title. Srnec (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. Oppose removal of conspiracy theory because it is one. Oppose removal of "by DT" because that leaves it ambiguous with the NFL one[11]. --В²C ☎ 00:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Discussion
ALERT - possible meatpuppetry for this page and thus maybe this page move also [12] There is a big argument between Wikipedia editors on "Spygate" here. Clearly some of them suffer from TDS. [13] - 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 [14] "Any further editor input on Talk:Spygate (Donald Trump conspiracy theory) would be appreciated. It seems that as a result of the Barr letter, many on the Right are trying to reopen the debate about the validity of counterintelligence on the Trump campaign or whatever they claim was going on. I have a busy day today IRL." — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 19:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- WP:POINT by one of the SPA accounts.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- WP:NOTPOINTy. I have no problem with this policy and I am not trying to discredit it. I believe equal evidence should be equally applied. What I have done here in no way resembles the examples given in WP:POINT and is not intended to be disruption, but rather the introduction of what I believe to be genuinely useful and relevant information in a format consistent to that of the information which has already been introduced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 21:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Actually, although its wording of that notice isn't ideal, WP:APPNOTE allows notifications on related Wikipedia articles without violating WP:CANVASS (on the premise that a related article is by default going to have a "representative" or otherwise typical group of editors rather than ones biased towards one point of view, so posting it there isn't likely to unbalance a debate.) A key part of WP:MEAT and WP:CANVASS is that you're trying to attract editors to present one particular point of view; notifications on a neutral, high-traffic venue are therefore allowed. --Aquillion (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- My issue was with the wording, yes. "A key part of WP:MEAT and WP:CANVASS is that you're trying to attract editors to present one particular point of view; notifications on a neutral, high-traffic venue are therefore allowed." The RfC I cited was a legitimate call for editor involvement, but was not neutrally worded. The Reddit thread in question was not neutrally worded, but never called for editor involvement. A case could be made for each to have attracted an imbalanced or misrepresentative sample of editors. I do not think either has necessarily caused much damage, but I think if one is to be noteworthy, then they both are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 01:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- Actually, although its wording of that notice isn't ideal, WP:APPNOTE allows notifications on related Wikipedia articles without violating WP:CANVASS (on the premise that a related article is by default going to have a "representative" or otherwise typical group of editors rather than ones biased towards one point of view, so posting it there isn't likely to unbalance a debate.) A key part of WP:MEAT and WP:CANVASS is that you're trying to attract editors to present one particular point of view; notifications on a neutral, high-traffic venue are therefore allowed. --Aquillion (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- 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)
- WP:POINT by one of the SPA accounts.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:57, 15 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: [15]. It calls several of the cited controversies "conspiracy theories". Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Shinealittlelight, I don't subscribe to WaPo, so I can't read the article. Can you provide quotes, or more context? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Shinealittlelight, I read the article and, sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about. O3000 (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Objective3000 and Muboshgu:, here's the relevant quote from the piece I linked:
The other images on that illustration and the text are broadly prominent conservative conspiracy theories that were popular during the Obama administration. There’s a reference to “Fast & Furious,” an effort to track illegal gun sales early in Obama’s first term that was the subject of a sweeping conspiracy theory. There’s an image of former Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner (between Al Sharpton and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)), the centerpiece of an effort at the IRS to scrutinize groups that claimed tax exemptions while engaging in political work. (Many tea party groups were singled out for scrutiny, prompting another conspiracy theory.)
Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)- Well, I still don’t understand your point as they were, indeed, conspiracy theories. In any case, this is other stuff. O3000 (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- O3K, I don't know how much clearer I can be. The Wikipedia articles I linked on these other scandals call them "scandals" in the titles, and do not call them conspiracy theories in the titles. And yet here is what we are in this context counting as an RS--an "analysis" piece by Bump in WaPo--that calls these scandals "conspiracy theories". So consistency requires that we either change those articles to title them "Conspiracy Theories" or we change this article to call it a scandal. My own preference would be to call everything a scandal. But something has to give. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- Argue what you wish on other articles. But, A→B is not the same as B→A. O3000 (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- Wut. I'm looking to similar articles, which are not currently so politically hot, to see if there is any insight into how to handle the present case based on what consensus has been reached elsewhere. I see that there is in fact some insight to be had. Articles like this one are usually called "scandals" in their titles. I'm suggesting on this basis that perhaps this is how the present article should be titled as well. Muboshgu's reply was that those other articles are not on anything that RSs describe as conspiracy theories. I provided an article that is being counted as an RS in the present context, and that does call the subjects of those other articles conspiracy theories. So Muboshgu's reply, which was intelligible and on point, is in fact mistaken. Then you showed up, and I frankly can't understand anything you're saying, and for some reason you seem also to be unable to understand anything I'm saying. As a result, it seems that our dialogue is not productive, so I propose that we stop. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- There is zero evidence that this is a scandal. Please keep in mind BLP. O3000 (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- Like I said, the other articles like this are titled "scandal" even when some RSs call them Conspiracy Theories. That's the point. And, although this was not my original point, the NYT calls spygate a scandal here [16]. 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)
- 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)
- Please strike this. It is clear that the NYT was quoting Trump when using that word. O3000 (talk) 01:12, 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 [16]. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:06, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- O3K, I don't know how much clearer I can be. The Wikipedia articles I linked on these other scandals call them "scandals" in the titles, and do not call them conspiracy theories in the titles. And yet here is what we are in this context counting as an RS--an "analysis" piece by Bump in WaPo--that calls these scandals "conspiracy theories". So consistency requires that we either change those articles to title them "Conspiracy Theories" or we change this article to call it a scandal. My own preference would be to call everything a scandal. But something has to give. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- @Objective3000 and Muboshgu:, here's the relevant quote from the piece I linked:
- Muboshgu, consider this piece: [15]. It calls several of the cited controversies "conspiracy theories". Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:20, 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)
- 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)
For all the people who support (conspiracy theory) - @BrendonTheWizard, WikiVirusC, SK8RBOI, and Objective3000: - actually that was a previous name of the article. However, are you aware that the page was moved due to a request - Talk:Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump)/Archive 1#Requested move 20 February 2019 - due to editors arguing that Spygate (NFL) also had conspiracy theories and thus there would be ambiguity. As such, I would ask that you consider bradv's suggestion of (political conspiracy theory). Please CTRL-F for bradv on the page to find it. starship.paint ~ KO 01:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- "(political conspiracy theory)" is better for the reason you've provided. I'd accept either to close this. O3000 (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- "Spygate (political conspiracy theory)" is unwieldy to my eye. I prefer it to the current title, but not the proposed title, "Spygate (2016 U.S. Presidential election)", which would satisfy the same concern about ambiguity. I think a better compromise is to reinstate "Spygate (conspiracy theory)" and include a disambiguation link to the NFL scandal, which would be a consistent and elegant solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 01:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware of it til now, but that discussion had very small participation, and I wouldn't have agreed with that move location if I had participated in it. The NFL Spygate wasn't a conspiracy theory it was an actual incident that occurred, so I don't believe it can be confused with this one. Despite the sources that were posted in that discussion which all refer to a conspiracy theory about destroyed tapes from the Spygate incident. The incident itself wasn't a conspiracy theory, nor is that article about one. Either way, a lot of options are available for the name, such as the ones I suggested, but the one suggested in this request, which doesn't label it as a conspiracy theory, I don't think is viable so long as it is just a conspiracy which I believe it will remain. WikiVirusC(talk) 13:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Reference citations in this discussion
References
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Single-purpose_account
- ^ https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/440758-republican-senators-request-briefing-on-doj-spying-probe
- ^ https://globalnews.ca/news/5153996/barr-spying-trump-campaign/
- ^ https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/04/11/barr_says_he_thinks_spying_occurred_against_trump_campaign_140027.html#!
- ^ https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/politics/Barr-Senate-Hearing-Mueller-Report-Looms-508360651.html
Alternate proposal: Spygate (conspiracy theory)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There were a fair number of comments in favor of this alternate proposal to move the article back to Spygate (conspiracy theory); however, given how the numbers play out, and the fact that a move request in March produced a consensus to move the article from Spygate (conspiracy theory) to its current place at Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump), I think it makes sense to confirm that consensus has in fact changed before making a move back. (To be clear, I oppose this alternate move, so my proposal of it shouldn't count as a !vote in favor.) R2 (bleep) 21:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- Pinging participants in March discussion: In ictu oculi Fourthords Old Naval Rooftops Red Slash Born2cycle R2 (bleep) 21:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. My rationale for proposing the move away from Spygate (conspiracy theory) had nothing to do with American politics. It was simply because the parenthetical dismbiguator "(conspiracy theory)" didn't do its intended job of disambiguating this Spygate from the other Spygates. Specifically, the most notable Spygate, as measured by reliable source coverage, is Spygate (NFL), a 2007-2008 controversy about the New England Patriots. That Spygate scandal involved a conspiracy theory. (Examples of sources describing the Patriots scandal as involving a conspiracy theory: [17][18][19]) Therefore, there needed (and still needs) to be a way to further distinguish the subject of this article from Spygate (NFL) to avoid confusion. R2 (bleep) 21:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- Improper RFC, but if we're really going to start all over based on this, then support. The confusion appears implausible, since the other Spygate is both far less well-known and hasn't really been termed a conspiracy theory; any hypothetical confusion could be clarified with a disambig notice at the top in any case. Either way, I feel this new RFC is improper; all the issues raised here were already raised above, so I don't think there's a valid argument for stopping implementation of the above RFC and starting the entire process over again. The original RFC got very little attention, had very little participation, and has clearly already been overturned by the far-higher participation rate in the one above, which mostly dismissed its concerns. "We had a previous RFC on this" is absolutely not a reason to try and ignore, overturn, or delay implementation of a newer RFC, especially when the newer one had far higher participation and therefore represents a stronger consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- A few responsive points here: (1) This isn't an RfC. (2) There are actually more reliable sources about Spygate (NFL) than there are about the subject of this article. Regardless, that doesn't make sense as a reason for opposing. (3) Spygate (NFL) has in fact "really been termed" a conspiracy theory, as evidenced by the sources I provided in my !vote. (4) We have no clarity on whether most of the editors who participated in this move request would support a move to Spygate (conspiracy theory). I suspect that many of the editors who !voted to support the move to Spygate (2016 United States presidential election) would not support the move to Spygate (conspiracy theory), for the reasons stated in their !votes. R2 (bleep) 22:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose move. I've stated this in the past; even if Spygate (NFL) is not itself a conspiracy theory, reliable sources have referred to it as such, and it can reasonably be said to contain a conspiracy. That makes the proposed title ambiguous. ONR (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- ONR, we're going in circles here, but I proposed Spygate (political conspiracy theory) above, for precisely this reason. Would that satisfy your objection? – bradv🍁 23:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, it would certainly work as a good disambiguation. (And for future reference, I don't get notifications for the shortened form of my username.) ONR (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- Old Naval Rooftops, the talk page link in your sig is a redirect, which is confusing the reply-link script. – bradv🍁 23:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, it would certainly work as a good disambiguation. (And for future reference, I don't get notifications for the shortened form of my username.) ONR (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- ONR, we're going in circles here, but I proposed Spygate (political conspiracy theory) above, for precisely this reason. Would that satisfy your objection? – bradv🍁 23:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Requested move 2 May 2019
Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump) → TBD – Making this "Fresh start" restart of the discussion an official RM. В²C ☎ 16:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Let's see if we can make a fresh start here. The above discussion is a complete trainwreck, because the proposed new title was changed partway through, so that it's pretty much impossible to tell what version people are referring to when they say "support" or "oppose". By my count at least seven titles were proposed here. I'll list them and we can discuss them by number: what we support and how strongly, what we oppose and how strongly, and what we could at least accept. If people prefer they could rank their preferences. The whole idea is to have one section where it is clear what people are supporting and what they oppose. Some titles were proposed by one person but not taken up by anyone else, and I have omitted them, but people could add other proposals here if they choose. R2 mentioned and linked an RM discussion in February,[20] saying it obtained consensus to add "by Donald Trump". That brief discussion had four supports, one oppose, and two comments; not exactly overwhelming. I am hopeful we may be able to get a broader consensus here if we can stay on topic and be clear what we are talking about. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- The original discussion above has been closed, as there was no clear consensus, multiple other options were being suggested, and it was unclear what change people were supporting or opposing. The purpose of this multiple-choice format is to make it clear exactly what title people are supporting. Pinging original discussants who have not yet commented: @Rusf10, Muboshgu, PackMecEng, Wingedsubmariner, BullRangifer, and Soibangla: @Volunteer Marek, Starship.paint, Periander6, Moefuzz, and Rhododendrites: @SJCAmerican, Shinealittlelight, SIPPINONTECH, NorthBySouthBaranof, and That Guy, From That Show!: @Wookian, Phmoreno, AppliedCharisma, Atsme, Rreagan007, Enterprisey, Torchiest, and Masem: @Safrolic, Thucydides411, Netoholic, My very best wishes, Sir Joseph, Markbassett, Awilley, and Neutrality: @JFG, BrendonTheWizard, Calthinus, SnowFire, Feminist, SMcCandlish, Calton, MONGO, and StudiesWorld: @Francewhoa, Srnec, Born2cycle, and Old Naval Rooftops: -- MelanieN (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Proposed titles for this article
- 1. Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump)
- 2. Spygate (conspiracy theory)
- 3. Spygate conspiracy theory
- 4. Spygate (political conspiracy theory)
- 5. Spygate (Donald Trump conspiracy theory)
- 6. Spygate (2016 United States presidential election)
- 7. FBI surveillance of Donald Trump campaign
People's choices
- Please list ONLY your choices or rankings here, and discuss them separately below. Otherwise we will never be able to tell who supports what.
