Talk:Spygate (conspiracy theory)/Archive 10

Stephen Cohen is not a RS

 * CONTEXT: I just deleted an addition.

Cohen is a very unreliable source and pushes conspiracy theories which are contrary to fact. We do not give any weight to such sources. We only distribute weight among RS. Unreliable ones don't get any mention at all.

He barely admits that Russia interfered in the election, calling it "fictitious": "Did Russia “meddle” in the US election? Yes, but not significantly..." He downplays the attack: "But it isn’t true. No Russian missiles, planes, bombs, paratroopers, submarines, or warships descended on the United States in 2016." He mentions all the weapons of conventional warfare, and ignores that modern MILITARY (the GRU is Russian military) attacks depend largely on cyber warfare. This was a very literal military attack on America, and Trump, by denying it and supporting Putin, is doing what is considered by definition textbook treason. is doing what Russia experts Steven Fish and David Rothkopf describe in depth as "textbook treason."

He goes on to deny that the Russians hacked the DNC, but says it was an inside job:

His claims are counterfactual fringe nonsense. He is totally unreliable. He's pushing Roger Stone's debunked conspiracy theories. The fact is that the "U.S. caught Russian election hackers on its own....seven months before the DNC hired CrowdStrike."


 * BTW, do we even have this information in any of our articles?

Cohen and Stone are conspiracy nuts. We are forbidden to use such sources. We must stick to RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Starship.paint, Soibangla, Ahrtoodeetoo, MrX, do we even have the above information in any of our articles? -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have not seen that information in any other articles. - MrX 🖋 16:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I oppose the inclusion of this source, but not for the reasons expressed by BullRangifer. There's a whole contingent of people who have expressed fringe views that Spygate has some merit; these views merit description in our article. However, the way Shinealittlelight used this source misrepresents Cohen's views, draws from a section of the source that isn't even about Spygate, and gives inappropriate credence to a fringe theory. The most salient point here is that Cohen's article isn't really about Spygate and only mentions Spygate itself in passing. Spygate is about allegations of the FBI spying on the Trump campaign and is not about broader questions of the origin of the Russia investigation, or all of the other nefarious things some people believe the Obama administration might have done. The only part of Cohen's piece that's really about Spygate is the bit where he says that the interactions with Papadopoulos were "akin to entrapment." That is really not central to the piece. It also reflects a common misunderstanding of what entrapment actually is--one that we must not perpetuate. In sum, I don't see any way to use this source in this article. It would fit better in Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation). R2 (bleep) 17:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * BullRangifer appears not to understand how Wikipedia is supposed to work. We don't care what you think, BullRangifer, or what views you think are "nuts". (We shouldn't anyway!) We should only care what experts in RS say. And Cohen is an expert on Russia, who was at NYU/Princeton because of his expertise, and he was writing in an RSN-certified publication The Nation. I'd have thought you'd understand that given these facts, your personal opinion is totally irrelevant.
 * R2, we also don't (I mean shouldn't!) care if you think that Cohen's views are fringe, since he's the expert and you are not the expert. See how that works? Your political opinions don't matter here, except insofar as you can make a general case that NYU/Princeton professors are unreliable, that Cohen is not an expert on Russia, or that RSN is wrong about The Nation being RS. But of course you can't make that case.
 * We should care about the content of the piece, and whether and how it fits into our article. And of course it does. We have here a Russia expert from Princton/NYU writing in RS that Trump is correct to think that US Intel was trying to destroy his campaign and presidency, which is exactly what Spygate alleges. I don't see how you can even pretend that this is irrelevant to the article. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

