Talk:Spygate (conspiracy theory)/Archive 1

Removal of stuff from the background
I refer to my edit here. I do not see how this material is relevant. These are articles written before Spygate was popularized. If there are any articles written in late May 2018 after Spygate was popularized which links this material to Spygate, I will be glad to include. But there must be a link. starship.paint ~  KO   06:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ^ for the above. starship.paint ~  KO   06:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I also removed Nunes and Rice from the background section. It was full of innuendos that aren't there, with no explanation about the reasons. Fails NPOV, by pushing a fringe theory that has been explained. Dave Dial (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Lede
- is the lede adequate now? You previously tagged it as too short. starship.paint ~  KO   03:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 5 June 2018

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 19:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Spygate (conspiracy theory) → Spygate – This article is almost certainly the primary topic for this term— the other two examples of "spygate" meaning anything else fall MUCH lower down on the significance scale (consider the number of people searching for "spygate" prior to Trump's use of the term, and how the frequency of visitors has shot up since then because of Trump). We could put a hatnote on the top of this article that mentions the other two uses, but since this one seems pretty clearly to be primary, I'd like to suggest we move it [back] there. A loose noose (talk) 06:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that the 2018 conspiracy theory is the primary topic. Consider google trends result for Spygate. Interest in the term spiked in 2008 when the New England Patriots were first accused of spying on their opponents and again in 2015 when the team was accused of deflategate. I understand that interest today is based almost entirely on the current conspiracy theory, but that interest is much smaller than previous spikes related to the term and we will need to wait and see if the current spike grows into something more substantial. Smmurphy(Talk) 10:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This may currently be a significant topic for the term, but it is recentism to draw any conclusion so soon. The term as used by Trump may sink without trace within a few months.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 16:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I oppose any move. At the disambiguation guideline, it says with regards to "primary topic" that two criteria are typically used by editors to determine 'primaryness': usage and long-term significance; researched and explained these above.  Furthermore, this page has disambiguated other topics for 8.19 years before anyone came along and linked to the US president; moving it would not be "back".  —   fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  16:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. There is no question that Stefan Halper surreptitiously monitored the Trump campaign on behalf of James Comey's FBI. Comey and his supporters don't accept the idea that anything the FBI does is spying. That is the only basis for the "conspiracy theory" moniker. As far as the primary topic issue goes, this article is certainly primary topic at the moment. The "long-term significance" criteria is designed to make it easier to designate a topic with such significance as primary, not to create an additional barrier on the road to primary topic. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge as Artw suggests below, or failing that, oppose move. Recentistic; no empirical evidence supports idea that this meaning is more common than other meanings. Neutralitytalk 22:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge to Special Counsel investigation (2017–present) and give proper context as part of efforts by Trump/Nunes et all to undermine the investigation. If it becomes so sprawling a separate article is required then that article should cover the undermining efforts as a whole, probably starting with the Nunes run to the Whitehouse. A standalone article on "Spygate" not noting it's basis in those efforts and status as a conspiracy does not seem sustainable so if we don't merge I'm defaulting to oppose. Artw (talk) 02:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Do not merge and do not move - the special counsel stuff started in 2017, this is supposedly about events in 2016, not about the special counsel investigation. Will need evidence that this is the primary topic to move. starship.paint ~  KO   02:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No move. Too soon. The continued use of quotation marks around "Spygate" suggests sources have not yet adopted it linguistically. WP:LABEL and WP:RECENT are particular NPOV concerns. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While it might appear to be the primary topic at the moment, only time will tell whether this gains long-term significance. provided useful data above. -- Pemilligan (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. I don't think it's decisive to note that one part of the title (the -gate prefix) seems to violate WP:LABEL and not note that the other part ("conspiracy theory") also seems to violate it. Go with WP:NPOVTITLE and WP:CONCISE. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Look, this is such an obvious term for journalists to apply to their latest local scandal that if ever we move the DAB away from the base name we'll inevitably have another RM in time, it's just a matter of when. Such moves invalidate bookmarks and incoming links from other webpages, over which we have no control... we can't even detect them let alone fix them. For the readers, it's a no-brainer. Andrewa (talk) 11:22, 12 June 2018 (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.

President Trump recently mentioned "SPYGATE" (05/23/2018)
He has tweeted that it "could be one of the biggest political scandals in history" as titled. He additionally tweets "how things turned around on the Criminal Deep State" of the Russian interference, in which "they go after Phony Collusion with Russia, a made up Scam, and end up getting caught in a major SPY scandal," concluding aforementioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.196.54.45 (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * MOS:NEO and WP:NEO are probably helpful guidance on if and when to add this. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 23:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Reputable sources using the term:


 * http://fortune.com/2018/05/28/rudy-giuliani-spygate-mueller-investigation/
 * https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-flake/trumps-spygate-is-a-diversion-tactic-senator-flake-idUSKCN1IS0OQ?il=0
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/28/us/politics/trump-conspiracy-theories-spygate.html
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/05/23/there-is-no-evidence-for-spygate-but-there-is-a-reason-that-trump-invented-it/
 * https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/05/donald-trump-russia-investigation-fbi-informant


 * All five headlines enclose the term in quotation marks, signaling a lack of linguistic acceptance. For now, it's still President Trump and his publicists' term, not the sources' term. That could change quickly, though, so it's worth keeping an eye on. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Given the skyrocketing of visitors to this page since May 23rd of this year who are no doubt disappointed to see a disambiguation page that has no internal links at all to the current Trump accusation, I have changed this disambiguation page into an article on the supposed scandal presented by Donald Trump. I don't think we are doing our readers ANY kind of service by having no article on this issue, even it it is shown to be concocted— the fact is that the presidential accusation was made, and the popular press has begun reporting on it, and people are turning to Wikipedia for more information on it, and they have not been finding anything about it here except links to an obscure Formula One racing controversy and another on the Patriots football team's misdeeds. My version of the article is very short, but I am all but certain that others will begin adding to it very soon, if only to elaborate on the theory's baselessness.  I know the use of the term in this sense is still quite new, but I think it is clear that it is going to be sticking around for awhile (regardless of its appearance within quote marks in newspaper headlines, which while they do indicate the lack of acceptance of the term so far, do not prevent us from hosting an article on it if the "thing", the idea, seems to be real and of at least some lasting significance, even if it is a dumb term like "controversyaffair" or "battleconflict").  A loose noose (talk) 10:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * - I expanded some. starship.paint ~  KO   13:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Here is the proper reference to President Trump's first SPYGATE tweet on 5/23:
 * "SPYGATE could be one of the biggest political scandals in history!"

kgrr talk 15:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

supporting evidence
Why does the article say no actual supporting evidence? There is evidence.--Democratic Backsliding (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The reliable sources say that the so-called evidence do not support the allegations. This is referenced. What reliable sources do you have to back up your claim? starship.paint ~  KO   03:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * starship.paint ~  KO   03:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

There IS supporting evidence. There are three books, two published, another that is on pre-order that are fully documented with references:
 * Gregg Jarett (2018) The Russia Hoax: The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump
 * Jeanine Pirro (2018) Liars, Leakers, and Liberals: The Case Against the Anti-Trump Conspiracy
 * Dan Bongino, D.C. McAllister, Matt Palumbo (2018) Spygate: The Attempted Sabotage of Donald J. Trump

kgrr talk 11:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, a couple slapped-together cash-grab smearjob books by right-wing commentators. That's your proposed rebuttal to a pile of mainstream reliable sources? Nope. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you ready any one of the three books? I have.  The books are supported by references to known facts -- Congressional testimony, FOIA requests, and articles from credible sources.  It seems to me that you have a real problem with maintaining a neutral point of view.   kgrr  talk 00:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Gregg Jarret's book is published by Harper-Collins/Broadside, a reputable conservative publisher.

Jeanine Pirro, a former judge, had her book published by Hachette Book Group, a reputable publisher.

Dan Bongino et al book, a former Federal investigator and Secret Service agent, has his book published by Simon Shuster/Archway, a reputable book publisher.

More supporting evidence: Documents obtained through FOIA requests and lawsuits are FACTS. Judicial Watch's FOIA Request Document Archive: https://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/category/foia-request/ kgrr talk 00:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)]]

Inspector General reports are FACTS. https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download kgrr talk 00:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * None of those documents support this conspiracy theory. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * IN YOUR POV OPINION. References please.  Get prepared, I will open an NPOV dispute. kgrr  talk 01:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I would refer you to the reliable sources cited here in this article. What you call "my POV opinion" is actually the sourced conclusions of multiple independent reliable sources. In response, you proffered primary source documents you claim support the theory, and three purported books authored by partisan Trump supporters. These are not equivalent, and Wikipedia is not required to treat them as equivalent. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "These are not equivalent" based on what? While New York times and the Washington Post are reputable sources, the other four sources are rather dubious.  The Intercept, Paste Magazine, Vox and Cleveland.com are online publication that are not in print.  References 1-6 in this article are significantly older than these three books on the subject.  More evidence has been uncovered since the references 1-6 were published.  The three references are hard-bound books with references.  The two newspaper articles and the four online sources do not give sources.  All of the sources 1-6 are liberal left-leaning.  I'm sorry, I don't buy your claim.   kgrr  talk 05:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether or not a publication publishes dead-tree editions or not is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is a reliable source; moreover, you're wrong about Cleveland.com, because that's the website of the Cleveland Plain Dealer.
 * You appear to be under the delusion that because you disagree with the NYT and WaPo, you can dismiss the two most respected news sources in America as "liberal left-leaning." That won't work here. We don't subscribe to Trumpist notions of "fake news." His words (more precisely, tweets) have no power here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, you argue that Cleveland.com is a reliable source. Then is this article a reliable source? It supports the viewpoint that top Federal Bureau of Investigation officials plotted to stop Donald Trump from becoming president, and he wants a special counsel to probe whether that occurred. kgrr  talk 08:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 20 February 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. 