- First choice: 6. Spygate (2016 United States presidential election) - specific and neutral
- Second choice: 4. Spygate (political conspiracy theory) - not as specific, but still an effective and neutral disamiguation
- Third choice: 1. Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump) - a little misleading since Trump isn't the only person who holds the theory
- Fourth choice: 5. Spygate (Donald Trump conspiracy theory) - more misleading because it could be read as meaning the theory is about Trump
- Fifth choice: 2. Spygate (conspiracy theory) - fails to disambiguate from Spygate (NFL), which also involved a conspiracy theory
- Sixth choice: 3. Spygate conspiracy theory - same as #2, but also doesn't reflect reliable sources
- Seventh choice: 7. FBI surveillance of Donald Trump campaign - fails WP:FRINGE
- R2 (bleep) 23:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC) (modified 21:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC))
- @Ahrtoodeetoo: - it may be more helpful if you explicitly write which options you oppose. Based on how editors have responded below you, this is to synchronize with them. starship.paint (talk) 03:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not going to dictate to the future closer how to handle rankings (mine or anyone else's), but my personal suggestion is that all choices ranked above option 1 (the status quo) should be treated as yes !votes, and all choices ranked below option 1 should be treated as !no votes. If that's how it's done, then I oppose options 5, 2, 3, and 7. (Future closer, if you want me to explain why I think this is the best approach, please hit me up on my user talk.) R2 (bleep) 16:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Ahrtoodeetoo: - it may be more helpful if you explicitly write which options you oppose. Based on how editors have responded below you, this is to synchronize with them. starship.paint (talk) 03:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support Spygate (political conspiracy theory). I know it is uncommon for me to !vote in an RM I've relisted; however, this is an uncommon RM, so I feel justified. There is no problem if the closer chooses not to count my rationale. I thought the title to which this article was previously moved, Spygate (conspiracy theory), was incomplete disambiguation for reasons given by another editor in this discussion. It needed more qualification, and "political" serves this purpose while maintaining a neutral balance. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 00:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- 1. Spygate (political conspiracy theory), 2: Spygate (conspiracy theory), per my !vote above. – bradv🍁 01:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- 2, 3, 4, 1, 5 in that order based on brevity, accuracy, and properly reflecting the sources per my comments above; given the nature of the topic, "conspiracy theory" is central to the topic and cannot be omitted from the title without implicitly endorsing a position that the sources are near-unanimous in dismissing. No support for 6, which implicitly gives the impression that it was a genuine scandal. Oppose 7 in strongest possible terms, since it falsely gives the impression that the surveillance Trump described took place, a position the sources are near-unanimous in dismissing. --Aquillion (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support Spygate (conspiracy theory) as 1st choice; Spygate (political conspiracy theory) as second choice. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support 7 from among these choices. I think the scope of the article should be broadened to include all the facts and controversies concerning the pre-Mueller Crossfire Hurricane FBI investigation, for which there is currently no wikipedia article. I think that "Spygate" should be a single section in the article, and it should discuss Trump's unsubstantiated claims about the investigation, and should make it clear that 'spygate' has been used for various aspects of the investigation, from Trump's unsubstantiated claims to the mere fact that the FBI investigated the campaign. I'm working on a revised version of the article to this effect. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- I want to add that RSs conflict about what 'spygate' refers to, and only some of them (e.g. NYT and Vox) claim that it refers to all of Trump's unsubstantiated claims, which they call a conspiracy theory. Other RSs use 'spygate' differently, sometimes (NBC News for example) just for the true claim that the FBI sent an informant to the campaign. See the section of this page that discusses 'spygate' being ambiguous. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Option 6 and 7 are the only NPOV options. Disambiguators should be concise and used strictly for the purpose of distinguishing articles that are otherwise of the same name. There is a bit of editorializing going on here. As Barr said, "spy" is a perfectly good English word. A properly constructed disambiguator would be Spygate (U.S. politics). Slithytoad (talk) 03:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- I see editors citing Vox and and other media publications to determine whether or not spygate is a conspiracy theory. I do not think this approach is valid. On the issue of word usage, dictionaries should be considered authoritative. According to Merriam-Webster, a conspiracy theory is "a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators." The usage comes from the Kennedy assassination where there was a dispute concerning whether there was one or multiple assassins. Even if we determine that spygate is a conspiracy theory, it does not follow that we should put this phrase in the disambiguator. Disambiguators should be generic classes and and proper nouns should be avoided, according to WP:NCDAB. Slithytoad (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Note: Slithytoad has made only 20 edits to Wikipedia as of this post, none before this year. starship.paint (talk) 03:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- I see editors citing Vox and and other media publications to determine whether or not spygate is a conspiracy theory. I do not think this approach is valid. On the issue of word usage, dictionaries should be considered authoritative. According to Merriam-Webster, a conspiracy theory is "a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators." The usage comes from the Kennedy assassination where there was a dispute concerning whether there was one or multiple assassins. Even if we determine that spygate is a conspiracy theory, it does not follow that we should put this phrase in the disambiguator. Disambiguators should be generic classes and and proper nouns should be avoided, according to WP:NCDAB. Slithytoad (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- 3, 2, 4 are all good, in that order (so Spygate conspiracy theory, Spygate (conspiracy theory), and Spygate (political conspiracy theory). Far beneath them, 6 and 7. Beneath even them are 1 and 5 which are strongly opposed as asking for trouble (the "Donald Trump" variants). For 3 & 2 vs. 4, I really don't buy the partial disambiguation argument; first off partial disambiguation isn't completely horrible, but even if it was, NFL spygate is called an "incident" or "controversy" first, and its Wikipedia disambiguator is (NFL). Ergo there's no problem with just using the concise and simple (conspiracy theory) here for this article, and at absolute worst throwing on a hatnote. SnowFire (talk) 06:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support 2 3 6 7 Per my arguments given above. Option 7 is my personal preference for the direction of the article (with a Spygate subsection, ty Shinealittlelight) but 2, 3, &6 also satisfy my concerns. Slithytoad also makes a good argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 06:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Not sure yet what I do support, but I absolutely oppose 6 and 7 for being POV pushes (see also RfC on lead which supports this claim) that try and change history and the narrative. --Gonnym (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Also oppose 2 and 3 as incomplete disambiguation and ambiguous title as Spygate shows that the other 2 can be described to some extent as conspiracy theories. As a title should be clear without any need to read the article, those 2 fail at this. Support 4, 1, 5 in that order. --Gonnym (talk) 10:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- 4 in that order. OK, if not 4: 3, 2, 1. This is a conspiracy theory as amply documented in RS, and brevity is the soul of wit. However, prefer 4 to disambiguate from the NFL and F1 articles. 6 suggests perhaps not. 7 sounds like it came from InfoWars. Let us not legitimize a conspiracy theory. (And thanks Melanie for trying to get this back on track.) O3000 (talk) 11:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support 3, 2, 4 in that order. Oppose 1 and 5, as including Trump's name isn't needed in title whether he is or isn't the origin, and oppose 6 and 7 until their is evidence of it actually having happeneded WikiVirusC(talk) 13:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Option 6--MONGO (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- 2, 4, 6, 3 in that order. No mention of the name in the article, please, due to BLP issues and other concerns. feminist (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- 2, 4, 3, 7 2 is the most concise while accurate disambiguation term, with hatnotes to distinguish from any potential confusion with the NFL situation. At the state this story is at, specifically naming Trump in the disambiguation is potentially a BLP issue. --Masem (t) 16:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- 6 seems to me the most neutral and factual of what the article is about. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- 7 - Of the list, its the only one that doesn't over-inflate Trump's colorful, attention-getting "Spygate" twitter term. The broader issue is about claimed or real FBI surveillance of his campaign and should be stated in a more NPOV and Verifiable manner. -- Netoholic @ 16:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- This is my order of preference, with numbers in original list in parentheses:
- (5) Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump)
- (1) Spygate (Donald Trump conspiracy theory)
- (3) Spygate conspiracy theory
- (2) Spygate (conspiracy theory)
- (4) Spygate (political conspiracy theory)
- (6) Spygate (2016 United States presidential election)
- (7) FBI surveillance of Donald Trump campaign
- Support 2, 4, 3 as clearest and most accurate; Weak oppose 1, 5 based on substantially better alternatives; Oppose 6, 7 as misleading (especially 7 -- it's like moving September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories to George W. Bush's responsibility for the 9/11 attacks). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support 6 or 7' and Strongly oppose all others- When there is an ongoing investigation by the Justice Department about surveillance of the Trump campaign, it is really disingenuous to label it a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories don't get serious investigations.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Option 7 is neutral, has a wider scope, and refrains from emphasizing the controversial "Spygate" term. — JFG talk 17:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support Spygate (political conspiracy theory), okay with Spygate (conspiracy theory), per my concurrence with Bradv above. Okay with other options which specify "conspiracy theory". Spygate (2016 United States presidential election) is completely unacceptable, as it gives legitimacy to a completely unsubstantiated conspiracy theory. Safrolic (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support 2, 3, 4 in that order as supported by sources and in compliance with the article title policy, which directs us to be both concise and accurate; oppose all others for the reasons stated above (because we don't need Trump's name in the article, and because we have substantially better alternatives); strongly oppose 7 because, even under the most generous reading, it conflates lawful investigations with the unsubstantiated conspiracy theory that Trump and allies have promoted. (I think we already have (several) articles on the actual investigations into Trump; if someone wants to add more well-sourced information to those articles, they are welcome to do so; but we absolutely owe it to our readers to do what the reliable sources do, which is clearly separate fact and fiction.) Neutralitytalk 18:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support 2,3
,6,4 I stand by what I said in the previous discussions. I think that moving it to 7 would be significantly broadening the scope of the article, while 1 and 5 are unnecessarily specific. Added: I don't necessarily oppose 6 as other users do, but I agree that it may cause confusion. StudiesWorld (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC) (moved and edited: 18:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)) - 5, 1, 4. Option 5 is accurate and WP:CONCISE. Opt. 1 is accurate and less concise. Opt. 4 isn't wrong but seems to whitewash; this really is about Trump and what Trump says and allegedly thinks (though most people I know are convinced Trump doesn't believe what he says, but just depends on FUD tactics to confuse the public). The outright failures: Opt. 3 isn't viable because it's not how WP disambiguates (a WP:NATURALDIS has to actually be natural, and the phrase "Spygate conspiracy theory" isn't because sources don't use it with any frequency). Opt. 6 isn't viable, because Spygate is not a 2016 US presidential election; that's blatantly false and confusing pseudo-disambiguation. Opt. 7 isn't viable because we can't state in Wikipedia's own voice that there was FBI surveillance of his campaign (especially since the truth appears to be the opposite; and because of Neutrality's point, just above). Option 2 also seems to fail, per Ahrtoodeetoo's arguments in the discussion section below; RS have also frequently described Spygate (NFL) as a conspiracy theory. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC); rev'd. 21:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Option 6 is appropriately neutral. It doesn't matter whether the "spy" was "inside" the campaign just as it doesn't matter whether someone was murdered with garden hoe versus an axe. The point is that undercover informants (plural - see NYT[22]) were spying on the Trump campaign - asking questions about the Trump campaign, and not merely about individuals who were associated with the Trump campaign. The Attorney General of the US calls it "spying," and everyone in political commentary who is not carrying water for the Democrats use the term "spying" as well. Note that the NYT article ties itself back to Trump's Spygate tweet. Wookian (talk) 01:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- 4 first, then 1, 2, 3 - with the same rationale for Oppose 6, that the majority viewpoint of reliable sources is that Spygate is a conspiracy theory. Strong oppose 7, broadens the article beyond the majority reliable sources viewpoint. Oppose 5 on BLP concerns against Trump. starship.paint (talk) 03:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Option 6 In light of the New York Times article published May 2 2019 confirming that the FBI's Counterintelligence Division was using a human asset operating on foreign soil under an assumed identity to solicit information from Papadopolous, I no longer believe it is accurate to call this a "conspiracy theory." In fact, it appears that the New York Times has all but confirmed that there was indeed spying on members of the Trump Campaign. The article more or less vindicates Trump's "conspiracy theory." SIPPINONTECH (talk) 03:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Option 4, then 3, and definitely not 7, as general surveillance is a much broader topic worthy of its own article, with one section about Spygate. Spygate is about one historic event where surveillance happened. Trump made several false claims about it and ONE informant without providing evidence. (He has never provided it.) RS called his claims false (or the equivalent) and a conspiracy theory. We document the whole story. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- 2 > 4 > 5 > 1 > 3 > 6 > 7. "Conspiracy theory" generally implies that there is insufficient evidence to prove a conspiracy, making it an inaccurate and unlikely term for the NFL scandal. Therefore Spygate (conspiracy theory) is the best and most concise way to put it. There is nothing POV in calling a spade a spade when established in reliable sources, and to downplay the fact that this is a conspiracy theory would be inappropriate, hence my opposition to 7 (and 6 to a lesser extent). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- 6 or 7 - complies with NPOV - it's not a theory, spying by the FBI on the Trump campaign did occur; see NYTimes. Atsme Talk 📧 05:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- "Conspiracy theory" does not refer to the fact that surveillance by Halper occurred. It refers to Trump's false claims about that surveillance. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- 2 > 3 > 4 >1/5. 2 and 3 are the only sensible options, 4, 1 and 5 contain unneccessary words, and 6 and 7 sort of embrace the conspiracy theory. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Operation Crossfire Hurricane proposed, is neutral, concise, and actually the operation that everyone on either side is talking about. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