- that Politico piece is from three days ago. We can't use that to justify excluding a prior piece by Cohen. But, I am very troubled by the Cohen April 2019 piece. It assumes a lot, before the release of the redacted Mueller Report. Then we have a line that who is really shocked that a political campaign might seek “dirt” on its opponent? - which essentially came out of Trump's mouth this month. Note that Federal Election Commission chairwoman Ellen Weintraub reacted: "It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election". Cohen seems to have put many bullets into his credibility here.  starship .paint  (talk) 01:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)  - if Cohen is not credible, he can be considered not RS. Likewise, if his views are WP:FRINGE, then they can be excluded on that point.  starship .paint  (talk) 01:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Most the editors here--and certainly every party to this discussion so far other than me--are obviously on the left. If we approach issues like this, assessing plausibility according to the collective wisdom of a group of almost all left-wing volunteer editors, then any view that isn't left will obviously be excluded as non-credible and fringe. That's what we're seeing here. I don't see why you aren't concerned about this if you care about NPOV. Again, Cohen is an expert on Russia, recognized by NYU, Princeton, and The Nation as qualified to weigh in on these issue, and he is stating that Trump is substantially right. You guys want to exclude him because you find his views implausible. And of course you do. You're on the left, and you're invested in making out Trump as a dolt who does not have any Princeton professors agreeing with him. But I didn't think that's how we were supposed to do things here. I guess that we only apply these rules when we are criticizing right-wing POV pushers. What an embarrassment. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * - This is a statement of fact, not based on left/right views: "It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election" Cohen reacted to the Trump Tower meeting with Russians by stating: who is really shocked that a political campaign might seek “dirt” on its opponent? This isn't about left/right here (are you saying it is?)  starship .paint  (talk) 01:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that at some point of time in the past Cohen's expertise might have been tied to reality, but somewhere along the way he lost his connection to reality and started believing in the false narrative spun by fringe conspiracy theory sources, Putin, Trump, and the GOP. He denies and ignores some pretty basic facts, proving HE is not a RS, even if he's writing in a RS. His ideas might be appropriate in his own biography, as long as that mention did not become a coatrack for promotion of fringe theories. Just state them. Here it becomes misleading and off-topic, as it's about false ideas promoted by pushers of nonsense.
 * We have seen this phenomenon before, where experts lose their way. I recall two Nobel Prize winners. Linus Pauling did this and is therefore not considered a RS about Vitamin C in health matters. (See Orthomolecular medicine.) Also Otto Heinrich Warburg would not be considered a RS on cancer. (See Warburg hypothesis.)
 * There is also a big difference between previously being an expert on Russia and that translating into recent expertise on Russian political espionage and cyber warfare in an American presidential election. Cohen is far too conflicted to have any form of objectivity in this matter. He's politically involved and has taken sides. He's caught up in the world of fringe theories and spouts completely counterfactual nonsense. We do not give such fringe theories any weight here.
 * If a renowned geologist started espousing flood geology, we'd know they are no longer a RS for geology. In their biography we'd document that they believed in such pseudoscientific ideas, but we'd never use them as a RS in a geological article, unless it was a different aspect of geology, one where they still had some credibilty. This is how we should treat Cohen. He has no credibility on the subject of Russian election interference during these elections. He pushes a false narrative. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * When he makes false statements, that's not a left-right thing. That's simply being an unreliable source. At various times in history, the right may be more correct, and at other times the left may be more correct. That's not a left-right thing, but the only way it can be. Neither side chooses the most factual side every time in history. At this time in history, RS are saying that the left tends to be more right about the Russian interference, and the right is pushing a largely false narrative, with Cohen largely denying it. He is at odds with myriad RS, the Mueller Report, and the facts provided by numerous American and foreign intelligence agencies who had no interest in sabotaging Trump's campaign. It is no more their fault that Trump shoots himself in the foot, and they caught him doing it, and that RS document when Trump does it. That's not a left-right thing. That's a fact vs fiction thing. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't even understand your argument. You're saying that because he finds it unsurprising that political campaigns seek dirt on their opponents, therefore... something? I don't get it. To answer your question: yes, I think the issue here is left/right. The left-wing editors will tend to find those they disagree with politically to hold fringe and non-RS views that are to be excluded, and I think that's clearly what is going on in this case. We include every dumb-bunny opinion we can find that mentions Spygate if it's an anti-Trump opinion. (I could spend paragraphs eviscerating Max Boot or Shep Smith if I wanted to, but, unlike you guys, I recognize that my political disagreements with these people are beside the point, so, unlike you guys, I never do that.) So then I find this Princeton expert on Russia who has something pro-Trump to say, and he's thereby discredited in his status as an expert. Like I say: totally embarrassing. Well, here's a question: should the status of The Nation at RSN be challenged? According to Bull, they're publishing a guy who is analogous to a young earth creationist! But no, why discredit them? They're generally left-wing, and this is just one abberation, so you'll want to keep that green check mark for all their pro-Left content which is often useful. Good thing we have BullRangifer and you to tell us when Princeton profs have lost their way! I'd hate to have to rely on the editors at The Nation, or the faculty at Princeton, instead of you volunteer, anonymous editors of Wikipedia. Keep up the good work! Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It may be unsurprising that political campaigns seek dirt on their opponents. But to do so directly from foreign sources is a crime in the United States. Obtaining Russian “dirt” is criminal. It shreds Cohen's credibility when he ignores that. Regarding the sources, we have to be flexible. Even the New York Times hired an opinion writer who was way off base on climate change. The New York Times is undeniably reliable. A specific NYT opinion writer may not be.  starship  .paint  (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You've mentioned Stephens before. We have a deep disagreement about proper method here. You think your opinion (together with the other lefty editors) should be the last word. I think, on a case-by-case basis, we should look to the editors of the NYT rather than our personal views. As a result, I think Stephens should be regarded as RS opinion. Your view is going to clearly result in a hard left bias around here, as it in fact already has. But then I guess that's probably the point, isn't it. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is exactly a case-by-case basis. Wikipedia editors should be the last word. That allows us to evaluate WP:FRINGE sources. His book proudly proclaims a review that he is the most controversial Russia expert in America. That alone should give us pause.  starship  .paint  (talk) 03:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that's what you think. No need to repeat. You are pursuing an approach that will continue to make Wikipedia embarrassingly left-leaning, since obviously if you ask a bunch of left-leaning editors to make case-by-case judgments, they will tend to exclude political perspectives that they disagree with. That's apparently what you want. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You just keep insulting the editor instead of debating the editor's point. O3000 (talk) 10:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * - not really, fringe or lack of credibility applies both to the left and right. If the second most controversial Russia expert in America says without evidence: "Mitt Romney, Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio conspired with Russia" - we wouldn't include it. If an opinion person talks about Bernie Sanders, and gives such an excuse on Sanders' behalf: "Should I be shocked that his campaign accepted political dirt, no matter the source?" We wouldn't include that either. Do you really think we would include such things because they benefit the left?  starship .paint  (talk) 13:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