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure). X ain36 { talk } 19:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Spygate (conspiracy theory) → Spygate (Donald Trump conspiracy theory) – Reduce confusion with Spygate (NFL). When many people hear "Spygate," they think of the 2007 controversy involving the New England Patriots. (When you search online for "spygate", the NFL controversy comes up far more often then the Trump wiretapping claims.) That controversy involved various conspiracy theories, both that the Patriots coaches and front office conspired among themselves and also that they conspired with NFL commissioner Roger Goodell to destroy embarrassing videotapes. Therefore, we need a way to make clear which "Spygate" conspiracy theory this article is about. R2 (bleep) 22:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Spygate (NFL) In ictu oculi (talk) 10:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose ¶  There is no mention of conspiracy theories at Spygate (NFL); further disambiguation seems unnecessary and disingenuously specific.  —   fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  16:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Here are examples of mainstream sources that refer to Spygate (NFL) as a conspiracy theory: . As for your suggestion that my request is disingenuous, please try harder to assume good faith. For what it's worth I'd support a different, less specific parenthetical if it addressed my concern. R2 (bleep) 17:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't speak to the reliability of those sources, but if the gaming incident is considered a conspiracy theory, its article should mention that with citations. That being said, if both topics are reliably cited as conspiracy theories, then the political one should be simpler in its parenthetical: Spygate (politics), perhaps.I said ; according to the article, the conspiracy isn't simply promoted by Donald Trump, and to label it "Donald Trump conspiracy theory" seems to affiliate it only with the US president and not the other proponents.  I did not call your request disingenuous.  —   fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  18:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * My thought process was that the conspiracy theory is about Trump, not that it is held by Trump, but I'm sympathetic to your concern. R2 (bleep) 19:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support move. NFL Spygate can reasonably be considered to contain a conspiracy theory.  ONR  (talk)  22:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Perhaps the 2007 Formula One espionage controversy could also be considered a conspiracy theory, as it was a theory that several parties were conspiring. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support any move - if we have ambiguous parentheticals, we're really failing Red   Slash  00:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. The proposed title implies the article is about a conspiracy involving Donald Trump, rather than one imagined by him. Perhaps the parenthetic should be, Donald Trump's conspiracy theory? --В²C ☎ 23:24, 27 February 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.

lol
Saturnalia0 (talk) 23:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Can opinionated sources be reliable?
Please read WP:Identifying reliable sources I believe that Wikipedia says yes. The article's references 1-6 are biased towards the left. And, yes, the three books I cite are possibly biased towards the right. kgrr talk 05:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, they can, but they should be factual, not partisan twistings of facts and based on unreliable sources, such as the books you've suggested.
 * Otherwise, NPOV expressly allows biased sources. The trick is with extremely biased sources, where their bias leads them to start twisting things, not covering subjects unfavorable to their POV, etc, IOW what Fox News, Breitbart, InfoWars, Daily Caller, etc. do all the time. Then they become unreliable. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So for example, who judges that Gregg Jarrett's book is extremely biased? It's an analysis of the known facts in the scandal (not conspiracy theory).  It is thoroughly documented with references.  It's published by a very well known publisher.  It's certainly not an obscure book.  It's a best seller. kgrr  talk 15:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The number of copies something sells has precisely zero to do with how reliable it is. From our biography of Jarrett, which helpfully has an extensive section on his Trump apologism and the book in question specifically: In a review for The Washington Post, Carlos Lozada described the book as a Trump hagiography. PolitiFact rated a number of claims made in Jarrett's book as false, misleading and unsubstantiated. That's why it's not a good source here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * But this is not some flat-earth conspiracy. Just because you can find some people that don't like the book, does not mean that it is not written by the minority viewpoint, based on facts.  Carlos Lozada is a book critic for the Washington Post, it's his opinion, this does not make it fact.  Politifact's Fact-Checking is also their opinion.  They are known to have their own bias.  Just because found a few items they disagree with, it does not make the whole book conspiracy theory. kgrr  talk 21:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * So will you take Bob Woodward's book "Fear" as historical fact? Or just his opinion? kgrr talk 21:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * if its right wing it's not RS if it's left wing its RS עם ישראל חי (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Bob Woodward is a Republican, last I heard. This has nothing to do with party or politics. O3000 (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


 * With the completion of the Mueller Report (SCI), the tables have been turned, and this article should be updated accordingly. The NYT, WaPo, and Vox are given top billing in the article and used to call Trump's accusation "false" in the encyclopedia's voice, no less. That was already inappropriate, but now is clearly unsustainable. The conspiracy theory that has been proven false is that Trumps campaign colluded with Russia, a theory trumpeted by RS's like NYT, WaPo, and other favorites cited here. These sources have experienced significant journalistic disgrace for their blind anti-Trump promulgation of false conspiracy theories (again, Trump campaign-Russian collusion, now authoritatively declared to be false by DOJ). As such, these frankly POV conflicted, anti-Trump sources certainly do not deserve to be used to speak in WP's voice as they were here. Furthermore, the sources already cited by kgrr have not been refuted, and if anything the additional material coming out from Padadopoulos confirms that Trump's accusation, while a "conspiracy theory" in a literal sense, has nevertheless been shown to be correct. 2601:5C7:100:1515:58E2:9CD4:D1C1:B301 (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You know that Trump's ridiculous "I'm being spied on by Obama" conspiracy theory has absolutely nothing to do with Mueller or Russian interference in U.S. elections, right? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You appear to be denying that members of the Trump campaign were wiretapped, or otherwise surveilled via 21st century techniques, and further you seem unaware that the FBI's Papadopoulos and Carter Page entrapment attempts were used to bolster the FISA application(s) to continue surveillance of the Trump campaign, ostensibly to find evidence of Russian collusion. It's possible you are also ignorant of the circumstances of the SCI's creation, specifically Trump's resistance and implicit denial of Russian collusion with respect to Flynn to Comey, and his later firing of Comey - which Rod Rosenstein deemed sufficient to trigger an investigation into Trump campaign Russian collusion. So I'm not sure where you get your news, however you'd be well advised to widen your reading, because everything you just said is mistaken - unless you really squint sideways at it and use words with very different intended meaning than most people would. 2601:5C7:100:1515:58E2:9CD4:D1C1:B301 (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh I'm well aware that Papadopoulos says he was entrapped, but that doesn't mean he was entrapped. The Russia interference investigation began because he told an Australian MP about Russian dirt over drinks. That investigation grew into the Special Counsel investigation. Papadopoulos and Page were investigated properly. The only question I have about that is why Page wasn't charged with anything. Nice try. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that Papadopoulos was entrapped, I said there were "entrapment attempts." As regards Russian collusion, it's my understanding from summaries of PapaD's experiences that he passed the test and with advice of campaign decision makers refused to engage with Russia. For those paying attention, that would be why Mueller reported that no Trump campaign members were found to have colluded with Russia. So what should Carter Page have been charged with? I'm very curious. From my reading on this, Carter Page got the most bum deal of any of the major players - his reputation was trashed simply by the leaked info that he was being surveilled. I never saw anything tangible that he was even accused of - it was just a Kafkaesque cloud of suspicion created by the anti-Trump guys at DOJ. Do you have a link to an RS on something credible there? 2601:5C7:100:1515:58E2:9CD4:D1C1:B301 (talk) 01:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: I am the IP account above 2601:5C7:100:1515:58E2:9CD4:D1C1:B301 (talk)... didn't notice I wasn't logged in. I'll plan to use this account if there is any continued discussion. Wookian (talk) 02:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , I don't know. I said I was curious about it. We have to wait and see what the evidence is and why it didn't result in charges. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The 132 articles deriving from Trump is a Russian agent are full of RS material from now known liars like Brennan and Schiff who maintained they had incontrovertible evidence proving collusion to obvious hyper partisans now being explicitly accused of treason like Strozk and Page. While I read not only maybe the single worst WP page ever put on the net(not shocked this is a who's who of never NPOV- being defended by your sources suck! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk) 11:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Evidence vs Conspiracy theory
The term conspiracy theory is derogatory. There is plenty of *evidence* pointing towards the "Spygate" narrative.

"A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy—generally one involving an illegal or harmful act supposedly carried out by government or other powerful actors—without credible evidence. Conspiracy theories often produce hypotheses that contradict the prevailing understanding of history or simple facts. The term tends to be a derogatory one." -- Wikipedia

kgrr talk 00:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that Barack Obama's administration paid to put an informant in the Trump campaign. That is the essence of the conspiracy theory, and not one iota of evidence exists to support it, as per the numerous reliable sources cited here. All else is obfuscation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So why don't you please explain Stefan Halper. kgrr  talk 05:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You have a poor understanding of how Wikipedia is edited. It's not up to me to "explain" anything. Rather, if you believe something should be changed in the article, it's incumbent upon you to state which changes you believe should be made and provide sources which support those changes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course I understand how Wikipedia is edited. I don't have to propose a change, I can also ask for help to arrive at a correction that better reflects the facts.  Follow me, I will make that suggestion.


 * The second sentence in the article "On May 22 - May 23, 2018, Trump announced and elaborated, without providing evidence, on the existence of this conspiracy via his Twitter account, stating his belief that the previous administration under Barack Obama paid to plant a spy inside Trump's 2016 presidential campaign to assist his rival, Hillary Clinton, win the 2016 US presidential election.[5][7]"


 * The beginning of this second sentence was mostly borrowed from a May 18 New York Times article "WASHINGTON — President Trump accused the F.B.I. on Friday, without evidence, of sending a spy to secretly infiltrate his 2016 campaign “for political purposes” even before the bureau had any inkling of the “phony Russia hoax.”".


 * Rather than labeling it a conspiracy and borrowing far too much from the NYT article, why not stay NPOV and state the fact when the word "SPYGATE" was (re)coined by President Trump?