-
- Ummm...no. That's about the entire Russian interference investigation, not Trump's specific Spygate claims about Halper. Halper's work was a tiny part of that investigation. Stay on-topic. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Note: I've since created Operation Crossfire Hurricane as an article from a redirect. starship.paint (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- Ummm...no. That's about the entire Russian interference investigation, not Trump's specific Spygate claims about Halper. Halper's work was a tiny part of that investigation. Stay on-topic. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- 7. "Spygate" is an outdated term and we aren't Trump's PR. Some editors believe that 7 is fringe but that is false. See this recent bombshell. wumbolo ^^^ 12:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- I don’t know why people keep calling this a “bombshell”. We’ve known for a long while that the FBI was investigating Russian influence on the election, in particular related to the Trump campaign. But, there is still no evidence that the investigation was an FBI plot to influence the election or that any general surveillance of the Trump campaign existed, or spies were planted by Obama into the campaign. O3000 (talk) 12:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- 'Support 7' -- That Guy, From That Show! 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
New Discussion
- I hope editors will remember that the purpose of a parenthetical is to disambiguate from other topics of the same name, i.e. other Spygates. As such, please bear in mind that Spygate (NFL) has actually received more RS coverage than the subject of this article and has been described as a conspiracy theory by various sources (ex: [23][24][25]). Also, although this Spygate is verifiably a conspiracy theory, there's no requirement that our article be labeled as such its title. As far as I know the practice of putting "(conspiracy theory)" in the article title is a purely Trump-era phenomenon. We have dozens of articles on conspiracy theories that don't have titles like that. R2 (bleep) 23:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- We have many articles called conspiracy theories that predate Trump. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, Spygate (NFL) wasn't a conspiracy theory, it was an event that actually happened and was named/refereed to as Spygate afterwards. That was from a incident at a game in 2007, the "conspiracy theories" are allegations that the league destroyed the tapes/notes to cover up that the scandal might have been worse then the league wanted to public to know. Those sources you posted are talking about that specific conspiracy, not the Spygate itself which the article is about. The conspiracy is only one small section of the article. WikiVirusC(talk) 13:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Alas these days, if you sneeze, some site will claim a conspiracy behind it. O3000 (talk) 13:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- As well as put "gate" behind it. PackMecEng (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- It's true that Spygate (NFL) wasn't solely about an alleged conspiracy between the Patriots and Roger Goodell, but that was a very important part of it as indicated by hundreds if not thousands of reliable sources. Hence the sources I listed describing Spygate (NFL) as a conspiracy theory. R2 (bleep) 17:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Even if you say it again, as I said, not one of those sources you listed called Spygate a conspiracy theory, please read the sources rather than just link the ones that show up when you google Spygate NFL conspiracy theory. The NFL Spygate incident was the taping of the Jets game in 2007, and investigation, which resulted in fines and other punishments. That was not a conspiracy theory and no source you provided, or any other out there calls that a conspiracy theory. During the investigation Goodell had tapes at the Patriots office destroyed. The conspiracy theory is saying that there was evidence that the NFL was trying to cover up by destroying the tapes, which no source cites as fact, just as a [conspiracy] theory. What you are trying to say is like saying JFK's death was a conspiracy theory, just because their are countless conspiracy theories out there about it. WikiVirusC(talk) 17:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Alas these days, if you sneeze, some site will claim a conspiracy behind it. O3000 (talk) 13:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- That's an interesting interpretation of the sources. Take, instance, this source that I linked to. The title of the article is
The 15 biggest NFL conspiracy theories that may be true
and it says,Check out 15 of the biggest NFL conspiracy theories that may have some truth to them:
Number 3 on the list isSPYGATE
. But, I guess interested editors will have to make this determination for themselves. R2 (bleep) 16:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)- I'm not doing any kind of "interpretation" I am just reading it. Yes #3 is about Spygate, not stating Spygate itself was a conspiracy theory, it simply describes the conspiracy theory. The Spygate conspiracy theory vs simply Spygate I already explained twice above. Regardless I'm done going in circles with this argument. WikiVirusC(talk) 17:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- That's an interesting interpretation of the sources. Take, instance, this source that I linked to. The title of the article is
- It seems to me that Aquillon is factually incorrect in saying that the campaign was not surveilled. All sources agree that the FBI sent a paid informant to four members of the campaign, and, under a FISA warrant, was surveilling Carter Page (after he left the campaign). There is disagreement and controversy about whether anything improper was done, of course. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- No sources I'm aware of support the idea that Stefan Halper was a paid informant (a central element of the conspiracy theory), nor that he was inserted within the Trump campaign or that his purpose was to "surveil" the campaign as a whole rather than to investigate specific leads on Russian interference. Since Halper falls under WP:BLP and the idea that he was a "paid informant" is a serious accusation which absolutely no evidence supports, I've struck the relevant part of your comment. The fact that you brought up Page while admitting that he was not part of the Trump campaign at the time shows, I think, that you recognize the problem. As I said above, the sources are nearly unanimous that no surveillince of the sort Trump described occurred, and that his accusations were a baseless conspiracy theory; that is not something about which there is any "disagreement or controversy." (Nor, for that matter, are there any serious, independent sources alleging wrongdoing on Halper's part, so your assertion that there is "disagreement or controversy" about that are also groundless.) In short, I stand by my description and ask that you provide reliable, independent sources to back up your WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims - especially if you intend to keep saying things about Halper, who, again, falls under WP:BLP. --Aquillion (talk) 04:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- I'll thank you not to edit my comments. If you want me to strike something, you can ask me to do so. I've removed the strike you placed in my comment. Halper was paid by the DoD, as reported here: [26]. He certainly was an informant, and he certainly was paid under the Obama administration, and that's what I meant by 'paid informant'. The repeated claim that 'spygate' refers to a conspiracy theory is out of step with the RSs, which conflict on this matter. Some RSs (NYT and Vox, for example) say that 'spygate' refers to all of Trump's unsubstantiated claims, which they characterize as a conspiracy theory. But other sources do not use 'spygate' for the conjunction of all Trump's unsubstantiated claims, but just for the broader claim that there was spying on the campaign, or for the claim that Halper was sent to surveil the campaign. See the discussion about 'spygate' being ambiguous. Barr is concerned enough about possible wrongdoing to investigate the matter, a fact that is widely reported. So there is obviously disagreement and controversy about whether there was wrongdoing. Finally, you said that there was no surveillance. Now you've backed off to claim that there was no surveillance "of the sort Trump described". These are different claims. I was taking issue with the former claim. There was surveillance, because four members of the campaign were surveilled by Halper, who was an informant for the FBI who received payments from the DoD under the Obama administration. The Halper affair was part of Crossfire Hurricane, the investigation which Comey himself described before congress as an investigation of the Trump campaign. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Also, this edit [27], which you made after I criticized what you said, and which made my criticism look off target, but which was not noted here, is completely outrageous. Editing my comment, and then covertly editing your comment to make my remarks appear to be in error, is really beyond the pale. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- WP:BLP is policy; it applies to talk pages as well as articles, and you still haven't provided any sources whatsoever to back up your baseless accusations against Halper. ( In fact, you seem to be backing down by hemming and hewing about how he was "paid" in that he had an unrelated job?) Nothing in that source suggests that Halper was paid to spy on the Trump campaign. Nothing in that source suggests that Halper was "surveilling" the Trump campaign (in fact, it specifically notes that he didn't make any effort to join it.) Nothing in that source supports any of the accusations you are making against him, nor does it lend any credence to the conspiracy theory Trump pushed back in 2018. The source, on top of that, does not even mention Spygate; your handwave about how it's all connected somehow isn't supported by the sources. The article itself has extensive sources detailing the nature of the conspiracy theory and its near-universal rejection by reliable sources; trying to answer that by changing the topic to the unrelated investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election or into some vague ball of every accusation Trump has ever made against his political opponents is silly and is part of the reason the title needs to stay at its current location to maintain precision rather than a vague wall-of-madness conspiracy-theory web of connections made by overeager editors. Finally, it's natural that I'd want to use an argument that would convince as many people as possible, including people (like you) who I disagree with and whose arguments I don't really find convincing myself, and would therefore update my comment to address even points I feel are pedantic or off-base; if you think my edits rendered your complaints moot, then you should acknowledge that you agree that at least the current version of my argument is correct. --Aquillion (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- I didn't wave my hands and I didn't say "it's all connected somehow". You apparently made that up. And your covert edit of your previous comment had the effect of making my original statement in this exchange look like a mischaracterization of what you said. That's out of line in my view, and so was your striking of part of my comment. But this is off topic at this point, so let's stop, ok? I will say this, by way of hopefully ending this exchange: your altered comment, which now claims that only that Trump's specific account of the surveillance is incorrect, is much less objectionable. Trump's specific account is certainly unsubstantiated and implausible. So thank you for taking down your previous comment, which I thought was false. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- WP:BLP is policy; it applies to talk pages as well as articles, and you still haven't provided any sources whatsoever to back up your baseless accusations against Halper. ( In fact, you seem to be backing down by hemming and hewing about how he was "paid" in that he had an unrelated job?) Nothing in that source suggests that Halper was paid to spy on the Trump campaign. Nothing in that source suggests that Halper was "surveilling" the Trump campaign (in fact, it specifically notes that he didn't make any effort to join it.) Nothing in that source supports any of the accusations you are making against him, nor does it lend any credence to the conspiracy theory Trump pushed back in 2018. The source, on top of that, does not even mention Spygate; your handwave about how it's all connected somehow isn't supported by the sources. The article itself has extensive sources detailing the nature of the conspiracy theory and its near-universal rejection by reliable sources; trying to answer that by changing the topic to the unrelated investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election or into some vague ball of every accusation Trump has ever made against his political opponents is silly and is part of the reason the title needs to stay at its current location to maintain precision rather than a vague wall-of-madness conspiracy-theory web of connections made by overeager editors. Finally, it's natural that I'd want to use an argument that would convince as many people as possible, including people (like you) who I disagree with and whose arguments I don't really find convincing myself, and would therefore update my comment to address even points I feel are pedantic or off-base; if you think my edits rendered your complaints moot, then you should acknowledge that you agree that at least the current version of my argument is correct. --Aquillion (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- No sources I'm aware of support the idea that Stefan Halper was a paid informant (a central element of the conspiracy theory), nor that he was inserted within the Trump campaign or that his purpose was to "surveil" the campaign as a whole rather than to investigate specific leads on Russian interference. Since Halper falls under WP:BLP and the idea that he was a "paid informant" is a serious accusation which absolutely no evidence supports, I've struck the relevant part of your comment. The fact that you brought up Page while admitting that he was not part of the Trump campaign at the time shows, I think, that you recognize the problem. As I said above, the sources are nearly unanimous that no surveillince of the sort Trump described occurred, and that his accusations were a baseless conspiracy theory; that is not something about which there is any "disagreement or controversy." (Nor, for that matter, are there any serious, independent sources alleging wrongdoing on Halper's part, so your assertion that there is "disagreement or controversy" about that are also groundless.) In short, I stand by my description and ask that you provide reliable, independent sources to back up your WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims - especially if you intend to keep saying things about Halper, who, again, falls under WP:BLP. --Aquillion (talk) 04:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Can someone please ping the participant in the previous discussion(s) so that they are aware that they may need to re-!vote? Abecedare (talk) 03:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Procedural note: Since this is basically a 2nd round of RM if everybody needs to repeat themselves to be counted, it should be listed on RM again as well, in my opinion. 06:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- SMcCandlish, regarding your position on Option 6, WP:NCDAB makes clear that a parenthetical disambiguation can be the subject or context to which the topic applies, as in Union (set theory) or Inflation (cosmology). I believe that's the concept behind Spygate (2016 United States presidential election). R2 (bleep) 19:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- That only works when it's clear that's what's being done, which isn't the case here. It also badly fails WP:CONCISE in being a long string of blather, and it fails WP:PRECISE and WP:RECOGNIZABLE in being an awkward construction that doesn't actually address the scope of the topic (a recent and ongoing political controversy that has grown way beyond the bounds of its original temporal context; i.e., this is an issue now, and the election was a long time ago. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Good points. It might be too late for this, but another option that's been tossed around is Spygate (United States politics). Similar concept as Spygate (2016 United States presidential election) but it might address your concerns. R2 (bleep) 21:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- If 6 wins, then another requested move to Spygate (United States politics) then. starship.paint (talk)
- Good points. It might be too late for this, but another option that's been tossed around is Spygate (United States politics). Similar concept as Spygate (2016 United States presidential election) but it might address your concerns. R2 (bleep) 21:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Slithytoad I see editors citing Vox and and other media publications to determine whether or not spygate is a conspiracy theory. I do not think this approach is valid.