 * On May 23, 2018, President Trump tweeted "SPYGATE could be one of the biggest political scandals in history" kgrr  talk 10:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Because a broad consensus of reliable sources label it a baseless and unsupported conspiracy theory, that's why. While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. A clear and unambiguous majority of reliable sources depict these claims as baseless, false and ludicrous conspiracy theories. In response, you've provided... three partisan books written by Trump apologists. Unfortunately for you and Trump, the sources speak loudly here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So since that all the left-leaning newspapers and online resources you have found say it's a conspiracy theory, you will disregard that there are other sources that disagree. It's not that the minority viewpoint does not exist, it's that it's not represented by the sources used. kgrr  talk 15:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Back to the original subject of this talk discussion. The difference between evidence and a Conspiracy theory is that there is credible evidence.  I have offered several sources that are credible Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view).  I offer that Gregg Jarrett's book is a credible source by the definitions offered in WP:IRS. kgrr  talk 15:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That Halper was being paid by the FBI to monitor the Trump campaign has not seriously been challenged. Trump calls him "spy" while the FBI calls him an "informant." Is that not the crux of the dispute? Nine Zulu queens (talk) 09:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE
 * I don’t understand the argument. This is a theory that there was a conspiracy based on no credible evidence and has been called a conspiracy theory by RS. (I struck Nine Zulu queens’ comment so no one tries to enter into a debate with a blocked sock.) O3000 (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

There are published reliable sources related to spying on Trump campaign officials and Michael Flynn. Ont of the most important primary sources, referenced in several secondary sources, is the opinion of the FISA court about illegal collection of phone calls and emails of Trump's personnel. This was a result of NSA Director Rogers informing the FISA court about illegal spying. I also refer you to Devin Nunes' press conference of 3/22/17. 1.) …”On numerous occasions the [Obama] intelligence community incidentally collected information about U.S. citizens involved in the Trump transition.” 2.) “Details about U.S. persons associated with the incoming administration; details with little or no apparent foreign intelligence value were widely disseminated in intelligence community reporting.” 3.) “Third, I have confirmed that additional names of Trump transition members were unmasked.” 4.) “Fourth and finally, I want to be clear; none of this surveillance was related to Russia, or the investigation of Russian activities. “The House Intelligence Committee will thoroughly investigate surveillance and its subsequent dissemination, to determine a few things here that I want to read off:” •“Who was aware of it?” •“Why it was not disclosed to congress?” •“Who requested and authorized the additional unmasking?” •“Whether anyone directed the intelligence community to focus on Trump associates?” •“And whether any laws, regulations or procedures were violated?” “I have asked the Directors of the FBI, NSA and CIA to expeditiously comply with my March 15th (2017) letter -that you all received a couple of weeks ago- and to provide a full account of these surveillance activities.” Devin Nunes 3/22/17Phmoreno (talk) 02:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * You use three sources, none of which can be used: (1) The DNI source is primary; (2) theconservativetreehouse is a fringe right wing source that is far from a RS; (3) A YouTube of Nunes? Neither is a RS here. You've already been informed of Nunes's status as a Trump apologist who covered up evidence while pretending to perform an investigation. He can't be trusted. Three strikes and you're out.
 * You have been warned by Muboshgu before. You really must be stopped from pushing conspiracy theories using bad sources. RS are agreed that Spygate is just one of Trump's conspiracy theories pushed by Nunes and other GOP members, yet you persist. A topic ban is needed here. You really do lack the competence to understand our sourcing standards here. You seem incapable of learning that, so you must be kept away from political subjects. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 07:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The above comment is interesting. Donald Trump is the POTUS, and Devin Nunes is a member of the Gang of Eight. They are part of a very small group of people with unparalleled access to government secrets and classified information. It is unreasonable to suggest that any left leaning reporter has more information than these two. The NYT and WaPo just got a huge black eye for their Russian collusion reporting over the last few years, and Trump/Nunes were shown to have been truthful about it. The editor who wrote the above seems to have a poorly calibrated estimation of the reliability of RS's. BullRangifer should do some thinking about how partisan animus colors the judgment of left leaning sources. Such pondering may lead to giving greater weight to secondary sources who report claims by POTUS and Nunes. Wookian (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , please present any evidence that NYT or WaPo got anything wrong. The Barr letter doesn't invalidate any of their reporting, as far as I'm aware. The Nunes memo is completely slanted and makes erroneous claims about the start of the Carter Page surveillance. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What they got wrong was a matter of insinuation and emphasis. The NYT, WaPo, CNN, and other similarly left leaning organizations were instrumental in pushing an absurd conspiracy theory into the public's view. They richly deserve the black eye they are sporting now that the SCI is done. For a list of NYT and WaPo articles insinuating and pushing the Trump campaign/Russian collusion angle, see: . This is also a nice example of left-leaning "reliable sources" patting each other on the back and incestuously confirming their shared biases with a Pulitzer Prize as they remain blissfully unaware of how history will judge them (referring to the dramatic correction that started immediately on the SCI's conclusion and Barr's announcement). Wookian (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So, I guess you don't have any evidence. Just an opinion. O3000 (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No. Did you read the page I linked to? Here's a snippet: "For deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration." For readers conversant in the English language, this along with the long list of reporting quite clearly conveys that the NYT was vigorously pushing articles insinuating collusion between the Trump side and Russian election interferers. Wookian (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read it and saw nothing about "pushing". Indeed, it would seem the NYT did do a far better job of furthering the nation's understanding than did the four page report. O3000 (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are in the "I want to believe" camp, not sure what I can do for you here. Wookian (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please WP:AGF. My response was completely neutral. O3000 (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , when have they published anything where they claim something as fact in regards to this investigation that has been proven false? Remember we haven't seen the Mueller Report yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * When it comes to "relentlessly reporting" (aka "pushing") conspiracy theories, it is not necessary that an organization like the NYT make specific claims from the conspiracy theory in its own voice. You seem confused on this, so let me give you an example. With the Obama "birther" conspiracy theor(ies), there were various writers who did not claim Obama was born in Kenya, but rather simply gave oxygen and airtime to those who did. You don't have to say Obama was born in Mombasa, all you need to do is produce "relentless reporting" about Sheriff Joe Arpaio and how his posse are questioning whether Obama produced a fake birth certificate, why one of his academic bios claimed he was born in Kenya, etc. Simply by giving respect to the material you elevate it in the public mind and thereby participate in the conspiracy theory. Do you now understand my point? Wookian (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Wookian, I don't want to misunderstand you, but to avoid doing so in further discussions, do you believe/deny that:
 * 1) there was Russian interference in the election?
 * 2) that it was for the purpose of helping Trump win?
 * 3) that there were numerous secretive meetings and connections between Trump family/campaign members and Russians/Russian agents?
 * 4) that they (including Trump himself) lied again and again about these meetings?
 * 5) that several have been convicted for doing so?
 * 6) that these meetings and lies were sufficient to justify strong suspicions of (a) conspiracy/collusion, (b) that it might have affected the election results in an unfair manner, and (c) that Trump might be a witting or unwitting Russian asset?
 * 7) and that it would have been very negligent of intelligence agencies (American and foreign allies were doing this) to not react by starting perfectly proper investigations of the (a) interference, (b) roles of Trump campaign and Russians, and (3) whether Trump was (and still) is acting just like a Russian asset, wittingly or unwittingly?

What's your position on these very well-established facts? Feel free to use the relevant numbers for your answers. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as I have read, Russian interference was all over the map, and it was more about destabilizing than advancing any particular candidate. The Wikileaks release is perhaps the most famous example, and I will grant that this specific example was intended to attack Clinton by airing her team's dirty laundry. There is also the Steele Dossier, which came from Russian sources and was used against Trump by Hillary Clinton and the DNC -- as they arguably "colluded" with foreign actors including ultimately their unnamed Russian sources in an attempt to bring Trump down via "salacious and unverified" claims from that material (this judgement per Comey). When anti-Trump agents at the DOJ and FBI uncritically made use of the unvetted oppo research from Clinton and the DNC, they certainly fulfilled Russian goals of destabilizing American politics, culminating in this two year investigation. Have I summarized this fairly? Wookian (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , It was clear to the CIA in 2016 that Russian interference was geared around helping Trump, not just "destabilizing". There is no evidence that anyone at DOJ or FBI acted in the way that you suggested. It's also completely wrong to compare the Steele dossier to the Russian interference. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is certainly a critical difference between the leaked DNC emails and the Steele Dossier. In both cases it is understood to be material delivered by Russians that harmed the electoral prospects of an American politician. However at least the emails were cryptographically proven to be true and real, whereas the important (i.e. scandalous) elements of the Steele Dossier appear likely to be Russian disinformation, which of course was all too eagerly pushed by Clinton's camp among other anti-Trump parties. Is that what you meant by "wrong to compare" the two? Wookian (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , I meant that Russian interference was an illegal attempt to influence an election and the Steele dossier was opposition research, the sort that is conducted by any campaign. Also, note that the claims made by the Steele dossier have either been verified or not verified, but nothing in it has been disproven. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Your are saying the Steele Dossier has been neither proven nor disproven. Perhaps a good conspiracy theory, much like a good soldier, never dies, and just fades away. You will find that vehemently anti-Trump sources are still hanging onto this. However I think you'll find that our best journalistic sources will refuse to attach their credibility to the dossier's. If Cohen wasn't in Prague, for example, that leaves the whole thing pretty much indistinguishable from any LARP from 4-chan. I have a suggestion for you, along these lines, though. The distinction between "false" and "unproven/undisproven" is an important distinction. Would you agree with softening the leading sentence of the article from "false" to "unproven," thus following the journalistically safer NYT's wording rather than the careless and inaccurate wording of Vox? Wookian (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , that's not what I said. I see that I didn't word it clearly enough. Parts of the Steele dossier have been verified. Other parts haven't been, at least publicly. Maybe Mueller knows more about some of the unverified allegations than we know. No part of it has been debunked, as far as we know. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The parts that were verified either don't pertain to Trump, or else were sufficiently public information that they don't mean anything in terms of credibility for the dossier. And you are incorrect that it hasn't been debunked. Cohen didn't go to Prague, so there you go. Perhaps you will say "but maybe he snuck there somehow without his passport being stamped" - and all I hear is "but maybe Obama's long form birth certificate is a forgery, did you see how some of the letters look copied and pasted?" Who is advancing the conspiracy theory here? Yes, the Steele dossier has been debunked. It is untrustworthy and can be dismissed by reasonable people who aren't conspiracy theorists. Wookian (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , Cohen says he didn't go to Prague. And Cohen was convicted of lying to Congress, so as far as I know that's still one of the unverified claims. I don't know where he got his passport stamped, but remember the EU is different in travel than the U.S. And yes, some key claims in the dossier have been verified. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This passport stamp argument needs to be dropped. I’ve traveled between EU countries without a passport stamp, and even without stopping to show my passport. And that was before the Schengen Agreement. And, I'm not an EU citizen. O3000 (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, not going to drop it. Per Cohen's passport, which he allowed anti-Trump media to review and photograph, he flew in and out of Italy in July, but the dossier says "last week or August or first week of September". Therefore despite the ease of EU travel, your conspiracy theory still requires him to somehow sneak around passport stamps, or perhaps you think he possesses a second passport. Hint: it would be hard for him to keep a second passport a secret from the State Department and thus Mueller. Do you feel silly yet? Wikipedia is not a place to advance conspiracy theories, so it is long past time for you to let the Steele Dossier go. Wookian (talk) 15:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You’re snarks are not convincing. The article is well-sourced. O3000 (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We were talking about passport stamps. Did I tell you some information you didn't know before, and now you are realizing you were mistaken about this and are dropping the subject? If so, that is for the best, because I wasn't being snarky. It is a conspiracy theory to believe the claims of the Steele Dossier. The challenge with telling lies (as Huckleberry Finn explains) is keeping them straight. It was dangerous for the Steele Dossier to be so specific on a verifiable claim like this, and in fact the dossier fell on its face. Wookian (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not our job to draw conclusions or perform investigations. And, I find discussions with those that merely respond with snarks and aspersions as non-productive. O3000 (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Did I answer your EU passport objection, or not? Wookian (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 29 March 2019
Spygate is not false, nor a conspiracy theory. Please follow reporting by John Solomon, Andrew McCarthey, Dan Bongino, Sara Carter, and more. This is a developing story that we cannot definitively say is false or a conspiracy theory. Each and everyday, new discoveries are being made that suggest that it is in fact true and shaping up to be the largest political scandal in U.S. History. 2600:1702:1940:9210:343C:E68A:5474:95C6 (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Yes, it's false. It's a conspiracy theory. We won't be following the reporting of conspiracy theorists and other partisan writers. You provide no sources that suggest this isn't false. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

NPOV
Now that the Mueller probe has found that there was no Trump-Russia collusion, this is quickly turning into conspiracy FACT. Can we finally have NPOV in this article? Here is a well-documented BOOK on the subject. Spygate: The Attempted Sabotage of Donald J. Trump by Dan Bongino, D.C. McAllister, et al. Oct 9, 2018  ISBN 978-1-64293-099-3 If you don't let me post it now, I will open an NPOV case on this article  kgrr  talk 01:15, March 29, 2019‎ (UTC)
 * Welcome back from six months of not editing this talk page. Dan Bongino is a conspiracy theorist, and nothing about the Mueller probe has changed anything about this conspiracy theory. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It is YOUR Non-POV opinion that Dan Bongino is a conspiracy theorist. I have watched the page but have waited until the hoax was finally exposed.  The Mueller probe in fact has shown there was no Trump-Russia conspiracy. kgrr  talk 01:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No hoaxes have been "exposed". A lot of you laid dormant until the last few days; nothing has changed. Nothing suggests that this conspiracy theory where Trump claimed that Obama was wiretapping him is true. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)|
 * This is YOUR opinion. In the first section of Barr's letter, Barr explained that the special counsel "did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its effort to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election.  There was no Trump-Russia collusion.  It's a hoax. kgrr  talk 01:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , I know that that's what Barr's letter says. None of us know what Mueller's report says, aside from that one conclusion. And even then, that has nothing to do with this page! – Muboshgu (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And you choose to completely ignore that oPaul Manafort was wiretapped. Cater Page was wiretapped. Donald Trump Jr. was wiretapped. Jared Kushner was wiretapped. Gen. Michael Flynn was wiretapped. What do you think the FISA warrants were all about? You of course won't let me cite references to this due to your lack of NPOV.  Stefan Halper was used to collect HUMINT on the Trump Campaign. kgrr  talk 02:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , present WP:NPOV / WP:RS references here. By all means, point out what in the article is incorrect. Tell me how they were inappropriately wiretapped. Dan Bongino is not a reliable source. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * How is Dan Bongino's book an unreliable source? It has close to 600 mainstream references. This is your lack of NPOV. kgrr  talk 02:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Daniel John Bongino (born December 4, 1974) is an American conservative commentator, radio show host, author, politician, and former Secret Service agent. He's not a journalist, a historian or a recognized expert on anything. He has stated, My entire life right now is about owning the libs. That's it. His book is a reliable source only for his own opinion. The opinion of an unabashed Trump apologist is not particularly useful here except to explain the POV of Trump apologists. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. He's a news analyst.  He is not a first-hand reporter, but he's gathered the facts.  Given the circumstances, there is no true journalism surrounding this case. kgrr  talk 02:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, he's not a "news analyst," he's a Trump apologist. You wouldn't want me citing Seth Abramson's book, Proof of Collusion, as fact here, would you? No, I suspect you'd object to that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, your labeling him as a Trump apologist reveals that you lack NPOV. I have not read Seth Abramson's book.  Does it cite sources for the claims it makes? kgrr  talk 02:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I don't lack NPOV. From the lede of our article: Bongino is known for his staunchly pro-Donald Trump commentary. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Carter Page was wiretapped using false pretenses. Page was part of the Trump campaign.  He was never indicted for collusion.  That is what I was waiting for.  I can go through each one of the cases.  The Trump campaign was wiretapped and the Woods Procedure was not followed.  kgrr  talk 02:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You've presented a fair and neutral news article which discusses the fact that the FBI obtained legitimate, legal warrants under the Constitution and the law of the United States to investigate suspected criminal activity. There is nothing in that source which supports your wild claim of "false pretenses." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You are, of course, correct that a number of people were apparently wiretapped. Please present evidence that they were inappropriately wiretapped? Two of the people you listed there were convicted of federal crimes based, in part, on those wiretaps — surely you're not suggesting that getting a warrant to wiretap criminals is evidence of a "conspiracy"? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Manafort was convicted for tax fraud. Papadopoulos was convicted for lying to the FBI about a technicality.  No one was convicted for conspiracy or collusion.  The US does not investigate people.  It investigates a crime.  If the initial crime did not happen (collusion or conspiracy to rig the 2016 election with Russia), then the FISA warrants were requested on false pretenses.  Considering that the "evidence" was the Steele Dossier, bought and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and that exculpatory evidence was not disclosed to the FISA judges.  This means the FISA warrants were fraudulently obtained. kgrr  talk 02:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , you're making a lot of conclusions with very little evidence. Surely there's more in the 300-1,000 pages of the Mueller Report that you don't know. (And btw the Steele dossier was started with funding by conservatives, and had nothing to do with the start of the Russia investigation; it started when Papadopoulos drunkenly told an Australian PM about the Russian dirt he had access to.) – Muboshgu (talk) 02:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the basis of the FISA warrants are reliably reported to be under investigation for suspected fraud.Phmoreno (talk) 02:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Is this being presented fairly in this article? NO.  There you are let's get some NPOV balance in this article. kgrr  talk 02:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , if you're basing what you know from an interview of Nunes by Hannity, you're not getting the full story. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I trust Devin Nunes because so far, everything he's said has come out to be true. Hannity asks him questions that the mainstream media won't ask and has not asked. However, I base what I know on many sources. You won't let me quote a book in print with hundreds of references that you did not read.  I read news from both sides.  Clearly, there is a lot of bias in the so-called main stream media.  It still backs the lies they've spread for the last two years. kgrr  talk 04:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "I trust Devin Nunes because so far, everything he's said has come out to be true" wait, wha? ahahahahaha hahaha .... hahahaha... hahahha hahahahahahahahahahah.... .... no. Provide reliable sources or quit it with the WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Nunes claims that the dossier was what started the Russia investigation, and he claims that it was also the main impetus behind the FISA warrant. The first is obviously false, and on the second point, his own Nunes memo came to the conclusion that the dossier was only a part of the reason behind the warrant. Think about that, his own memo concluded the opposite of his own false claim: "On July 21, 2018, the Justice Department released heavily redacted versions of four FISA warrant applications for Carter Page which showed that key assertions made in the Nunes memo were false or misleading, corroborating the rebuttal made by Democrats." So NO, he's not trustworthy. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes claimed Monday that the FBI and Justice Department failed to include exculpatory evidence in surveillance warrant applications against former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. "There is exculpatory evidence that we have seen, of classified documents that need to be declassified,” Nunes said in an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity.  If they failed to include exculpatory evidence, it's a fraudulent FISA application. kgrr  talk 02:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , please provide a source. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe you don't like Hannity interviewing Devin Nunes or Daily Caller reporting it. kgrr talk 03:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The hey that has to do with anything? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The FISA warrant applications on Carter Page have been released. However, I can't show you the exculpatory evidence that's not in the FISA warrant.  I also can't show you what's not been redacted.  kgrr  talk 03:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I do not have time to post them all. Phmoreno (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC) Another. References in this: Unmasking by U.S. intelligence agencies The United States Foreign Intelligence Court Opinion April 2017 discusses FISA abuse including performing "about queries" on U.S. citizens in intelligence databases by contractors. Contractor names redacted. More on the Carter Page FISA warrant.
 * I'm just waking up so I haven't read through all of this yet, but I did click on that link to the "Unmasking" page and it's out of date, referring to Nunes as chair and Schiff as ranking member. Devin Nunes abused his position as chair and as a member of the Gang of Eight on Trump's behalf, so I imagine the truth is that the unmaskings done were all done appropriately. But I'll have to find sources on that because it's just a gut feeling. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "so I imagine the truth is that the unmaskings done were all done appropriately" - This is quite a shocker of a statement, and has no place in a posture of encyclopedic neutrality. AGF applies to fellow WP editors, not to abusers of government agencies and surveillance powers. Wookian (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , this isn't an article, it's a talk page, and I fully acknowledge that I didn't provide sources with that statement. When I have time, I'll look for them. You're providing no evidence that there was any abuse of power. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 31 March 2019
this is no longer false 2601:3CA:4100:22CE:84D6:B189:615:67E9 (talk) 06:55, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌ No consensus to make any change, no reliable source given, and redundant with other discussions immediately above. R2 (bleep) 07:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