- you seem to be new here; this approach is called following the majority viewpoint of WP:Reliable sources. starship.paint (talk)
- You have cropped out the most substantive part of my argument, so I will repeat it: Something is a conspiracy theory if it meets the definition given in a major dictionary, not if Vox says so. WP:RS does not say what you are claiming that it says. It directs us to make "sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered." I ask that all parties to this discussion refrain from "attacks on the characteristics and authority of the writer," per WP:TPNO.[28] Slithytoad (talk) 04:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Slithytoad: - saying you seem to be new isn't an attack, at least in my point of view. It's just so that you might be less familiar with policy if you are new. WP:RS says
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources
. A dictionary will not tell you if Spygate is, or is not, a conspiracy theory, because I expect a dictionary not to have an entry on Spygate. In Wikipedia, something is a conspiracy theory if reliable sources say so as the majority viewpoint, of which, Vox is one of them. starship.paint (talk) 04:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)- You are repeating a claim that I just finished debunking: No, there is no guideline that says the "majority viewpoint," whatever that means, should be treated as infallible truth. In fact, the guideline says exactly the opposite, that significant minority views must be taken into account. Revelations of the Obama FBI spying on the Trump campaign have been coming in fast and furious in the last few days. The IG report will be out soon, so there is more on the way. I would have thought the view of the presiding attorney general would count as “significant” under WP:RS. Slithytoad (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Slithytoad: - saying you seem to be new isn't an attack, at least in my point of view. It's just so that you might be less familiar with policy if you are new. WP:RS says
Rusf10 When there is an ongoing investigation by the Justice Department about surveillance of the Trump campaign, it is really disingenuous to label it a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories don't get serious investigations.
- your vote does not refer to Wikipedia policy. On the contrary, if the majority viewpoint in WP:Reliable sources is that Spygate is a conspiracy theory, then it is not disingenuous to label it a conspiracy theory. starship.paint (talk) 04:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Starship.paint:This reliable source says the spying happened. Your sources that call it a conspiracy theory are opinion pieces written over a year ago. Find sources published in the last few weeks.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Rusf10: Does your New York Times source really say the spying happened? Here's a quote
could also give ammunition to Mr. Trump and his allies for their spying claims.
- not quite at the level that they said the spying happened. They didn't say validated / proved right Trump and his allies for their spying claims. Provide me with a direct quote, please, or you're talking about original research. starship.paint (talk) 07:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC) - Also Rusf10
Your sources that call it a conspiracy theory are opinion pieces written over a year ago.
- which ones of the 60-75 sources in the article are opinion pieces that have not been attributed to the author? Please inform me. Thank you. starship.paint (talk) 07:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Rusf10: Does your New York Times source really say the spying happened? Here's a quote
@JFG, Mr Ernie, Shinealittlelight, and WikiVirusC: - you guys have mentioned Operation Crossfire Hurricane. It's not apparent to me that Operation Crossfire Hurricane is the same as Spygate. The claims Trump made in May 2018 and June 2018 are still baseless (no spy within the campaign, no start of investigation in December 2015) So why can't we just create a separate article for Operation Crossfire Hurricane and go to town there? Is anyone preventing you from doing that? starship.paint (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- I guess if you'll indulge me a little OR, I think what Trump was calling Spygate was the frame of Operation Crossfire Hurricane, but without the correct details. Halper's attempts to contact Page, Papadopolous, and others in the campaign are referred to by one of Trump's earliest Spygate tweets - "If the person placed very early into my campaign wasn't a SPY put there by the previous Administration for political purposes, how come such a seemingly massive amount of money was paid for services rendered – many times higher than normal ... Follow the money! The spy was there early in the campaign and yet never reported Collusion with Russia, because there was no Collusion. He was only there to spy for political reasons and to help Crooked Hillary win – just like they did to Bernie Sanders, who got duped!" I read this as a clear reference to Halper, but not the exact details of what Halper was doing. The issue, of course, is that we would need RS to make that connection. So what I think makes more sense is to somehow scrap this article, which really is disjointed and not very direct or clear, and re-create it as Operation Crossfire Hurricane, that details what prompted the operation, how the operation was carried out, and how Trump and his campaign interpreted it. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Mr Ernie: - even in your own OR, you admit Trump got it wrong -
without the correct details
. He did get it wrong, that's why sources called it a conspiracy theory. That's no reason to scrap this article. Trump said something wrong and reliable sources called him out of it. You don't get to say anything you want and mean literally anything, but this is what Trump does, and it's wrong. Example: [29] "I don’t know if you remember, a long time ago, very early on I used the word ‘wiretap,’ and I put in quotes, meaning surveillance, spying you can sort of say whatever you want," If Operation Crossfire Hurricane had misconduct, so be it. It can have its own article, doesn't have to encroach on this one. starship.paint (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC) - You can even go with FBI surveillance of Donald Trump campaign. No one is denying that that happened. Surely there are enough sources to make that notable. starship.paint (talk) 13:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- This seems to be what you're talking about:
- BullRangifer (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Mr Ernie: - even in your own OR, you admit Trump got it wrong -
- It is also of my opinion that Operation CH wasn't/isn't Spygate, but also have noticed that people are trying to say that it is. There is a broader issue of what is the scope of Spygate exactly. Based on what Spygate originally was defined as, the operation is something completely different. No one is preventing anyone from creating an article. I personally don't want to split/move that information from here to a seperate article without a discussion, since even though I know it isn't accurate, people are trying to use that information as "proof" or evidence of Spygate. Me just moving that there without a discussion or consensus would just turn into a POV pushing argument, hence why I said below we should discuss it in future. I'm also not sure how notable the operation is on its own, rather than including the details that we have available in one of the many articles we have that it could fit it, just probably not this one. WikiVirusC(talk) 13:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- @WikiVirusC: - I don't agree with your concerns, nothing in the article needs to be deleted and moved out into Operation Crossfire Hurricane or FBI surveillance of Donald Trump campaign. Some stuff in the Background could be copied. As for Trump's Spygate conspiracy theory, probably summarized in a section, not a big focus. I'm sure either of these articles will be notable, with the amount of fuss and focus from the right, there will be a lot of sources. starship.paint (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, he got some of the specifics wrong, but the thrust of his comment clearly refers to what we now know as O C H. I guess I could liken it to getting into a car accident with a blue car, but I report that it was a black car. Yes I got a key detail wrong, but I was still involved in a wreck. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Mr Ernie: - but the reliable sources focused on the claim that it was a black car and rebutted that. So to remove the confusion, instead on focusing on "Shrimp accused a black car of hitting him, and people proved a black car didn't, but a blue car did", just create a new article, "Shrimp was hit by a blue car". Problem solved and you are free to do that. Then we don't need to prove that Operation Crossfire Hurricane is Spygate. We don't need to prove that FBI surveillance is Spygate. And if anyone argues that, then well, the topics will be merged, and Spygate is the smaller topic, it will be merged in. starship.paint (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- The thing is, the key detail is what this is all this fuss was about. We already knew about FBI investigating/looking into links between the Trump campaign and Russia, before he was even sworn into office. And we definetly had significant knowledge of it by the time Trump started tweeting "Spygate". So was he just saying "You know that investigation by the FBI you all already know about, it happened", or did he say, "FBI put a spy into my campaign early on to help Clinton win". Cause your saying he said the latter, but meant nothing but the former. WikiVirusC(talk) 13:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
@JFG, Mr Ernie, Shinealittlelight, and WikiVirusC: - actions speak louder than words. I've created Operation Crossfire Hurricane from a redirect. Go ahead, expand it, add all the Carter Page stuff. Add the recent NYT article. I won't do a lot, and it might end up at AfD. I'm busy. starship.paint (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, Starship.paint, I think this is a great idea to start a CH article. I'll try to contribute, though I'm busy too. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Conspiracy theory, again
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Spygate 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 Wikipedia 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)
- That's a bit notforum-y, but Donald Bowers, I think BullRangifer's main point is that there are reliable sources saying that Spygate is a conspiracy theory, and there are reliable sources saying that the surveillance that's known to have occurred was not "spying." To complicate matters, different reliable sources describe Spygate in different ways. This is why we're struggling. But to insist that spying did occur and that editors here are trying to "redefine" spying, all without pointing to any reliable sources, isn't very helpful. R2 (bleep) 16:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- Editors here are not redefining anything. We are maintaining the original definition of terms. Halper was an "informant", not a "spy". The ones claiming a "redefinition" of terms should be looking at Trump, his followers, and some sources. Legitimate investigations of foreign nationals are "spying", but not of Americans. That was legitimate, non-political, national security work, and, in this case, involved ONE informant who asked three campaign members a few questions.
- Trump admitted he was rebranding (redefining) "informant" when he chose to call Halper a "spy". Ever since then, accusations that legitimate investigations have been "spying" are misuses of the term for political propaganda purposes. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- Aside from (Personal attack removed) spin, it was clear that the Trump campaign was spied on, and the grounds for which (a phony dossier) are likely to be investigated/prosecuted if AG Barr has anything to say about it (hint: he does). Why is Nellie Ohr being referred to the DOJ for prosecution by a Congressman? Why is Barr adamant that "spying" did indeed occur?66.141.235.58 (talk) 14:39, 2 May 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)
- 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)
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.[1][2][3][4]
Sources
|
---|
|
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)
- @BullRangifer: I believe this is in response to @Volunteer Marek: removal of the material citing per talk.[31] I have not been following the page closely lately, is there consensus on talk for removal? PackMecEng (talk) 13:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- From the timing, it appears this was written immediately before Francewhoa added the content to the article, which was removed by VM the next day. There is no consensus for including this content yet, at least not that I know of. We are still discussing whether to add such material, which would radically change the scope of the article.
- When I commented above, I hadn't noticed that it had been added. I saw his comment as a proposal ("suggest") for discussion, not an announcement he would do it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- Almost every discussion on this TP focuses on the word "spygate" rather than the broader scope of what spygate entails. Dismissal of the Attorney General's statement as being off-topic doesn't make any sense to me or quite a few other editors, and has taken on the appearance of stonewalling to keep a particular POV out of the article rather than encouraging productive NPOV discussion. At the very least, it's splitting hairs to push a single interpretation of what "spygate"is supposed to mean, especially since it is an incorrect interpretation. Articles are improved and expanded by adding relative information. Per a May 2018 BBC article titled 'Spygate': The facts behind President Trump's conspiracy, the following explanation summarizes what spygate means in general terms: "He even coined a term for it - "Spygate" - a reference to the Nixon-era Watergate break-in, a scandal he insists is dwarfed by what he alleges was politically motivated surveillance of his campaign. More recently is the April 11, 2019 USA Today article, Spygate: Did American intelligence agencies spy on Donald Trump? Barr says we'll find out. - which begins with On Wednesday Attorney General Bill Barr startled Senators when he said during a budget hearing that he believed that “spying did occur” during the 2016 presidential race, and that “spying on a political campaign is a big deal." The aforementioned does not imply that it is/ever was about a single informant as what is stated in the lead; rather it tells us spygate is about the entire surveillance of the Trump campaign and those connected with it, much the same way Watergate was about a series of events. We should not have to call an RfC for every single piece of material that should be included in this article. Atsme Talk 📧 16:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- Watergate was a scandal as it started with an illegal act for political purposes and continued with a coverup of WH activities. Spygate was a conspiracy theory that an illegal act for political purposes (planting a spy in the Trump campaign) occurred. There is no evidence that this happened. Now, under questioning, Barr hemmed and hawed and said he though spying did occur. He then backed off of that statement. We don’t know what he meant. He says he’s looking into it. If and when he investigates and reports, we can decide what if anything to add. O3000 (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- Atsme, with the possible exception of BullRangifer, I think there's agreement on this talk page that different reliable sources have described Spygate in different ways. The question is what to do about it. Your comment here suggests that we should treat it as broadly as possible, but I don't quite understand that logic. The fact that Barr said "I think spying did occur," doesn't mean he was referring to Spygate, nor would I think should it influence the scope of this article, since the Spygate theory was around well before Barr made that comment. In any case, in a discussion above, Shinealittlelight has agreed to draft some language that will attempt to accommodate all of the different ways sources have described the theory--not just the narrowest and not just the broadest. I think we should see what they come up with. R2 (bleep) 17:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- R2 and Atsme.
- Quote: "with the possible exception of BullRangifer, I think there's agreement on this talk page that different reliable sources have described Spygate in different ways."
- Actually, there is no exception from me. I agree that Spygate has been "described in different ways" and also that the use of the term has morphed and strayed from the original use by Trump, ergo the original Spygate claims by him, which were about ONE informant (Halper) he chose to label a "spy" to make it seem more odious, who never joined the campaign, contrary to Trump's false assertion. RS still describe that original claim as false and a conspiracy theory.
- Quote: "The question is what to do about it." Full agreement. Indeed, the question we are trying to decide (and I'm onboard with seeing a consensus on this) is whether to broaden the inclusion criteria. I am not totally against including later and diverse mentions in some sort of "Other uses" section(s), but only on condition we keep the original historical context and definition as is. It is that origin which made this article notable enough to even create. We don't change history here, but we often document later developments, including deceptive historical revisionism, but they must have some connection to the original scope. They must be on-topic.
- Later/other uses/misuses of the term "spying", applied to any and all legitimate investigations that touched on the Trump campaign's widespread and proven involvement in Russian interference, are an extreme broadening of this article's scope, especially since most such uses are totally unrelated to the original Spygate claims.
- A disambiguation article would be the best solution. Take a look at what I have written here: Spying on Trump campaign (disambiguation). What do you think of that? -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- I like it! At least as a short-term solution. Getting consensus on the dab page language might be challenging. R2 (bleep) 20:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oh yes! It definitely needs work and improved wording. I'd welcome any help. It might even become suitable for use here, instead of as a separate disambig page. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- I like it! At least as a short-term solution. Getting consensus on the dab page language might be challenging. R2 (bleep) 20:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- It's what RSes say in compliance with NPOV, but that is not what is happening. It's actually quite simple - we use updated RS and attribute it per our PAGs. We include all relevant views per NPOV. And we use common sense without splitting hairs for such statements as "spying did occur". Everything in this article is based on interpretations of evidence and what the Mueller team thought about that evidence - none of it is science-based fact anymore than what Barr stated in his report. It's Barr's interpretation (what he thinks) after reading the report and various information he has gathered the same as the Mueller Report is about what the Mueller team thinks after reviewing the evidence - high likelihood, not that it did happen matter-of-factly which is why there were no indictments based on the collusion illusion or conspiracy theory, which is exactly what it was from day one. That is where noncompliance with NPOV comes into play. None of this should be stated in WikiVoice, particularly in the lead, "Trump's claims have been shown to be false." No they have not, and that statement should be removed. Atsme Talk 📧 17:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
...collusion illusion
. Good grief. O3000 (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)It's what RSes say in compliance with NPOV, but that is not what is happening.