 * There are reliable sources: The New York Times broke the Crossfire Hurricane story and Bongino's book Spygate.  There is no basis for saying Bongino's book is not a reliable source.  Nothing in his book is known to be untrue and it cites mainstream news sources. Phmoreno (talk) 13:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The request is too vague to be useful. The request must be very specific with wording and RS to use. It must also not be a controversial request, IOW there must exist a consensus on this talk page. The request fails on all counts. Closing. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Bongino
Can we please consolidate all discussion about the reliability of Bongino in one section, namely here? Further, if there are editors who wish to add or change the article based on Bongino, could they please share the relevant passages of the book? R2 (bleep) 17:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please clarify what you mean by "relevant passages". Bongino's book is an compilation of what was publicly known, but not always widely reported, before the AG Barr's summary finding of the Mueller report.  The book has 195 pages of text, an appendix with a 14 page timeline and with a 13 page table of media leaks, 5 pages of connection diagrams and almost 600 notes.  Bongino is also working on another book with the latest findings.Phmoreno (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Bongino is clearly not RS. He has stated an agenda. O3000 (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That doesn't disqualify him as a source, and certainly not discredit his cited sources.Phmoreno (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)does
 * , considering he tries to twist the "facts" to fit his agenda, yes it does. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


 * No, it's the fake news media who twist the facts.Phmoreno (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , I can't help you. You're just going to believe what you want to believe. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Phmoreno, every disputed statement in Wikipedia must supported by a reliable source that makes that statement expressly. Moreover, a source can be reliable for some statements and not for others. Therefore, you need to identify the specific statements in Bongino that you want to support a specific change or addition. For instance, if you're using Bongino to say that Spygate isn't false, then you need to identify a staement in Bongino that says Spygate isn't false. You can't just point to the entire book and tell people to read it. Then, in addition, the burden is on you to convince a consensus of editors here that Bongino is reliable for that statement. I don't agree with Objective3000 and Muboshgu that Bongino is unreliable merely because he's stated an objective. However it certainly doesn't help. I'm more concerned by the fact that I couldn't find any reviews by reputable outlets, and Bongino himself has zero background in a relevant profession like journalism and is closely affiliated with conspiracy theory outlets such as InfoWars. The fact that his book was published by Broadside Books doesn't boost its reliability. Broadside Books and similar publishing houses routinely put out books that we wouldn't consider reliable. Unless you think that books by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are reliable here? Those were printed by reputable publishers too. R2 (bleep) 22:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The facts of the matter far outweigh individual statements. It was a conspiracy and it is being exposed. That a counterintelligence investigation was opened against Trump and associates with no evidence is a matter of public record, including from Lisa Page's testimony.  That the unmasking of US citizens caught up in surveillance is under investigation is a matter of public record and covered by Fox News and others.  That FISA abuse is under investigation is a matter of public record and covered by Fox News and others.  That Inspector General Horowitz is investigating all of this corruption has been covered by Fox News and is a matter of public record.  (The IG report is due in two months.) Besides Fox News there are numerous transcripts of testimony by Christopher Steele, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Lisa Page.  Andrew McCabe is under indictment as reported by Fox News and others.  Too much to list here.  I could rewrite this whole article, but am not allowed to even enter a single sentence.Phmoreno (talk) 23:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC) (BLP-violating falsehood struck. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC))
 * This is all BLP related. Tread carefully about conspiracy theories you've picked up. O3000 (talk) 23:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Phmoreno, instead of relying on RS (which you call "fake news media"), you are fighting for "The Truth". Here we are more concerned with verifiability, not truth (a phrase which used to be very prominent in our sourcing policies). That won't get you anywhere here, and in fact, can get you blocked as tendentious.
 * Drop the stick and start cooperating with us. If Bongino says something you think should be used here, then single out that specific statement, and then see if RS document it. If so, then you can quote those sources, you'll be working according to our rules, and we'll be happy to help you include that content, assuming it really is worth including. Try it and you'll get much more success. As it is, you're just a POV warrior, pusher of conspiracy theories, and a notable opposer of our RS policy. Those are all blockable offenses, and you just won't drop the stick. No matter how many times you are warned and advised, you keep doing it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , I understand your factual theories, but that's not what I asked for. I don't see anything about Bongino in your response, let alone any quotation of a specific passage in his book. Are you going to comply with my good faith request that you comply with our core policies? R2 (bleep) 17:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I could rewrite this whole article, but am not allowed to even enter a single sentence. - this article currently has 45 sources. If you say you can rewrite this whole article, do you have a similar number of reliable sources to back up your view? When someone makes fantastical claims like Bongino, we must surely have multiple reliable sources to support it. You must provide the sources. starship.paint ~  KO   00:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * By the way, Phmoreno, Inspector General Horowitz's investigation is not completed. You seem to be assuming guilt already. Why not wait for his results? Or start an article on Inspector General Horowitz's investigation. And is Andrew McCabe is under indictment as reported by Fox News and others. ? I can't find evidence of that. Are we living in the same reality? Please point to me reliable sources on that. starship.paint ~  KO   00:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ... and as for Bongino, I don't think he has much credibility with WaPo reporting about his lies. starship.paint ~   KO   01:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * More misleading stuff from Bongino courtesy of Snopes. starship.paint ~   KO   01:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

McCabe under grand jury probe.Phmoreno (talk) 01:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * - forgive me, I'm not American. I could not find the word "indict" in that article. Is "under grand jury probe" equal to "indict"? I thought indictment is similar to being charged with a crime. I may be wrong, please enlighten me. Your Fox News source says The grand jury is often used as an investigative tool to gather evidence, though it may not necessarily lead to charges. It would be notable if McCabe is ever charged on anything. starship.paint ~  KO   01:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, you're correct, there is no indictment. A grand jury proceeding can lead to an indictment, but no such thing has happened. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification . starship.paint ~  KO   02:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's from September, and not for anything related to this subject or our discussions. I suspect the investigation is already over by now, but I don't recall reading anything more about this. It may be a nothingburger. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, on Bongino's book, how did Dan Bongino succeed where everyone else failed, including congressmen (and their staff) with top secret access? Even the Nunes memo by Nunes' staff and the Republicans' House Intelligence Committee report of April 2018 state that the Russia investigation started because of George Papadopoulos. (Nunes memo The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok while this is the House report - page 57,    in late July 2016, the FBI opened an enterprise CI investigation into the Trump campaign following the receipt of derogatory information about foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos ) starship.paint ~   KO   02:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Dan Bongino most likely doesn't have a team of investigative journalists. How did he uncover a vast conspiracy based on publicly available information when Fox News, The Wall Street Journal or even the National Enquirer couldn't? starship.paint ~  KO   02:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * See the nearly 600 reference notes.Phmoreno (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * - having nearly 600 references notes doesn't prove that it's reliable. starship.paint ~  KO   02:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Also, John Solomon has good inside sources and is believed by certain members of the Fox News crew to know a great deal more about the story than he has reported to date. Devin Nunes as well as Senate Intelligence Committee members making the criminal referrals have seen the classified evidence.  No doubt there is a scandal, the only issue as far as this article is concerned is whether Spygate is the appropriate title.Phmoreno (talk) 02:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Who is John Solomon and how is he relevant to this section on Dan Bongino? Plus, in your own words, Solomon hasn't reported all he knows. As I already said, Nunes' own staff say it's Papadopoulos who started it. Nunes' own committee which he chaired said it's Papadopoulos who started it. I provided the evidence above. This contradicts with Bongino's information. Bringing Nunes up is not helping your case. starship.paint ~  KO   02:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Bongino's relevance is the title of this article is the same as his book. Bongino points out problems with justifying Papadopoulos as a reason to open Crossfire Hurricane. John Solomon is the leading investigative reporter on Spygate or whatever you want to call the scandal.  He appears frequently on Fox News and listen to what he says two FBI agents told him in Mar 2017 at around time 7:20 in this clip. Phmoreno (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