What is what which sources are saying? Links and quotes please. R2 (bleep) 18:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)- It was in response to your question...I think there's agreement on this talk page that different reliable sources have described Spygate in different ways. The question is what to do about it. Atsme Talk 📧 18:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I don't follow. Maybe you misread what I wrote? I didn't say that sources are saying that Spygate has been described in different ways. I said that sources are describing Spygate in different ways. To my knowledge there's no source that addresses any discrepancies in how Spygate is described by other sources. I don't understand what that has to do with sources being "compliant with NPOV" (which is kind of a weird thing to say, because reliable sources can be biased). R2 (bleep) 18:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not going to feed the stonewalling. Read NPOV. Atsme Talk 📧 19:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- Not a helpful
or good faithcomment. Please AGF. We are working toward a solution. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC) - Agree with BullRangifer. We're here to improve the article, not to share our rants. R2 (bleep) 20:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- NPOV applies to article content, not your views of RS, which belong elsewhere. The only “stonewalling” I see is that required by RS. O3000 (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- Not a helpful
- I'm not going to feed the stonewalling. Read NPOV. Atsme Talk 📧 19:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I don't follow. Maybe you misread what I wrote? I didn't say that sources are saying that Spygate has been described in different ways. I said that sources are describing Spygate in different ways. To my knowledge there's no source that addresses any discrepancies in how Spygate is described by other sources. I don't understand what that has to do with sources being "compliant with NPOV" (which is kind of a weird thing to say, because reliable sources can be biased). R2 (bleep) 18:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- It was in response to your question...I think there's agreement on this talk page that different reliable sources have described Spygate in different ways. The question is what to do about it. Atsme Talk 📧 18:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- Almost every discussion on this TP focuses on the word "spygate" rather than the broader scope of what spygate entails. Dismissal of the Attorney General's statement as being off-topic doesn't make any sense to me or quite a few other editors, and has taken on the appearance of stonewalling to keep a particular POV out of the article rather than encouraging productive NPOV discussion. At the very least, it's splitting hairs to push a single interpretation of what "spygate"is supposed to mean, especially since it is an incorrect interpretation. Articles are improved and expanded by adding relative information. Per a May 2018 BBC article titled 'Spygate': The facts behind President Trump's conspiracy, the following explanation summarizes what spygate means in general terms: "He even coined a term for it - "Spygate" - a reference to the Nixon-era Watergate break-in, a scandal he insists is dwarfed by what he alleges was politically motivated surveillance of his campaign. More recently is the April 11, 2019 USA Today article, Spygate: Did American intelligence agencies spy on Donald Trump? Barr says we'll find out. - which begins with On Wednesday Attorney General Bill Barr startled Senators when he said during a budget hearing that he believed that “spying did occur” during the 2016 presidential race, and that “spying on a political campaign is a big deal." The aforementioned does not imply that it is/ever was about a single informant as what is stated in the lead; rather it tells us spygate is about the entire surveillance of the Trump campaign and those connected with it, much the same way Watergate was about a series of events. We should not have to call an RfC for every single piece of material that should be included in this article. Atsme Talk 📧 16:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- @BullRangifer: I believe this is in response to @Volunteer Marek: removal of the material citing per talk.[31] I have not been following the page closely lately, is there consensus on talk for removal? PackMecEng (talk) 13:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
If it's true that the wall of text above is not stonewalling/filibustering, then (a) stop the PAs against me, (b) restore the Barr material that was wrongfully reverted or provide a logical explanation why it shouldn't be restored, (c) update this article to reflect what the Mueller Report revealed, (d) stop referring to the DOJ's spying/surveillance/intelligence as a "conspiracy theory", and (e) change the lead to reflect a NPOV. If you don't understand what I mean by NPOV, then by all means, read WP:NPOV which explains it exactly the way I interpret it. As for my views about WP:RS, I'm not the one with the problem. My views/interpretations are spot-on so put the gaslights away. My concern begins with the sources cited to improperly use WikiVoice to state opinion (that has since been debunked) as statements of fact using the following four cited sources:
A news analysis in the NYTimes. See WP:NEWSORG: Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.- The second source cited source is The Intercept, which describes itself as "adversarial journalism". They have a left bias, their use of anonymous sources is questionable, and then there's the Juan M. Thompson scandal. Ironically, they reported on the The Ten Worst, Most Embarrassing U.S. Media Failures On The Trump-Russia Story, including several cited in this article.
- The third source is Paste Magazine, again left bias, primarily a monthly music and entertainment magazine.
The fourth source is LA Times, which has had its share of chaos and is considered center left.
Now let's see some productive discussion about changing the lead, citing better sources or properly using the sources that are currently cited. Atsme Talk 📧 15:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- Rather than perpetuating the conduct discussion here I'm going to leave a note on your user talk explaining how this comment is disruptive. As for content, those seem like reasonable arguments... however at base they seem to be contrary to WP:BIASED. That is, just because sources may be biased doesn't mean their content isn't reliable. As for the New York Times analysis piece, I believe there's broad consensus that sometimes they can be cited without attribution, and sometimes they can't be. The bottom line is, what's your substantive argument for why these sources aren't reliable? Have they not been fact checked and do they not have a reputation for accuracy? Please answer without accusations of stonewalling, gaslighting, or other types of bad faith. R2 (bleep) 15:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Lead Discussion
- Suggestion: Spygate is a term coined by President Trump in May 2018 with reference to Watergate, a scandal that occured during the Nixon presidential campaign; "a scandal he insists is dwarfed by what he alleges was politically motivated surveillance of his campaign." (cite BBC}. Atsme Talk 📧 15:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- Only there is no evidence of "politically motivated surveillance of his campaign". We cannot suggest that a conspiracy theory is true. O3000 (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- And terribly undue emphasis on Watergate. R2 (bleep) 16:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- And Spygate is a theory, not a term. R2 (bleep) 16:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- Its more like a Hypothesis.--MONGO (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- It isn't up to us to determine what it is or isn't - UNDUE is not even an issue - it's what a RS has stated, and we cite what RS say. Reword it to fit better but that's what the RS says. As for politically motivated surveillance - wasn't the entire Russian collusion allegation based on theory - NO VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE - and it had to be investigated for nearly 2 years based on nothing more than allegations? Yet the lead says in WikiVoice that Spygate is a conspiracy theory? Did I miss something? We have RS available with updates to correct the article now that the Mueller Report is published stating no evidence of collusion or whatever it states verbatim - if published in RS, include it. There are ongoing investigations - just like there were when the allegations of collusion were made. The Barr summary along with some secondary sources do confirm surveillance and intelligence (spying) into the Trump campaign, right? We simply cite the RS. Atsme Talk 📧 21:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- "Collusion" is a word that Trump keeps using. The investigation was about interference in the 2016 election by the Russians, and it detailed rather a huge amount. That is not a conspiracy theory. It also is WP:OTHERSTUFF. O3000 (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- Trump was for sure investigated for collusion, I can't even count how many times Rachel Maddow said the term. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47688187, https://www.ft.com/content/42c1913e-4e48-11e9-b401-8d9ef1626294, https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/03/24/trump-putin-russia-collusion-226110 Sourcerery (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- Not relevant to this article. This article is about a conspiracy theory that there was "politically motivated surveillance of his campaign". There is no evidence of this. O3000 (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- But why say it wasn't about collusion when it clearly was?Sourcerery (talk) 21:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- Not relevant to this article. This article is about a conspiracy theory that there was "politically motivated surveillance of his campaign". There is no evidence of this. O3000 (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- Trump was for sure investigated for collusion, I can't even count how many times Rachel Maddow said the term. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47688187, https://www.ft.com/content/42c1913e-4e48-11e9-b401-8d9ef1626294, https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/03/24/trump-putin-russia-collusion-226110 Sourcerery (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- "Collusion" is a word that Trump keeps using. The investigation was about interference in the 2016 election by the Russians, and it detailed rather a huge amount. That is not a conspiracy theory. It also is WP:OTHERSTUFF. O3000 (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- It isn't up to us to determine what it is or isn't - UNDUE is not even an issue - it's what a RS has stated, and we cite what RS say. Reword it to fit better but that's what the RS says. As for politically motivated surveillance - wasn't the entire Russian collusion allegation based on theory - NO VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE - and it had to be investigated for nearly 2 years based on nothing more than allegations? Yet the lead says in WikiVoice that Spygate is a conspiracy theory? Did I miss something? We have RS available with updates to correct the article now that the Mueller Report is published stating no evidence of collusion or whatever it states verbatim - if published in RS, include it. There are ongoing investigations - just like there were when the allegations of collusion were made. The Barr summary along with some secondary sources do confirm surveillance and intelligence (spying) into the Trump campaign, right? We simply cite the RS. Atsme Talk 📧 21:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- Its more like a Hypothesis.--MONGO (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah. No.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
To address the "terribly undue emphasis on Watergate"(R2), Atsme's suggestion could be reworded, because we don't mention Trump's comparison to Watergate, and it should be mentioned. Here's an alternate wording:
- Trump tweeted[1] that the use of an informant by the "Obama FBI" was "bigger than Watergate". Anthony Zurcher referred to this claim as a conspiracy theory and noted it as an apparent reference to the Watergate break-in by the Nixon administration.[2]
I'm not sure where it would be best to include this, but it would improve the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- We might be getting our wires crossed. I'm pretty sure Atsme was proposing a new first sentence. I have no problem with mentioning Watergate somewhere in the article, assuming the secondary sources merit it. R2 (bleep) 19:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- Good point. I definitely think mentioning Watergate in the first sentence, or even close to the top, would be "terribly undue emphasis on Watergate", but I think it deserves short mention, hence my proposed wording. The sources are good enough, so it can just be included somewhere. I'll take a look. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- I have now added it to the Background section in chronological order. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- Good point. I definitely think mentioning Watergate in the first sentence, or even close to the top, would be "terribly undue emphasis on Watergate", but I think it deserves short mention, hence my proposed wording. The sources are good enough, so it can just be included somewhere. I'll take a look. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
I'm ok with whatever you decide is appropriate per my suggestion to update the article. It's all about what RS say, and that's what we have to live with when dealing with NEWSORG and RECENTISM rather than the higher quality academic sources. That will happen over time as it always has with US presidents. I simply look for ways to accommodate a wide-based readership while at the same time adhering closely to NPOV. I also consider things we need to include in an effort to keep an article stable. Stability is/should be a priority. We don't want to constantly fight trolling which forces us to grow our watchlists and consumes a great deal of our time. I realize it's impossible to stop it completely but we can at least try to reduce it somewhat. Atsme Talk 📧 20:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- It's definitely not due for the lead. One sentence somewhere in the article, perhaps, but his comparison of Spygate to other things he's talked about is basically a minor bit of trivia, not a defining aspect of the subject. This isn't a matter of WP:RS or recentism, it's a matter of focus - he's specifically talking about unrelated conspiracies he has theories about in your quote; obviously we can't put it in the lead just because he mentioned his previous conspiracy theories in passing. Again, this page is for his debunked May 2018 accusations, not whatever new and unrelated accusations he's decided to level against his political opponents since. --Aquillion (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- Spygate is a term coined by President Trump in May 2018 with reference to Watergate, a scandal that occured during the Nixon presidential campaign; "a scandal he insists is dwarfed by what he alleges was politically motivated surveillance of his campaign." - regarding this suggestion .... it's vague and unhelpful. Doesn't get to the point. Oppose. starship.paint ~ KO 03:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
"Conspiracy theory" in title
Is a shame that given the information which is emerging, including but not limited to misleading of the FISA Court to obtain authorization, this article still has the (conspiracy theory) as part of the title. It makes Wikipedia look REALLY BAD!!! I want to make clear that I am a great admirer and user of Wikipedia when I am saying this, but is not the first time when I see this kind of problems, and I am starting to question what is going on more and more. And if I am doing this, for sure there are LOTS of other people who are starting to questions this. I post it here for whatever is worth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HykL-5CMhQU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.115.6 (talk) 04:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
But there sure was an easy "consensus" when it came to biased and partisan leftist Wikipedia editors falsely claiming Spygate was a "conspiracy theory", rather than an conspiracy fact, which the Attorney General and the Special Council has now confirmed it to be. Funny how that happens, eh? It's like magic!!174.112.31.231 (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC) venue.rocker
|
The controlling admin here clearly has an unshakeable agenda and he will never properly admit this is now a proven fact and not a conspiracy theory. Expect him to continue moving the goalposts on what a reliable source is, and how "spying" is defined, and what "Spygate" is about. Until and unless Colbert tells him to think differently, I'm afraid Wikipedia is stuck with his partisan activism as "fact". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.217.119.197 (talk • contribs) |
F.B.I. Sent Investigator Posing as Assistant to Meet With Papadopoulos in 2016