 * - no no no. Why are you bringing up Solomon when this section is on Bongino? I listened to Solomon's story at 7:30, it has nothing to do with Bongino, it has nothing to do this Trump's May/June 2016 Spygate allegations either. It's Solomon telling a story and no evidence is given in that story. Start another section for Solomon please if you somehow have anything on him relevant to this. You seem like you're grasping for straws. starship.paint ~  KO   03:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You asked who John Solomon was.Phmoreno (talk) 03:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * - I asked because you brought him up when he has no relevance to this current discussion on Dan Bongino's reliability. Do you understand? starship.paint ~  KO   03:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Phmoreno, does this article by a Matt Palumbo on Bongino's website inform your thinking? Does it represent Bongino's thinking? BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Proof the Dossier, Not Papadopoulos, Sparked the Russia Investigation
 * Perhaps these tweets by Bongino. Original thread:     Quintupling down:     starship.paint ~   KO   03:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup, that's it. He's grabbing at straws and totally goes contrary to all RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Bongino appears to be an expert on the subject matter, and his book is not self-published, so it can be used as a source. If you disagree with his assertions, just attribute the information to him in the text, "Dan Bongino says..."  By the way, I predict that in about two-years time the title and tone of this article will have significantly changed.  AppliedCharisma (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * - I respectfully disagree, Bongino seems to be the exact opposite from an expert on the subject matter. He gets a key claim wrong, according to publicly available information and various reliable sources. I argue that the biggest factor in determining his unreliability is that he completely ignores (thus he is unreliable), or is unaware (thus he is unreliable) of its strongest counterargument, which is the evidence provided by the House Intelligence committee (with access to classified documents, the opposite of Bongino), as reliable sources will invariably cite . starship.paint ~  KO   14:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If we're going to cite Bongino as an expert opinion then we have to establish his expertise as well as the noteworthiness of his opinion. As our guidelines note, anyone can claim to be an expert. Expertise generally requires work in the relevant field that has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. In addition, as far as I can tell Dan Bongino's book has been virtually ignored by reputable media outlets. I couldn't find a single reliable review. R2 (bleep) 17:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Spying vs Counter intelligence investigation
I think there's a bit of miscommunication about this article. As I understand it, the article details a conspiracy promulgated by Trump and his supporters, that the Obama administration was "spying" on his campaign. Our article describes this claim as false and a conspiracy theory. However, it is now widely known that the Obama administration had opened a counter-intelligence investigation into the campaign. There is no doubt now that government agencies were looking into the campaign, had tapped phones, applied for FISA warrants, and utilized opposition research provided by the Clinton campaign. There's no doubt about any of this, it's widely known and well sourced. How can we write that Trump's comments were false when there clearly was an effort by the Obama administration to investigate Trump? It's not going away either - recently Lindsey Graham "vowed to "get to the bottom" of why former FBI director James Comey opened a counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign in 2016" source and Rand Paul "claimed members of the intelligence community who served under former President Obama sent "spies" into President Trump's presidential campaign" source. Per the Steele Dossier article, the Trump campaign had been under investigation since mid 2016. This article needs a major re-write. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , you want to make a major rewrite to this article because Rand Paul went on Fox and Friends and made an accusation without presenting any proof? Just making sure I understand. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * By calling it "false" most people would understand that the Obama administration didn't spy on the Trump campaign and use surveillance derived intelligence to harm the Trump campaign politically, when in fact the opposite is the case. As it stands, this article could have been written by Adam Schiff. It has a terrible leftist slant, and fails to convey factual information that is important to understanding the whole picture. Wookian (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , please present any evidence that "the opposite is the case". – Muboshgu (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Various leaks caused political harm to the Trump campaign. A leak about Trump's briefing on the Steele Dossier was the trigger for publishing it. Partisan animus is undeniable in the principal parties involved. A racist isn't entitled to full benefit of the doubt as they aggressively investigate a person of color for crimes related to voting, especially after their two year investigation comes up empty of the crimes they claimed to be investigating. Hatred of Trump combined with the unfairness of how this transpired (no Russian collusion!) is a notable part of this story, whether you see that or not. Wookian (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , so you present no evidence. You are also making allegations that this investigation was somehow "unfair", and I'd like to know what that evidence is. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , what Wookian said. Calling the fact that the Obama administration was surveilling and investigating the Trump campaign "false" and a "consipracy theory" is wrong. It is undisputed that this was occurring, and now prominent Republicans are talking about further investigations into that investigation, which would likely help us know for sure what was going on. Is it your position that this article should be saying that the Obama administration was not surveilling and investigating the Trump campaign? Mr Ernie (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Muboshgo said above that they "imagined" that "all" the unmaskings were done appropriately. This attitude is unfortunately consistent with the slant of this article, which rather un-encyclopedically just assumes that the Obama administration would never do anything wrong with respect to abuse of surveillance powers against the Trump campaign, despite the well documented anti-Trump animus of the intelligence community and DOJ brass who carried out these actions, and despite pretty much the entire Republican side of the nation crying foul. Look, the article doesn't have to agree with Trump's accusations, but it is wrong at this point based on all that we know, to summarily call them a falsehood. Again, the article could have been written by Schiff! Wookian (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , no sources have credibly called them inappropriate, have they? Rand Paul on Fox and Friends is not irrefutable evidence. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This article cites a number of Republican lawmakers who said the investigation was entirely proper and that "Spygate" was nonsense; to say that "the entire Republican side of the nation [is] crying foul" is simply not true. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, I didn't say "the entire Republican side of the nation [is] crying foul" - and I agree with you that is not true. I said "pretty much the entire Republican side of the nation [is] crying foul" - which is true. Let's not misquote one another. (And I say that while acknowledging that I misunderstood one comment by Muboshgu somewhere above and replied to what he hadn't actually said, so it's a timely reminder for all of us.) Wookian (talk) 16:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Saying that it was "the Obama administration" that did the surveillance and investigation implies or infers that it was directed by political appointees for political reasons, as opposed to being initiated by career FBI agents and investigators who had credible evidence and probable cause to believe that the Russian government was attempting to interfere with American election processes. Reliable sources do not support this claim. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If Trump’s claims of such an investigation are true why is this labeled a false conspiracy theory? Mr Ernie (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The "false" claim, inappropriately made in Wikipedia's voice right at the front of the article, is supported by an opinion piece from Vox, which is a heavily left leaning news outlet. (Breitbart is not allowed as a source here, because it is right leaning. But Vox is OK, because it is left leaning.) The "false" judgment is based on straw man distortions of the Spygate claims, and ignores how that story has developed over time as more information has come to light. A balanced, encyclopedic article on Spygate would discuss all the forms of surveillance, the falsehood of the premise of the Russian collusion investigation, and the political bias and animus of the principal DOJ, FBI and intelligence community actors. However, by restricting sources to anti-Trump, left leaning news outlets, that part of the story is currently prevented from being told. Wookian (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , if we're using a Vox opinion piece there, that is a mistake. If it's not an opinion piece, it's fine. Vox can be partisan in their analysis, but their reporting is reliable. Breitbart's reporting is wholly unreliable. Reliable sources/Perennial sources contains discussions that have been held about these and other sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I checked the Perennial sources link, and found exactly what I expected to find. The most common leftist explanation cited for why Breitbart should be considered unreliable - Breitbart's posting of that out of context video clip of Shirley Sherrod. The very citation of that example is itself misleading, since Breitbart wrote that they posted the full video as provided to them by an external source, and then updated their reporting when more info came to light. It's not any different than WaPo with the Covington kids, and that it continues to be cited says more about those who cite it than about Breitbart. Breitbart should not be blacklisted from Wikipedia. Just as with other news outlets, editors should always exercise discretion and pay attention to the writer, the outlet, the writer's sources, etc; however Breitbart is not inherently less reliable than Vox or the like. The problem here is when right leaning outlets get lawyered out of the picture, and only left leaning sources remain. Wookian (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , you are leaving out a lot of other instances where Breitbart proved to be unreliable. Comparing Vox to Breitbart is apples to oranges. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , and lest you think I only read left-wing sources, ""Editor Admits Breitbart Publishes Fake News", published by The American Conservative. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The more salient point though is that Breitbart isn't cited positively by other reliable sources. Vox is. R2 (bleep) 20:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That blog post does not substantiate that Breitbart published any fake news, despite its sensational title. All it substantiates is that this Breitbart editor in chief said that his organization weighted their news coverage to counter what they perceived as strategic weighting in the other direction by left leaning media on what it looks like one could summarize as a sort of Overton Window chess game ultimately directed at President Trump. It does not imply that any Breitbart journalist or commentator published anything they believed to be untrue. In fact, Breitbart published a whole bunch of articles about Roy Moore, quoting people both pro and often strongly against Moore's Senate candidacy. Wookian (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You guys, WP:RSN is the place to debate whether Breitbart is a reliable media outlet. Not here. R2 (bleep) 20:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wookian didn't respond about the other articles I posted that have specific examples of Breitbart publishing fake news. This does pertain to this article because we're discussing the use of Vox in it and the nonuse of Breitbart. If you are "weighing" your coverage in one way or another, you are a partisan source that cannot be relied upon. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I will make an effort to respond later when I get a chance (probably not today). I disagree with your last comment about weight of coverage. If such weight affects the truth/falsehood of what you're publishing, then obviously yes, but if it's just a question of which topics you spend the most time addressing, that is inextricably tied to the personal values of the individuals involved. The NYT is never going to give extended coverage to stories about the Kermit Gosnells of the world. A pro life group of journalists may very well give such weighting and coverage. Weight in that sense may be a sign of bias, but it's a human bias from which no media is immune. Wookian (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's really a debate about the general reliability of Vox, which has also already been extensively hashed out by the broader community. If the two of you were somehow to miraculously come to a local consensus inconsistent with the broader consensus, then someone would alert RSN and the community would come down on the issue like a ton of bricks. So you might as well not waste your time here. Just a suggestion. R2 (bleep) 21:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with using Vox as a source. We just have to use discretion, as with all things. And on that note, Muboshgu will probably recognize some timely irony with the following -- here's the Editorial Director of Vox admitting that liberal media (including Vox, specifically she herself) have usually ignored and sometimes misleadingly whitewashed Joe Biden's history of inappropriately touching women . This is exactly the same thing you cited to suggest disqualifying Breitbart from being considered as a source (will still respond in more detail, just wanted to share this humdinger of an article). At any event, I suggest that Vox doesn't carry sufficient authority as a source to speak in Wikipedia's voice as it currently does. See first sentence of article, calling Spygate "false" instead a more journalistically tempered word like "unproven" or "unsubstantiated", cf. NYT and WaPo. Wookian (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , a big difference between Vox and Breitbart is that Vox admits when it makes a mistake. For Breitbart, factual errors are part of their business model. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Like most popular conspiracy theories, this one is based on a kernel of truth. That doesn't make it any less of a conspiracy theory. Now, let's get to how Wikipedia works. We base our articles on what the reliable sources say. The reliable sources say that Spygate is a conspiracy theory. Therefore, we say it's a conspiracy theory. When reliable sources start saying it's not a conspiracy theory, then we can have a policy-based discussion about how the article should be changed to reflect that. R2 (bleep) 19:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is seriously outdated. The New York Times exposed operation Crossfire Hurricane, the counter-intelligence operation, so you can safely assume that every common type of surveillance at the FBI's disposal was used against Trump and his team. Phmoreno (talk) 01:54, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's not what the source says at all, but nice try. The fact that the FBI sought to investigate George Papadopoulos after he went around telling foreign diplomats that he had gotten "dirt on Clinton" from the Russians is not the same as "every common type of surveillance at the FBI's disposal was used against Trump and his team". YOU can assume that if you want, but that's about you and your POV, not actual reality.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , no, Operation Crossfire Hurricane is the start of the Russia interference investigation. The NY Times article you provided is clear that Papadopoulos talked about his Russian dirt with Alexander Downer, who went to the FBI, starting the investigation. This is all known. It does not mean that "spygate" is real. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what Papadopoulos has to do with my statement, but he was also set up and spied on.Phmoreno (talk) 02:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Lol. Ok, thanks for the entertainment, but seriously, WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting personal opinion, but that wild, insane claim is nowhere to be found in the reliable source you cited. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * People who ridicule other editors are trolls rather than serious editors. And where did I claim that was in the source I provided?  IF you are following this story you should know where that comes from.Phmoreno (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right. Your track record here makes it likely you got that from some unreliable source. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Does anyone have any specific suggestions for improving the article or are we just here to throw bombs? R2 (bleep) 04:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, remove the words "false" and "conspiracy" from the first sentence. It is factual that there was an counter intelligence investigation into the Trump campaign. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately for you, it is not factual that this was in an effort to help his rival Hillary Clinton to win the US presidential election. Rather, it was because there was significant evidence of connections between Russia and Donald Trump, and significant evidence that members of his campaign were committing crimes (several of whom have since been convicted of those crimes). NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * NorthBySouthBaranof: Concerning the topic under discussion, the cause for opening the counter-intelligence investigation does not matter. Regarding your comment on colluding with Russia, Lisa Page testified that the FBI had no evidence of such from the time the investigation was opened on into the appointment of the Special Counsel.  Nunes also said the investigation was based on "no official intelligence".Phmoreno (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course the motive matters. There can't be a "conspiracy" to open a legitimate counterintelligence investigation - a "conspiracy" by definition has to be planning to do something illegal. It would be illegal to open an investigation for political purposes. However, reliable sources are clear that the investigation was not opened for political purposes. You're misquoting Page, and the FBI clearly had evidence - they wouldn't have gotten FISA warrants without any evidence. What Nunes (a partisan Republican) says is totally irrelevant, so please stop quoting him as if you're going to convince anyone. You don't see me quoting Adam Schiff here, do you? I don't expect you to believe a partisan Democrat, so please don't pretend that a partisan Republican is a convincing truth-teller. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