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/us/politics/fbi-government-investigator-trump.html soibangla (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Unreal. So now we find out that the Obama/Comey FBI sent in a "blonde bombshell" to covertly gather intelligence from Papadopolous, an employee of the opposing party's campaign, to support the Stefan Halper operation. It's like something straight out of The Americans, except instead of Russians spyi...excuse me, "performing a perfectly legitimate secret intelligence gathering operation without the target's knowledge" on Americans, it's Americans targeting Americans. Authorized by the FISA court, based on a collection of disinformation outlined in a dossier, written by a former MI-6 agent, who got the disinformation from the Russian government, and was paid for by the campaign of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee. And the New York Times admitted this? This is pretty seismic. Obviously lead-worthy. I'd add it myself but the article is locked. Do you have time to put this in, soibangla? Also why is the article still calling this a “conspiracy theory”? The events in question aren’t in dispute. The FBI says they secretly sent people in to gather intel on the Trump campaign with the reason given being “to make sure he wasn’t colluding with Russia.” It’s not a theory. They did it. The only question now is 1) was it illegal, 2) who ordered the operation, 3) and did Obama know, and if so, when did he know it? 2600:1012:B02B:443B:D516:B506:FBF0:C8E0 (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you are talking about, why you are quoting “blonde bombshell” which I can’t find, what this has to do with Obama, not mentioned in the article, or your other odd extrapolations. One thing: You have clearly displayed why we should use the words "conspiracy theory" as you are clearly promoting such. Someone else fold this. O3000 (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- New York Post confirms that Ms. Azra Turk, the woman sent in by the FBI in a covert op to gather intelligence on the Trump campaign and other Americans, is in fact a "blonde bombshell" (https://nypost.com/2019/05/02/fbi-sent-a-blonde-bombshell-to-meet-trump-aide-papadopoulos-report/). We have no idea yet if any of this involves Obama or if he was even aware of the operation. All we know at this point is that the operation was performed during his administration. Let's wait for the two ongoing Inspector General investigations to conclude before we even THINK about implicating Obama in any of this. Facts and evidence only. No, we're not going to "fold," bury, or erase this New York Times breaking news. It's a huge piece of the puzzle that's coming together. We don't yet know if there was a conspiracy, which is why we shouldn't be using the term. Nobody disputes that Stefan Halper and Azra Turk were sent in by the FBI to gather intel on Americans. The three questions I listed above are what we still don't know, and we should be discussing the content, not the editors who are working to get this right. 2600:1012:B02B:443B:D516:B506:FBF0:C8E0 (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- The New York Post is a tabloid and we should not be looking to them for any serious analysis. We know the FBI investigated Papadopoulos. This news doesn't seem to change anything that we know about Trump's conspiracy theory. soibangla, in the future, please don't just put a link down here without context. Use the talk page to discuss what you think should be done with the link. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- With all the sources available to us for related stories, I hope we don’t stoop to using a tabloid like the NYPost, or using tabloid terms like “blonde bombshell”. Unless you can prove that Jean Harlow was the person referenced. O3000 (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- New York Post confirms that Ms. Azra Turk, the woman sent in by the FBI in a covert op to gather intelligence on the Trump campaign and other Americans, is in fact a "blonde bombshell" (https://nypost.com/2019/05/02/fbi-sent-a-blonde-bombshell-to-meet-trump-aide-papadopoulos-report/). We have no idea yet if any of this involves Obama or if he was even aware of the operation. All we know at this point is that the operation was performed during his administration. Let's wait for the two ongoing Inspector General investigations to conclude before we even THINK about implicating Obama in any of this. Facts and evidence only. No, we're not going to "fold," bury, or erase this New York Times breaking news. It's a huge piece of the puzzle that's coming together. We don't yet know if there was a conspiracy, which is why we shouldn't be using the term. Nobody disputes that Stefan Halper and Azra Turk were sent in by the FBI to gather intel on Americans. The three questions I listed above are what we still don't know, and we should be discussing the content, not the editors who are working to get this right. 2600:1012:B02B:443B:D516:B506:FBF0:C8E0 (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- When the dust settles, let's make sure that it's noted that the Spygate theory was universally regarded as a conspiracy theory. It'd be a shame for all these RS sources that have just been obsoleted to be forgotten entirely, and it's definitely a notable aspect of Spygate. Maybe it could be an example of how occasionally a conspiracy theory turns out to have substantial elements of truth on the Conspiracy Theory article too, but that's another discussion SeanusAurelius (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Sounds like WP:OR to me. In general, articles are about their topics, not the the media coverage of those topics. The media coverage of the topic can occasionally become noteworthy, but only when there are additional reliable sources covering the media coverage. In this case I haven't seen any reliable sources about the media coverage of Spygate--yet. R2 (bleep) 18:41, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you are talking about, why you are quoting “blonde bombshell” which I can’t find, what this has to do with Obama, not mentioned in the article, or your other odd extrapolations. One thing: You have clearly displayed why we should use the words "conspiracy theory" as you are clearly promoting such. Someone else fold this. O3000 (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- This New York Times article admits that spying occurred and specifically mentions Spygate. From the article "The American government’s affiliation with the woman, who said her name was Azra Turk, is one previously unreported detail of an operation that has become a political flash point in the face of accusations by President Trump and his allies that American law enforcement and intelligence officials spied on his campaign to undermine his electoral chances. Last year, he called it Spygate." So either Spygate is not a conspiracy theory or the New York Times is promoting conspiracy theories. Which is it???--Rusf10 (talk) 02:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- It was a law enforcement operation. This is one of the techniques they can use. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- With all due respect, you seem a bit confused about what the article is actually saying. This was not a traditional "law enforcement operation," it was a counterintelligence operation against a member of a political campaign. It says it right in the article. Although I fail to understand what your point is in calling it a "law enforcement operation," I surmise from your other comments here that you aim to downplay the significance of what happened to George Papadopolous in London. Let's be absolutely clear about what this article is saying: the FBI's counterintelligence division was running an active operation against a campaign worker on foreign soil using a spy. Yes, spy. She was using an assumed identity operating outside of US soil. That is pretty major news even on its own, and would completely destroy the notion that this was somehow a "conspiracy theory" when the NYT is corroborating it. It is very obvious that you are having problems judging critical source material for this article in NPOV. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 02:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Papadopoulos has said that Azra Turk was working for the CIA. Even if she was FBI, it'd be counter-intel, not law enforcement. FWIW Spygate is obviously not a conspiracy theory as by definition a conspiracy theory has no evidence for it except supposition. It was a basically true allegation that was widely dismissed as a conspiracy theory, "shady" or not. SeanusAurelius (talk) 03:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- SeanusAurelius, you're supposing that the Trump campaign was spied upon, when really there was a valid investigation. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- It was a law enforcement operation. This is one of the techniques they can use. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Calling a legitimate and necessary investigation of foreign meddling and potential treasonous activity "spying" is... well, it's gaslighting. THAT is the "conspiracy theory". That FBI doing it's fucking job was somehow a nefarious plot rather than... FBI doing its job.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
"This New York Times article admits that spying occurred" - it does nothing of the sort. It confirms that after getting wind of Papadapolous attempts/bragging about his contacts with the Russians (in March) the FBI (in September)... investigated! Oh my fucking god how dare they??? Gimme a fucking break.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Source: "'HE called it Spygate"
Rusf10: "New York Times is promoting conspiracy theories"
Last I checked the NYTimes wasn't a "HE". Stop misrepresenting sources Rusf10.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- I already provided the full quote above. The title of the article is "F.B.I. Sent Investigator Posing as Assistant to Meet With Papadopoulos in 2016". Do you know what an investigator posing as an assistant is? that's a spy! Spy: "1. a person employed by a government to obtain secret information or intelligence about another, usually hostile, country, especially with reference to military or naval affairs. 2.a person who keeps close and secret watch on the actions and words of another or others. 3. a person who seeks to obtain confidential information about the activities, plans, methods, etc., of an organization or person, especially one who is employed for this purpose by a competitor" [32] If she wasn't a spy, she would have just told him who she was and not pretended to be someone else.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Source says Trump called it Spygate. You claim that the NY Times is supporting a conspiracy theory. See the problem? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- He called it spygate, you can call it something else if you want. But it is not a conspiracy theory because the spying actually happened. See the problem?--Rusf10 (talk) 05:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- There was no "spying". There was an investigation. The problem was Russian interference and Trump campaign cooperation. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Are you serious??? The investigator sent by the FBI was spying by definition. The only question is whether it was legal or not.
The problem was Russian interference and Trump campaign cooperation.
And after two years of investigation, Bob Mueller came to the conclusion that the Trump campaign did not cooperate with the Russians but you still believe that it did? You need to accept the facts. The Trump campaign did not collude with the Russians.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)- You we can all benefit from bringing down the tension level and sticking with the facts. No one is convincing anyone that so-and-so did such-and-such, nor does anyone need to. If we all remember that our standard is verifiability, not truth then we can focus on what the sources, not on our personal beliefs. R2 (bleep) 19:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- The report reads clear in that the Trump campaign was open and receptive to Russian help. It does not say that they violated any laws, potentially due to incompetence, such as Don Jr not knowing his Russia meeting violated law. This is off the topic anyway, the investigation was needed, and as far as we know, conducted appropriately. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- No, this is important because you seem reluctant to accept the underlying facts which are that the Trump campaign did not collude with Russia. And now you're putting your own spin on it saying that the wanted to collude but were too incompetent to do so.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- The truth is pretty clear. I know this is an op-ed, but the title should make it clear it's not "my" spin: "Mueller’s findings: Too stupid to conspire. Too incompetent to obstruct." – Muboshgu (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- As you said its an op-ed (and a poorly written one too). 100% spin in that piece, the writer is cherry picking the report. Mueller never called anyone incompetent or stupid in the report. He only quoted part of Meuller's reasoning which also included a lack of evidence. What the Mueller report actually says about the decision of whether to charge anyone with a crime:
The Office considered whether this evidence would establish a conspiracy to violate the foreign contributions ban, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; the solicitation of an illegal foreign-source contribution; or the acceptance or receipt of "an express or implied promise to make a [foreign-source] contribution," both in violation of 52 U.S.C. § 3012l(a)(l)(A), (a)(2). There are reasonable arguments that the offered information would constitute a "thing of value" within the meaning of these provisions, but the Office determined that the government would not be likely to obtain and sustain a conviction for two other reasons: first, the Office did not obtain admissible evidence likely to meet the government's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these individuals acted "willfully," i.e., with general knowledge of the illegality of their conduct; and, second, the government would likely encounter difficulty in proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of the promised information exceeded the threshold for a criminal violation,
Doing something willfully has nothing to do with intelligence. Willful is a legal term, it means intentional. For example, when someone is charged with murder it must be proven they did so willfully (ie. not by accident).--Rusf10 (talk) 00:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- As you said its an op-ed (and a poorly written one too). 100% spin in that piece, the writer is cherry picking the report. Mueller never called anyone incompetent or stupid in the report. He only quoted part of Meuller's reasoning which also included a lack of evidence. What the Mueller report actually says about the decision of whether to charge anyone with a crime:
- The truth is pretty clear. I know this is an op-ed, but the title should make it clear it's not "my" spin: "Mueller’s findings: Too stupid to conspire. Too incompetent to obstruct." – Muboshgu (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- No, this is important because you seem reluctant to accept the underlying facts which are that the Trump campaign did not collude with Russia. And now you're putting your own spin on it saying that the wanted to collude but were too incompetent to do so.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Are you serious??? The investigator sent by the FBI was spying by definition. The only question is whether it was legal or not.
- There was no "spying". There was an investigation. The problem was Russian interference and Trump campaign cooperation. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- He called it spygate, you can call it something else if you want. But it is not a conspiracy theory because the spying actually happened. See the problem?--Rusf10 (talk) 05:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Source says Trump called it Spygate. You claim that the NY Times is supporting a conspiracy theory. See the problem? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- I already provided the full quote above. The title of the article is "F.B.I. Sent Investigator Posing as Assistant to Meet With Papadopoulos in 2016". Do you know what an investigator posing as an assistant is? that's a spy! Spy: "1. a person employed by a government to obtain secret information or intelligence about another, usually hostile, country, especially with reference to military or naval affairs. 2.a person who keeps close and secret watch on the actions and words of another or others. 3. a person who seeks to obtain confidential information about the activities, plans, methods, etc., of an organization or person, especially one who is employed for this purpose by a competitor" [32] If she wasn't a spy, she would have just told him who she was and not pretended to be someone else.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
In light of the NYT article, it is becoming increasingly clear that the title of this article needs to be changed immediately. It is entirely reasonable to assert that opening a counterintelligence operation against a member of a Presidential campaign based off of hearsay is equivalent to "spying." The accusations against Papadopolous were solely based on a single offhanded conversation Papadapolous supposedly had with a foreign national (according to the article.) Whether you personally are troubled by the fact that the FBI was using spies on foreign soil to actively gather potentially incriminating material in secret against a member of a political campaign means absolutely nothing in terms of this article - it is, as a matter of fact, spying on a Presidential Campaign. The FBI was using a spy specifically to figure out if the Trump Campaign was collaborating with Russia on the release of the Clinton emails. In other words, they were spying on the campaign. Of course partisans will continue to downplay and minimize this ad nauseam but that is literally what the New York Times article is saying. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- No, that's not what the Times is saying. The Times is detailing the FBI doing a legitimate investigation. Which is not spying. And the article title requires consensus to change. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- You and the other fellow are confused. Spying can be legitimate or illegitimate. It's only necessary attributes are secrecy and an information gathering or sabotage motive, in this case information gathering. Trump was ridiculed because the actual allegation of spying was considered baseless. Whether it was legitimate or not, spying occurred. ::Whether the spying was for nefarious political interference or legitimate counterintelligence is unknown by the public as the original unredacted FISA warrants have never been issued. You don't know, and nor do I if the investigation was legitimately premised. It's certainly not a conspiracy theory, as a) it is falsifiable and b) there is some circumstantial evidence that the White House was involved (e.g. Strzok's texts) and c) Prominent, well placed individuals such as Bill Barr regard it as an open question. Speculative material doesn't belong in an encyclopedia; and unfortunately, the motives for the spying are now speculative on both sides.