- Have you even read the article's body carefully as to what Spygate entails? It's not just vague spying. I'll simplify it, let's go through it in Trump's own words. Spygate version 1, May 2018: there was indeed at least one FBI representative implanted, for political purposes, into my campaign for president. It took place very early on So, any evidence? None. No FBI representative implanted. Verdict - conspiracy theory and false. Spygate version 2, June 2018: a counter-intelligence operation into the Trump Campaign dating way back to December, 2015. SPYGATE is in full force! . So, any evidence? None. FBI began investigating in July 2016. Verdict - conspiracy theory and false. starship.paint ~  KO   14:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This article is about the May 2016 and June 2016 claims. Please provide information relevant to the May 2016 and June 2016 claims (whether they are true or false). Barr's letter has nothing to do with these claims If you are arguing that Spygate goes beyond the May 2016 and June 2016 claims, please provide reliable sources. starship.paint ~  KO   14:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * If you are arguing that this is a narrow article covering just those dates, then we need another one titled Spygate (scandal).Phmoreno (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. It's not a "scandal". Per sources, it's another nutzoid conspiracy theory. But hey, prove me wrong, show me sources which say it's a scandal. Otherwise quit it with the WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:56, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You are semantically mistaken. A scandal is an act regarded as immoral or wrong, leading to public outrage . This easily meets that bar - many Americans are angry over the false Russian collusion accusations and the (perceived as) unjustified surveillance of the Trump campaign. Of course, in a two party system, huge numbers of people are quite routinely getting outraged, whether or not they should be. The proverbial "Thanks Obama" is now "Thanks Trump" as the parties rotate in and out of power. Here's an example reference that claims the Spygate scandal is the worst political scandal in American history. Exaggeration? Maybe, but clearly the various questionable surveillance actions are perceived as a scandal, which is all it takes for this to be correctly termed a scandal. Wookian (talk) 02:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If and when mainstream reliable sources begin referring to it as a "scandal," that discussion can be had. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "This easily meets that bar " Nonsense. It doesn't. Reliable sources or stop it with the WP:NOTAFORUM. "many Americans are angry" - many Americans are angry over lots of stuff. Donald Trump being the president for example. The Federalist is a garbage source. And you seem to be aware of that. So why even bring it up?Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, thefederalist.com is not a garbage source. Wookian (talk) 05:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean, yes, it is a garbage source as far as we're talking about here. It's a partisan conservative magazine with no substantial journalistic reputation. At best, it's usable as a source for partisan conservative opinion. You don't see me asking to cite Media Matters for America here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * MMFA is literally a propaganda outlet and is not comparable. The Federalist is a serious outlet that is regularly featured on RealClearPolitics to provide balance from the right leaning end of the spectrum. It definitely passes the mainstream test. The author of the article I linked to in particular (Margot Cleveland) has strong legal credentials and background, and as such, carries credibility on the subject of this article. Wookian (talk) 06:08, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "The Federalist is a serious outlet" - lol, no. It's not mainstream, it's junk. This discussion has been had before.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Even National Review acknowledges that The Federalist... ... has some problems "In March 2016, more-mainstream publications, including Breitbart and the Federalist, published long pieces that whitewashed, rationalized, and excused even virulent white nationalism and white supremacy" (that'd be "more mainstream" by NR's definition of mainstream, but at least they acknowledge that TF is in the same league as Breitbart) Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And the reason it's featured on RCP because the Federalist is actually funded and run by the guy who started RCP (basically, they're trying to play the "good cop, bad cop" game with, RCP being the good cop and Federalist being the bad cop), though they don't like it when folks point it out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * David French is full of beans here (as often elsewhere). He is making false claims. The articles he references do not advocate or endorse white nationalism / white supremacy. Wookian (talk) 06:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That you describe MMFA as a "propaganda outlet" yet believe The Federalist is "mainstream" belies your strongly-held personal opinions about this issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * By "mainstream" I don't mean to imply that The Federalist reflects any kind of middle of the road view politically. In fact, I'm not aware of any major media outlets that meet that description. Articles on The Federalist are clustered on the right, just as NYT and WaPo tends to the left. The difference between The Federalist and MMfA can be illustrated in that MMfA is run as a very tight ship to advance their political side, whereas The Federalist takes a more journalistic posture. Thus for example The Federalist has run pieces both favorable and critical toward Trump. You're never going to see that kind of thing on MMfA, because once again, they are a tightly controlled propaganda outlet for advancement of the political interests with which they align. Wookian (talk) 20:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Devin Nunes will be making criminal referrals related to the scandal next week. As far as Trump's statement related to the scandal starting in Dec. 2015, Trump has access to information not made public, either material that was classified or information obtained by his legal staff through discovery (law). Everyone by now should be aware that Trump plans to start declassifying and releasing material that was sealed while the investigation was ongoing.Phmoreno (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Nunes can do whatever he wants, and Trump can do whatever he wants. When and if he does anything, and those things are inevitably reported upon by reliable sources, they can be discussed here. We aren't playing a Ben Garrison-illustrated fantasy RPG here, so please take your unsupported speculation to a more appropriate forum. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What Nunes or Trump may or may not do in some future and what responses may or may not result has no bearing on any article at the present time. O3000 (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , Nunes has become quite adept at creating headlines like this that are totally meaningless in actual legal proceedings, but help him raise lots of money. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The story of Spygate entails a lot more than what is discussed in this article. The definition of the term "spygate" doesn't belong to leftists who defend the Obama administration, it belongs to those who are doing the accusing, including Trump, Nunes, and journalists and commentators like Bongino. It is in fact quite a fascinating story that should be told on Wikipedia using appropriate sources and tone. As Phmoreno mentioned, some of it has not been able to come out until after the SCI's conclusion and is (hopefully) due for imminent clarification, though what we know now is pretty juicy already (see: drama with Mike Rogers). Those who are not familiar with Spygate because they've only read left leaning sources can read Bongino's book referenced above, and/or get a summary from accounts like:.
 * No, the definition of the term "Spygate" belongs to reliable sources, which are what all Wikipedia articles are based upon, by foundational policy. If you object to this foundational policy, you might find more happiness participating in another encyclopedia project such as Conservapedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that Wikipedia must be based on reliable sources, and I'm not aware of any of my comments that imply otherwise. Will we differ on which sources are reliable? Probably. In the meantime, WP:AGF and don't misrepresent the scope and nature of our disagreement. Wookian (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


 * - your sources can’t even agree on what Spygate really is. The Federalist source claims that Spygate is all about the Steele dossier, funded by the Clintons campaign, and its usage. The Bongino source claims that Spygate had illegal spying on the Trump campaign, then it was discovered and the bad guys tried to use the dossier to result in legal spying to cover illegal spying, and that the dossier was already written in 2007.... it doesn’t even compute. If the dossier was written in 2007 (Bongino) then why does the Clinton campaign need to fund it (Federalist)? starship.paint ~  KO   04:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ... and the Nunes source doesn’t even mention Spygate right? Plus he makes the claim “We now know for certain that that’s not true.“ - then provides absolutely no evidence. starship.paint ~  KO   04:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Bongino's book does not claim the Steele dossier was written in 2007. It says a very similar document written by Glen Simpson was mentioned in The Wall Street Journal in 2007 and that the main difference between it and the Steele dossier was the names of the people being smeared were changed.Phmoreno (talk) 12:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to Bongino's book, and the rest of the 2007 story is hidden behind a paywall. Is Bongino pushing some type of conspiracy theory tying the 2007 story to the Steele Dossier? Also, is this matter discussed in RS? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Federalist
Can we please stop bickering about which websites we like to read and focus on what matters? , do I understand correctly you think we should say that Spygate is a "scandal" rather than a "conspiracy theory" based on this Federalist source? Are you aware that this is an opinion source? Notice the note at the bottom: "The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity." R2 (bleep) 21:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Per the definition of a scandal, if something provokes shock and outrage in the public, then it can be referred to as a scandal. I linked to that article as an example showing that the Obama admin's surveillance of the Trump campaign is perceived as a scandal. Most people would read the claim that it's "the worst political scandal in American history" as a subjective judgment of the author, however that it is perceived as a serious scandal is not a controversial claim at this point. It's an objective statement about a subjective judgment of a large chunk of the public. Wookian (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't name articles to promote the views of a small minority of deluded people who believe lies. There has to be much more to it before we do that. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't argued for that specific name change on the article. That was someone else. My contribution to the "scandal" discussion started when somebody said it wasn't a scandal, and I pointed out that it is easily a scandal by definition. There is much more than a small minority who are upset about the surveillance, and they don't believe lies. They believe things like: Obama political appointees engaged in suspicious acts of unmasking, which was abruptly shut down when NSA Director Adm. Rogers became aware of it, and was furthermore rebuked by the FISA court. They believe things like that the Trump campaign didn't in fact collude with Russia to influence the election, and thus the whole SCI investigation falls under suspicion of political bias - and it doesn't help when they see the rank anti-Trump attitudes of the principal parties in the CIA, FBI, and Obama White House. It's important to remember that many Americans are not strongly partisan, and when they hear that the Obama administration was spying on and surveilling their political opponents, many people naturally become suspicious that there has been wrongdoing. In fact, you have to be pretty weird not to be suspicious - or at least, extremely partisan on the left wing. Wookian (talk) 04:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec) "Per the definition of a scandal, if something provokes shock and outrage in the public, then it can be referred to as a scandal. " Nope. if something is referred to as a scandal by reliable sources then we can refer to it as scandal. And if you're not arguing for a name change, what's the point of this besides WP:NOTAFORUM?
 * There's no reason the article can't reflect that many people perceive it as a scandal. The article uses a form of the word "scandal" in three places that I see, always pooh-poohing the notion. However, it seems Americans at large disagree. Here's a poll that shows what I'm talking about, which came out just before the SCI conclusion and Barr's results. So you would expect that the picture has become even more favorable for Trump since then, now that Mueller's SCI report definitively refuted the Democrats' absurd conspiracy theories about Russian collusion. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/18/trust-mueller-investigation-falls-half-americans-say-trump-victim-witch-hunt/3194049002/ Wookian (talk) 04:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but where does this poll say that "many people" believe that Obama wire tapped Trump? For that matter, where does that source even mention Obama? And even if it did, we don't base our articles on cherry picked polls but on reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And I hate to break it to you but "Mueller's SCI report" did NOT "refute" "Democrats absurd conspiracy theories". For one, no one here has seen the report. All we got is Barr's - who was specifically picked by Trump to squash the investigation - "summary of it". And EVEN Barr's summary doesn't say that. More bad news - Trump's approve/disapprove numbers haven't budged at all in the wake of Barr's summary.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "when they hear that the Obama administration was spying on and surveilling their political opponents (...) you have to be pretty weird not to be suspicious - or at least, extremely partisan on the left wing" - nah, you just have to not be a gullible, easily manipulated dunce, since, you know, Obama administration was not actually doing anything like that. Take this Qanon bullshit somewhere else.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Qanon, indeed. I'm not sure what to reply since this doesn't really seem like a serious comment, or else you are deeply confused. I'm unaware of any Qanon nonsense being promoted on this page. Wookian (talk) 04:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This IS Qanon nonsense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Which claim do you question? Choose one and be specific. Wookian (talk) 04:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "Obama administration was spying on and surveilling their political opponents" for starters. But seriously, unless you have some specific policy based proposals for the article itself, this indulgement of WP:SOAPBOX has gone long enough.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this is important. If you are unaware that the Obama administration was spying on their political opponents, you are frighteningly uninformed, and probably shouldn't be editing this article at all. There are actually more than one instances of this that could be cited, however let's go for the following: The Obama administration obtained a FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page, a member of the Trump campaign . This allowed them to perform surveillance on everybody within two hops of Carter Page, i.e. essentially the entire Trump campaign including Trump himself . You can do various things with that - you can say the surveillance was justified because the Trump camp was shifty - you're entitled to that opinion. However, it is a fact that the Obama admin spied on their political opponents. Kindly note the absence of Qanon nonsense in my reply. Wookian (talk) 05:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * - I believe your statement The Obama administration obtained a FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page, a member of the Trump campaign is inaccurate - Page was a not a member the Trump campaign of that point. Your New York Times reference states an October 2016 application to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to wiretap Mr. Page I have a reference here from Politico saying that Page left the Trump campaign in September 2016, and another reference here by The Hill writing that the Trump campaign spokespeople said in September 2016 “Mr. Page is not an advisor and has made no contribution to the campaign” Also, there were FISA warrants on Page in 2013, 2014, before Trump's campaign ever existed. So if Page wasn't a member of the Trump campaign ... how did they spy on the Trump campaign then? starship.paint ~  KO   07:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the fact check. I believe you are mistaken on this, however. Firstly, surveillance in the 21st century is far removed from the days when a government agent would drive down to the phone company, sit at a desk, and listen in realtime to a target's conversations. The NSA vacuums up massive amounts of data and organizes it in a machine controlled, non human overseen fashion. Then, when warrants (in this case FISC orders) permit, they provide tools to query these massive databases to perform surveillance of targets and people connected to the targets. Thus it's not limited to realtime - once they get permission they can start looking back in time. Secondly, the "unverified, salacious" Steele Dossier was used in the Carter Page FISA application, and the (rather wild) allegation in the dossier was that Russia promised to give Carter Page essentially tens of billions of dollars in the form of shares in a Russian energy company if he could convince the Trump campaign and eventually Trump Presidency to drop Russian sanctions. Thus it would be surprising and really wouldn't make any sense if people querying the NSA database chose not to look at the Trump campaign. Wookian (talk) 13:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * - okay, so what you were saying in your comment just before this one, as well as this one, is that the Obama administration could have spied on the Trump campaign. Also in this comment, you argue that the Obama administration essentially should have spied on the Trump campaign, given the information on Page. However, the key question is, did the Obama administration spy on the Trump campaign? And if yes, pertaining to this article, did they implant a spy per the May 2018 allegations? Did they run a counter-intelligence operation since 2015 per the June 2018 allegations? starship.paint ~  KO   14:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Obama's administration made extensive use of the FISA to surveil people connected to Carter Page, and people connected to those people. There is no theorizing necessary. It even extended to surveillance of Donald Trump himself, as admitted by James Clapper. Furthermore, the Obama administration farmed out analysis of the surveillance intel to private contractors. When NSA Director Mike Rogers became aware of this abuse of surveillance power, he notified the FISC and had it shut down immediately . Rep. Devin Nunes reported that the use of the surveillance data was extensive, was focused on US citizens, and had no relevance to Russian collusion investigation. It is weird and unnecessary to extend a strong presumption of innocence to the Obama administration on this. You had obvious political appointees like Samatha Power and Susan Rice involved in surveilling and unmasking political opponents. They claim it was all legit (except, oddly, Samantha Power claims she didn't make the requests made in her name), however why would these individuals be involved in counterintelligence operations? Why not task that work to the CIA instead of to political officials? I am not advancing a personal theory here, I am explaining to you why a great number of people view this surveillance (informally: spying/wiretapping) as a scandal. Wookian (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * - you made a lot of claims here, few were backed by references. But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt - assuming if everything you said is true, you still have key hurdles to clear. 1) If you want Wikipedia to call it a scandal, you shouldn’t need to explain to me that it’s a scandal, instead you simply need to have reliable sources calling it a scandal. 2) Is the surveillance (or scandal) called Spygate? You’ll also need reliable sources for that. If you have both of those you can go ahead and create Spygate (scandal). The thing is that so far you’ve not produced anything concrete against the content of this article, and if so, then nothing about this article should be changed at your request. starship.paint ~  KO   15:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * So, polls show that even more people believe that Donald Trump may be tied up with Russia in some corrupt way. By your standard, we'd have an article on the "Trump-Russia scandal," because that's what lots and lots of people believe. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Wookian, I'm trying to understand how your response answers my question. So you aren't saying that the Federalist source by Margot Cleveland is a reliable source? R2 (bleep) 04:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Cleveland's article clearly contains some opinion ("worst in American history") along with a bunch of verifiable statements of fact. Based on her legal background, she is a credible writer, and the outlet she's publishing in is reasonably mainstream. I would have no problem considering her article a reliable source, albeit everything she says could also be sourced from formal news reporting so it might not be necessary. It's a nice summary though, and she makes her case convincingly. Wookian (talk) 04:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Also worth noting that Cleveland wrote this before the SCI conclusion, and her article has stood the test of time, unlike the left leaning conspiracy theorists who crashed and burned when we learned that there was no Trump campaign collusion with Russia to influence the election. Wookian (talk) 04:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So, considering the precedent you're proposing here, you would also support moving Links between Trump associates and Russian officials to Trump-Russia scandal, based upon this column by Max Boot published in The Washington Post, entitled Let’s not lose sight of the real scandal: Trump was elected with Russia’s help, correct? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Wookian, your arguments are coherent but I don't see much connection (if any) with our community standards. As best as I can tell, you're saying this source is reliable because (a) you find it credible and convincing, (b) it's written by a lawyer, (c) it has "stood the test of time" (not been debunked?), (d) it was published by the Federalist, and (e) it's more reliable than conspiracy theories. Is this correct? If so, what do these things have to do with our our guideline on identifying reliable sources? The disconnect between your arguments and our community standards is probably the source of other editors' complaints that you're just using this talk page as a discussion forum. R2 (bleep) 15:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's my own assessment. Reliability is based primarily on whether the source has been fact-checked by a third party with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In this case, the Federalist has a questionable reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That's been hashed out pretty well here. I'll throw into the mix that the Federalist's editorial staff is led by David Harsanyi and Mollie Hemingway, two columnists with, as best as I can tell, extremely limited newsroom experience. The Federalist is really an opinion mag. Even if you disagree with the consensus on its reputation, however, the evidence suggests that the Federalist didn't fact check the source in the first place. After all they said: "The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity." That's a pretty clear signal that the Federalist isn't standing behind Cleveland's conclusions. If even the Federalist won't do that, then neither can we. R2 (bleep) 17:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The Federalist is a hyper-partisan right-wing website beyond the limits of what we accept here as a RS. I have an essay dealing with such things, and you can check the RS I have used there:


 * Reliable sources, Trump, and his editors here.

It's to the right wing what these sources are to the left wing, and we wouldn't use them here either: Forward Progressives, Bipartisan Report, Occupy Democrats, Daily Kos, AlterNet, Palmer Report, and Patribotics. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info, though I don't think it's fair to expect Wookian to accept your say-so. My point is that regardless of the Federalist's bias, no one has pointed to any reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and no one has pointed to evidence that the Federalist fact-checked Cleveland's article in the first place. R2 (bleep) 18:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand. I got my info from the best non-partisan expert source reliability chart around: Media Bias Chart: Version 4.0. Check out the location of The Federalist. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The chart is fun and it is interesting, but it means very little, for three reasons: First, there is no objective standard for political beliefs, and therefore a person's own beliefs will inevitably shift the way they position things in such a chart. I could make one, and it would look very different from this. Parts of this chart make me laugh. Second, the author of this chart has what I'd characterize as extreme bias to the left. The following tweet demonstrates that in a way that is likely to be meaningful to the (electoral) majority of Americans who chose Trump for president: . Third, just as it's not always fair to rate a human's intellectual strength using a single IQ number, there are actually multiple ways to break down political alignment, including fiscal, social, and religious. Thus plotting onto a single right/left point oversimplifies to the point that the only person who would use such a chart is someone who cares more about what they can do with it, than what it actually means as charted. Wookian (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Can we please focus on improving the article instead of engaging in a broader debate about media bias? As I pointed out, we don't have to identify the Federalist's ideological bent in order to resolve this matter; and besides, sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Wookian, if you don't have a response to my previous comments then I think we're done here? R2 (bleep) 16:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)