- The article should reflect that the spying (call it surveillance if you like) did occur.
- WP:UNDUE requires that the article represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. SeanusAurelius (talk) 09:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- @SeanusAurelius: - Wikipedia can state it is spying only if reliable sources call it spying. Wikipedia can state this is Spygate only if reliable sources call this Spygate. We're not going to use your definition of spying, my definition of spying, your definition of legitimate etc. We use reliable sources, period. starship.paint (edits | talk) 10:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- The NYT article in question refers to it as Spygate:
- "The American government’s affiliation with the woman, who said her name was Azra Turk, is one previously unreported detail of an operation that has become a political flash point in the face of accusations by President Trump and his allies that American law enforcement and intelligence officials spied on his campaign to undermine his electoral chances. Last year, he called it Spygate." This RS refers to the body of accusations by Trump as Spygate, and this is a part of it. *You* may not think it's part of Spygate, but the RS does, and as such the article is required to cover it.
- @SeanusAurelius: - Wikipedia can state it is spying only if reliable sources call it spying. Wikipedia can state this is Spygate only if reliable sources call this Spygate. We're not going to use your definition of spying, my definition of spying, your definition of legitimate etc. We use reliable sources, period. starship.paint (edits | talk) 10:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
@SIPPINONTECH: - It is entirely reasonable to assert that opening a counterintelligence operation against a member of a Presidential campaign based off of hearsay is equivalent to "spying."
- if a reliable source does that, it's okay. If a Wikipedia editor does that, without a reliable source saying that, that is WP:Original research. starship.paint (edits | talk) 05:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- A legitimate investigation would be members of the FBI knocking on Mr. Papadopoulus' door, showing their badges, and asking the proper questions in person with legal counsel available. It could have and should have ended there. Using informants, the FISA court, and CIA assets is not the most appropriate way to investigate the opposite party's campaign. But here we are, 3 years later, with animosity between Republicans, Democrats, the media, and the DoJ at an all time high. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Mr. Trump calls it spying and the Obama administration / FBI call it a counterintelligence operation. They each used different words to describe the very same thing. Our article does a very poor job of actually describing what happened. Additionally, Papadopoulus said the woman had poor English. Using foreigners to gather intelligence in such a way does not seem to me how normal domestic operations are supposed to go. I wonder if we need to fundamentally change this article - change the title to Operation Crossfire Hurricane and add a very large section devoted to Trump's characterizations of it as spying. Ultimately that's what everyone seems to be talking around. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Basically Spygate originally was claims of a spy being implanted into the campaign early on. But now an undercover agent talking with a member of campaign who was already under investigation in September of 2016 is being used as "confirmation of it" by some. Still nothing to show a spy being implanted into campaign, which a conversation at a bar is not. Still nothing "early on" since September was a year after he announced candidacy, and 4 months after he became presumptive nominee(or roughly in middle between official nomination and election). It has evolved to the point where any action by FBI that invovled trump campaign is going to be lumped into it. Might need to decide in future(after current MR is finished, whether the article needs to be renamed(and severally rescoped) to Operation Crossfire Hurricane with just one section on the conspiracy theory, or the Operation to get split to its own page and the conspiracy theory parts mostly remaining here. WikiVirusC(talk) 12:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- I think the SpyGate article should be about SpyGate. I think a follow up section can be added which adds all the subsequent accusations of spying on Trump, none of which were "politically motivated surveillance of his campaign".O3000 (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- @WikiVirusC: The supreme irony of you trying to dictate the definition of "Spygate" is that it is completely at odds with how the New York Times article defines it. Here how the article defines Spygate: "accusations by President Trump and his allies that American law enforcement and intelligence officials spied on his campaign to undermine his electoral chances. Last year, he called it Spygate." According to the article, Spygate is the accusation that American law enforcement and intelligence officials spied on his campaign. Where are you even getting the idea that it was specifically about a spy literally being planted inside the Trump campaign? I see elsewhere in the talk page that people want to define it like that but the NYT itself does not agree with that definition as of 5/2/2019. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- I have not at any point tried to dictate the definition of Spygate, I simply stated my opinions about it. In the comment you replied to, I said what it was originally described as, and what it has now evolved to now. I get the idea about it specifically being about a spy implanted into the campaign from when the original story about Spygate came about. This Wikipedia article has been up long before yesterday's NYT article that you quoted, and my definition of Spygate's origin come from roughly a year of coverage on the story. Read the lead sentence in the lead paragraph Spygate is a conspiracy theory initiated by President Donald Trump in May 2018 that the Obama administration had implanted a spy in his 2016 presidential campaign for political purposes. It has four sources included with it, including one from the NYT as well[33]. Last week, President Trump promoted new, unconfirmed accusations to suit his political narrative: that a “criminal deep state” element within Mr. Obama’s government planted a spy deep inside his presidential campaign to help his rival, Hillary Clinton, win — a scheme he branded “Spygate.” Stop acting like I am making stuff up out of nowhere. WikiVirusC(talk) 16:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- @WikiVirusC: The supreme irony of you trying to dictate the definition of "Spygate" is that it is completely at odds with how the New York Times article defines it. Here how the article defines Spygate: "accusations by President Trump and his allies that American law enforcement and intelligence officials spied on his campaign to undermine his electoral chances. Last year, he called it Spygate." According to the article, Spygate is the accusation that American law enforcement and intelligence officials spied on his campaign. Where are you even getting the idea that it was specifically about a spy literally being planted inside the Trump campaign? I see elsewhere in the talk page that people want to define it like that but the NYT itself does not agree with that definition as of 5/2/2019. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- I think the SpyGate article should be about SpyGate. I think a follow up section can be added which adds all the subsequent accusations of spying on Trump, none of which were "politically motivated surveillance of his campaign".O3000 (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
@Soibangla, Objective300, SeanusAurelius, and Muboshgu: @Rusf10, SIPPINONTECH, Volunteer Marek, and Ahrtoodeetoo: - I personally think this article is more suitable for Operation Crossfire Hurricane, which I have created from a redirect. I invite you editors to insert it there, if I didn't ping you here, it's because I already pinged you about that article above. 13:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC), and re-ping due to typo @Objective3000: 14:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC) and @AppliedCharisma: - forgot you since you started a new section. starship.paint (edits | talk) 14:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Considering there is no connection between this story and the "Spygate" allegation, yes. But, I expect that reliable sources will, if they haven't already, connect the story to the conspiracy theory. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- If they do we add it. If they don't we don't. starship.paint (edits | talk) 14:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Muboshgu: "There is no connection between this story and the "Spygate" allegation" - this is intentionally mischaracterizing the article; you are completely wrong. Did you even read the article? Here is a quote directly from the New York Times article: "The American government’s affiliation with the woman, who said her name was Azra Turk, is one previously unreported detail of an operation that has become a political flash point in the face of accusations by President Trump and his allies that American law enforcement and intelligence officials spied on his campaign to undermine his electoral chances. Last year, he called it Spygate." It has everything to do with Spygate. It is literally a confirmation that Spygate is not a conspiracy theory. It is very obvious what you are doing here and I think you should take a step back and assess whether you are capable of coming at this from NPOV, because it is apparent that NPOV is not important to you at all. You are intentionally mischaracterizing what the article is saying because you don't like the idea that it completely vindicates Trump's allegations of spying on his campaign, which it absolutely does. You are embarrassing yourself. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- SIPPINONTECH, I'll say this again: the NYT is reporting one new detail of an FBI investigation. They did not confirm that the FBI did anything inappropriate. As far as your comments about my supposed POV, pot meet kettle. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Muboshgu: This is beyond ridiculous at this point - it is spying whether or not it was conducted appropriately. You continue to create strawman arguments to deflect from the central issue with the Wikipedia article, which is that there was actually spying on the Trump campaign. Whether that spying was conducted appropriately (which remains to be seen as it is the subject of an ongoing investigation by the Attorney General of the United States) is completely irrelevant in terms of characterizing the behavior of the FBI as spying. It absolutely was spying, and this is pretty obviously no longer just a "conspiracy theory." SIPPINONTECH (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- SIPPINONTECH, I'll say this again: the NYT is reporting one new detail of an FBI investigation. They did not confirm that the FBI did anything inappropriate. As far as your comments about my supposed POV, pot meet kettle. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with you, Starship,paint. And the aspects of Crossfire Hurricane that are relevant to Spygate can be mentioned in this article, summary style. There's clearly a connection between the two, as evidenced by the fact that sources like the new NY Times story discuss both in combination, but it should be made clear somehow that Spygate and Crossfire Hurricane are separate things and that the argument that the existence of Crossfire Hurricane proves Spygate to be true is still a fringe theory. R2 (bleep) 15:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yep. Too many editors ate conflating the two, which is making for all of these circular conversations. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Ahrtoodeetoo: Where are you getting the idea that these are "separate things?" According to the NYT article, Spygate refers to "accusations by President Trump and his allies that American law enforcement and intelligence officials spied on his campaign to undermine his electoral chances. Last year, he called it Spygate." Crossfire Hurricane is part of Spygate, it is absolutely not a "separate thing." Crossfire hurricane was literally "law enforcement and intelligence officials spy(ing) on (Trump's) campaign." SIPPINONTECH (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- If you're going to say that Spygate and Hurricane Crossfire are the same thing, then you need to find reliable sources that say that expressly. Just because two things are mentioned in the same source doesn't make them the same thing. (Please don't ping me, since I'm watching this page.) R2 (bleep) 15:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- SIPPINONTECH, you state:
According to the NYT article, Spygate refers to "accusations by President Trump and his allies that American law enforcement and intelligence officials spied on his campaign to undermine his electoral chances.
Yes, that is what SpyGate is -- a hoax. Nothing in that article says that any gov’t agency was spying on Trump’s campaign to undermine his electoral chances. It’s a conspiracy theory. O3000 (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- As more information comes out about Hurricane Crossfire, I'm actually starting to lean toward the position that we should expand that new article that Starship.paint has created -- focusing primarily on the verifiable facts about it, rather than the fringe allegations -- and then, after that, merge this article into it as a section. The final product would look something like Murder of Seth Rich. Like this topic, it's about a real, non-fringe event that has a section about a notable fringe theory about the event. R2 (bleep) 15:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with this. We'll no doubt have to discuss just what to include. But I'm on board with the basic idea. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Sigh. Please get back on-topic. Stay focused. "Conspiracy theory" does not refer to the fact that surveillance by Halper occurred. It refers to Trump's false claims about his surveillance. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Of course. SpyGate is a debunked conspiracy theory that is still being pushed by Trump and alt-right sites. There is zero evidence that the FBI, CIA, MI6, or KAOS was spying on the Trump campaign to harm him. The fact that the FBI was investigating leads about the numerous Trump campaign folks meeting with Russians is separate. O3000 (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Tons of text here discussing this article. None at Operation Crossfire Hurricane on it. Pro-Trump editors, hello...? starship.paint (edits | talk) 02:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- It really is rich to listen to Adam Schiff's "Trump colluded with the Russians!!!" thoroughly debunked conspiracy theory get parroted by The New York Times, The Washington Post, and by anyone else sympathetic to the Democratic Party for over two years straight, a whopper of a theory that would all be revealed by the venerable Robert Mueller, get completely shut down by Mueller and his team of Hillary and Obama donors, and then watch these people have the temerity to haughtily label undisputed spying operations as "conspiracy theories." Operation Crossfire Hurricane should be merged with Spygate. When people use the phrase "Spygate," they are referring to any efforts by the Obama administration to covertly gather intelligence on the Trump campaign, on our soil and overseas, whether or not YOU personally think it was justified and proper. This includes Manafort getting wiretapped, Susan Rice/Samantha Power unmasking all kinds of Trump folks (which Rice denied with an eloquent retort: "I didn't do nuthin' to nobody"), CIA veteran Stefan Halper and a woman using the assumed identity "Azra Turk" attempting to gather intel on Trump folks, and everything else we don't know yet that the IG investigations are looking into. This probably also includes Peter "We'll stop it" Strzok's actions as well.
- So, why is this title so controversial? Lay the facts out, let the reader decide if all this amounts to a "conspiracy" or not. Adam Schiff and James Clapper would have us believe that all of these actions are completely legal. Many others believe that all of these actions are tantamount to a coup attempt, and we can expect indictments to start getting handed down as early as June. We just don't know yet. If you can honestly look at the first paragraphs of this article and say that it's neutral, you're either being disingenuous or are letting your biases override your judgment. If you're attacking CNN as "alt-right," you're doing it wrong. If you are engaging in a FUD campaign against MSNBC because even they are now waking up to the facts, you are certainly doing it wrong. “The Trump campaign was improperly spied on” is an opinion. We shouldn’t be pushing any opinions, which is why this article is embarrassing and makes all of us look terrible.2600:1012:B02B:443B:D516:B506:FBF0:C8E0 (talk) 05:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
When people use the phrase "Spygate," they are referring to any efforts by the Obama administration to covertly gather intelligence on the Trump campaign, on our soil and overseas
[citation needed] Seriously, instead of typing 350+ words here in a talk page, why don't you contribute 350 words to the article that obviously needs expansion? And if that page is to be merged with Spygate, isn't it in your interest to work on that page anyway? starship.paint (edits | talk) 05:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)- As I mentioned earlier, the article is locked to prevent anyone with less than 500 edits from making the article neutral. The ludicrous "Conspiracy by Donald Trump!!!!" title is in stone. You could have Stefan Halper give a press conference tomorrow, say: "I spied on Trump for the FBI, and I was wrong for doing so" and that title wouldn't change. How do I know? Because "Russian collusion!!!" is not labeled correctly as a conspiracy theory anywhere on Wikipedia. I couldn't find a single instance correctly describing the absurd conspiracy theory that Trump or his associates worked with the Russian government to help his campaign. It's always given great gravitas and loaded with links to newspapers like The Washington Post and magazines like the New Yorker to perpetuate the FUD campaign and further confuse your average person who doesn't have time to follow this closely. Besides. I think we both know that if I started making the article neutral, I would get reverted immediately by someone who gets their "news" from people like Jake Tapper and Paul Krugman, and therefore have been taught that it’s perfectly legitimate to wiretap the opposing party’s presidential nominee’s campaign manager, unmask his staff members, deploy at least two assets into his campaign, and forget to tell anyone about it and forget to give the nominee a defensive briefing to alert them to potential impropriety or Russian collusion. One thing at a time. The building is burning down right now (“conspiracy theory by Donald Trump”) - we can deal the stains in the carpet (the merge) afterward. 2600:1012:B02B:443B:D516:B506:FBF0:C8E0 (talk) 06:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- This article. Operation Crossfire Hurricane This article. Operation Crossfire Hurricane This article. Gosh. starship.paint (edits | talk) 06:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- Gosh is right. Now you see why they should be merged. When “Trump and his allies” use the term Spygate, they’re talking about Operation Crossfire Hurricane, which the left has decided is proper and legitimate before the facts are known, and the right has decided that we need to get to the bottom of it and find out more to make sure it was all on the up and up. Same topic, two different articles. 2600:1012:B02B:443B:BC4F:93BC:DECB:9ACB (talk) 14:19, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- This won't happen until the majority reliable source viewpoint is that Spygate IS Crossfire Hurricane. Which assuredly, has not been proven on Wikipedia. Simply asserting it does not make it true. starship.paint (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- Correct - what makes it true is that it’s true, not the fact that someone’s “asserting” anything or if someone is regurgitating the teachings of NPR and Stephen Colbert. That’s why you go to the facts. Every news article referencing Spygate, whether it be written by left-wing writers or right-wing writers, references Crossfire Hurricane one way or another. Why? Because Crossfire Hurricane is part of Spygate. This whole article is about Hurricane. Halper is mentioned 18 times and his photo is in the article. He is central to the FBI’s operation, and that’s not in dispute. Spygate IS Crossfire Hurricane. What we don’t know for a fact yet is whether everything else that we’ve learned was also part of the Operation, such as wiretapping Americans, unmasking Americans, and the “insurance policy” that now-fired FBI agent Strzok discussed in now-fired FBI acting director McCabe’s office. 2600:1012:B02B:443B:BC4F:93BC:DECB:9ACB (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- This won't happen until the majority reliable source viewpoint is that Spygate IS Crossfire Hurricane. Which assuredly, has not been proven on Wikipedia. Simply asserting it does not make it true. starship.paint (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- Gosh is right. Now you see why they should be merged. When “Trump and his allies” use the term Spygate, they’re talking about Operation Crossfire Hurricane, which the left has decided is proper and legitimate before the facts are known, and the right has decided that we need to get to the bottom of it and find out more to make sure it was all on the up and up. Same topic, two different articles. 2600:1012:B02B:443B:BC4F:93BC:DECB:9ACB (talk) 14:19, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- This article. Operation Crossfire Hurricane This article. Operation Crossfire Hurricane This article. Gosh. starship.paint (edits | talk) 06:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- As I mentioned earlier, the article is locked to prevent anyone with less than 500 edits from making the article neutral. The ludicrous "Conspiracy by Donald Trump!!!!" title is in stone. You could have Stefan Halper give a press conference tomorrow, say: "I spied on Trump for the FBI, and I was wrong for doing so" and that title wouldn't change. How do I know? Because "Russian collusion!!!" is not labeled correctly as a conspiracy theory anywhere on Wikipedia. I couldn't find a single instance correctly describing the absurd conspiracy theory that Trump or his associates worked with the Russian government to help his campaign. It's always given great gravitas and loaded with links to newspapers like The Washington Post and magazines like the New Yorker to perpetuate the FUD campaign and further confuse your average person who doesn't have time to follow this closely. Besides. I think we both know that if I started making the article neutral, I would get reverted immediately by someone who gets their "news" from people like Jake Tapper and Paul Krugman, and therefore have been taught that it’s perfectly legitimate to wiretap the opposing party’s presidential nominee’s campaign manager, unmask his staff members, deploy at least two assets into his campaign, and forget to tell anyone about it and forget to give the nominee a defensive briefing to alert them to potential impropriety or Russian collusion. One thing at a time. The building is burning down right now (“conspiracy theory by Donald Trump”) - we can deal the stains in the carpet (the merge) afterward. 2600:1012:B02B:443B:D516:B506:FBF0:C8E0 (talk) 06:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- To editors who think this new story on Hurricane Crossfire legitimizes Spygate or proves it true: Last night, PBS Newshour interviewed Adam Goldman, the lead author of the story. During the interview Goldman said, "So far, nobody's provided evidence that it [the operation] was somehow illegal or unjustified." Full clip can be watched here. R2 (bleep) 18:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clip R2. Goldberg did his best to advance the Democratic Party's message, that this was all on the straight and narrow and the Comey/Obama FBI was just taking normal, perfectly legitimate measures in response to "an unprecedented attack on the very fabric of our democracy" (Russians letting Papadopolous know that they have emails). Michael Schmidt, another one of the Azra Turk story's writers, echoed this sentiment on MSNBC, also adding that "it depends on what your definition of 'spying' is" when asked the obvious question: "How is this not spying?"[34]. The big takeaway here is that it's all a matter of opinion, as they both stated. Was the spying improper? That's a matter of opinion, and you're not a proponent of a "conspiracy theory" if you disagree with the people who think it's okay to be sending in ex-CIA operatives into the opposition party's campaign without a heads-up to the nominee. Was it illegal? TBD. The Attorney General is looking into it, and we still have two pending IG investigations. It's much too early to be pushing readers toward one side or the other with blatantly POV article titles, whether that be "Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump)" or "Spygate (illegal Obama administration attempt to install Hillary Clinton in the White House)". Facts first. 2600:1012:B02B:443B:BC4F:93BC:DECB:9ACB (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- Sigh. This isn't Democrats vs. Republicans. This is facts vs conspiracy theory. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- We don't make these determinations. We use reliable sources. O3000 (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- We can all agree on that. Democrats don't get to have their narrative pushed in their article, and neither do Republicans. What's the conspiracy theory that Democrats and their media corporations say is being pushed, exactly? That Republicans consider the spying that was performed on Trump campaign is improper? That's just an opinion. The legality of said spying is yet to be determined. Many "reliable" sources don't have the integrity to label their opinion pieces as such, so their readers are fooled into believing that the author's viewpoints are indisputable facts. Neither side's viewpoint should be given extra weight, especially not before the investigations are concluded or we know basic information like (Redacted) discussed in Andy's office or how many other assets attempted to extract intel from Trump campaign officials. 2600:1012:B02B:443B:BC4F:93BC:DECB:9ACB (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- If you have a problem with the reliability of a source, this is the wrong place. Take it to WP:RSN. Also, your last sentence is wild speculation that does not belong here. O3000 (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- You can take it to WP:RSN if you want, I won't try and stop you. We'll stay here and continue discussing Spygate (2016 election controversy). We need to be really mindful about telling other people what does or doesn't belong on this page. Nobody owns it, and that includes you. If I want to say that we don't have the details about what Peter "We'll stop it" Strzok's "insurance policy" was, I will say it. It might be relevant to Spygate, and we need to keep in mind that we have very little understanding of exactly what was going on during this operation, who was involved, who ordered it, who knew what, and when. Maybe Adam Schiff and New York Times reporters feel they have enough information to make conclusions, but we have a higher standard here. 2600:1012:B02B:443B:BC4F:93BC:DECB:9ACB (talk) 20:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk pages are not free speech zones, and no, you may not simply say whatever you want. Specifically, as per WP:BLP, you may not use them to make wild speculation or insinuation about living people, and accordingly I have redacted those comments. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- Nobody called the talk pages “free speech zones” and yes, if I want to explain to someone the relevance of Peter “We’ll stop it” Strzok and his “insurance policy” that was discussed in Andy’s office, you’re not going to bully me or anyone else into shutting up. Go censor a website you own if you want, not this one. I have replaced my comment and ask that you pick somebody else to battle with. 2600:1012:B02B:443B:BC4F:93BC:DECB:9ACB (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk pages are not free speech zones, and no, you may not simply say whatever you want. Specifically, as per WP:BLP, you may not use them to make wild speculation or insinuation about living people, and accordingly I have redacted those comments. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- You can take it to WP:RSN if you want, I won't try and stop you. We'll stay here and continue discussing Spygate (2016 election controversy). We need to be really mindful about telling other people what does or doesn't belong on this page. Nobody owns it, and that includes you. If I want to say that we don't have the details about what Peter "We'll stop it" Strzok's "insurance policy" was, I will say it. It might be relevant to Spygate, and we need to keep in mind that we have very little understanding of exactly what was going on during this operation, who was involved, who ordered it, who knew what, and when. Maybe Adam Schiff and New York Times reporters feel they have enough information to make conclusions, but we have a higher standard here. 2600:1012:B02B:443B:BC4F:93BC:DECB:9ACB (talk) 20:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- If you have a problem with the reliability of a source, this is the wrong place. Take it to WP:RSN. Also, your last sentence is wild speculation that does not belong here. O3000 (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- We can all agree on that. Democrats don't get to have their narrative pushed in their article, and neither do Republicans. What's the conspiracy theory that Democrats and their media corporations say is being pushed, exactly? That Republicans consider the spying that was performed on Trump campaign is improper? That's just an opinion. The legality of said spying is yet to be determined. Many "reliable" sources don't have the integrity to label their opinion pieces as such, so their readers are fooled into believing that the author's viewpoints are indisputable facts. Neither side's viewpoint should be given extra weight, especially not before the investigations are concluded or we know basic information like (Redacted) discussed in Andy's office or how many other assets attempted to extract intel from Trump campaign officials. 2600:1012:B02B:443B:BC4F:93BC:DECB:9ACB (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clip R2. Goldberg did his best to advance the Democratic Party's message, that this was all on the straight and narrow and the Comey/Obama FBI was just taking normal, perfectly legitimate measures in response to "an unprecedented attack on the very fabric of our democracy" (Russians letting Papadopolous know that they have emails). Michael Schmidt, another one of the Azra Turk story's writers, echoed this sentiment on MSNBC, also adding that "it depends on what your definition of 'spying' is" when asked the obvious question: "How is this not spying?"[34]. The big takeaway here is that it's all a matter of opinion, as they both stated. Was the spying improper? That's a matter of opinion, and you're not a proponent of a "conspiracy theory" if you disagree with the people who think it's okay to be sending in ex-CIA operatives into the opposition party's campaign without a heads-up to the nominee. Was it illegal? TBD. The Attorney General is looking into it, and we still have two pending IG investigations. It's much too early to be pushing readers toward one side or the other with blatantly POV article titles, whether that be "Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump)" or "Spygate (illegal Obama administration attempt to install Hillary Clinton in the White House)". Facts first. 2600:1012:B02B:443B:BC4F:93BC:DECB:9ACB (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Why is latest change visible only when logged in?
I can see this change (removal of "highly paid") reflected on the page text when logged in - but when not logged in the "highly paid" text is not visible. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spygate_%28conspiracy_theory_by_Donald_Trump%29&type=revision&diff=895216580&oldid=895208070
Why does this occur?
Note - Mobile View does show the change with "highly paid" removed. Uncle uncle uncle 19:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- I confirmed that this is indeed occurring, but I don't know why. The article isn't PC protected, so I don't think it should be happening. Moreover, the problem appears on the bare page but not when you view the latest version. I think it's some sort of glitch. R2 (bleep) 20:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- I've had this issue with other articles, multiple times, before. starship.paint ~ KO 05:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Straw poll on changing (moving) the article title to be more NPOV based on NYT report
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The New York Times just released a bombshell article which, if true, proves that President Trump was correct when he said that the Obama Administration spied on his campaign: article. Based on the NYT's reporting, should the "conspiracy theory by Donald Trump" be removed from the article's title and it be renamed simply "Spygate?"
- Support: The NYT's reporting is very clear that President Trump was essentially correct when he said that the Obama Administration was placing spies in his organization. Article title will meet WP's NPOV policy by dropping the editorializing from the current article title. AppliedCharisma (talk) 12:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Discussion 2
This is a bit premature, we can't have two move discussion going on at same time. Need to wait on the other one to finish(which has various options already), or propose a change there. Also proves spied on campaign is a stretch. It proves that they investigated Papadopoulos and his claims of knowing that Russia had some of Clinton emails, which we already knew they did. We know now that an undercover agent was used for an interview, which I guess now is the equivalent of a spy. WikiVirusC(talk) 12:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Barr’s “spying” comments
Did we decide to leave that out? soibangla (talk) 00:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)