O3000 has a point. Shinealittlelight, you really need to stop attacking other editors because of their political affiliations. That is a specific type of personal attack that is really unhelpful, and as an ad hominem attack it misses the point. Yes, Clinton did receive the majority of votes. Yes, the left is the majority opinion. Yes, the right is clear minority in American politics. Yes, the largest number of fringe and conspiracy theory political sources are right wing.

We know all that, but here we are discussing fact vs fiction, not arguing based on left vs right political positions, otherwise, your accusations rebound directly back at you as one defending the right-wing position. That's unhelpful for everyone.

When a source is directly counterfactual, not just slightly deviating or making minor quibbles, but completely denying multiple facts and pushing the false narrative found in the most unreliable sources, they are not a RS. That's not a left-right thing; that's a fact vs fiction thing. So please stop the personal attacks against your fellow editors and deal with the point. How can you defend Cohen when he says a number of directly false things? How can you consider him a RS for this subject? I don't get it. His counterfactual views can be mentioned in his biography, but not here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * This is not a question of whether Stephen Cohen is a reliable source or not. That sort of question doesn't even make sense. We don't declare individual people to be reliable sources. The text that was removed was attributed to Stephen Cohen. The views expressed by various individuals can be included in articles, so long as those views are properly attributed (i.e., not stated in Wikipedia's authoritative voice) and have received significant enough attention to merit mention. The text in question was clearly attributed to Stephen Cohen, so it's fine on that count. Stephen Cohen does receive quite a bit of media attention, so it's not unreasonable to mention his views in this article., some of your above comments about Stephen Cohen and Donald Trump violate WP:BLPTALK. Don't accuse people of treason on talk pages. You know better. Strike your comments. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Cohen's comments are so false that they don't have any weight, so should not be included here, but could be cited in his own article.
 * I was citing the sources. Read them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * You believe that his views are false. A lot of people don't believe they're false. He's often described as "controversial," and he's brought on to shows to give his opinion, he writes for a very well known publication, The Nation, and he is, after all, regarded as an expert on Russia. Wikipedia is not censored. The only question is how prominent his views are in the overall public debate, and given how present he is in that debate, I'd say they're pretty prominent. His views should probably be included here, with proper attribution to make it clear that they are his views.
 * Regarding your accusations about Trump and treason, those are an obvious, egregious violation of WP:BLPTALK. It would probably slip by if you wrote that "So and so calls Trump a traitor," but you wrote that in your own voice. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and hoping that you'll strike your comment. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * For some reason providing sources isn't enough for you (but it is for Wikipedia talk pages), so I have reworded it to make it even more explicit that it's not just my opinion, but is in-depth analysis by Russia experts. I suggest you read those RS, as they make good points. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for making that change. The comment narrowly flies under the radar now, in my opinion. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. It is indeed best to avoid any misunderstandings. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * how present he is in that debate, I'd say they're pretty prominent - how present is Cohen? Does WP:FRINGE not apply?  starship .paint  (talk) 02:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:FRINGE deals primarily with scientific theories. Stephen Cohen's "controversial" views are essentially political disagreements about the significance of the things Russia is alleged to have done in the 2016 Presidential election. Cohen's political views are out of line with the mainstream that one might see on MSNBC or read in the opinion pages of the New York Times or Washington Post. They are, however, the political views of a very prominent minority in the United States. WP:WEIGHT says that "[i]f a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents." In this case, prominent adherents to the same general thesis that Stephen Cohen propounds include Noam Chomsky, John Mearsheimer, Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi. In other words, it's a significant minority viewpoint which should be given some weight in Russiagate-related articles.
 * I said that Stephen Cohen himself is present in the general debate over Russiagate. What I mean by that is that he writes regularly on the subject for a major publication, The Nation, that he's brought onto news channels to discuss the subject (CNN and Fox have both had him on multiple times, and he's also been a frequent guest on more left-wing outlets, like Democracy Now and The Real News), and that there are a fair number of articles written about him and his views (e.g., The Irish Times, Slate, Forbes). He's also, of course, a well regarded professor at Princeton, in a closely related field (the history of the Soviet Union and Soviet-American relations). He gave a talk there recently on his book about Russiagate . He has also appeared in various prominent debate fora on the subject (e.g., at Columbia and Intelligence Squared).
 * The best wrap-up I can give of all this is that his views are in the minority, but by no means "fringe," and that he both writes for a prominent publication and appears in major media to give his views. If there are people as well known and respected as Noam Chomsky and John Mearsheimer who hold the same views, then they're weighty enough to receive some mention. There are a whole number of such "Russiagate skeptics," and their views deserve weight approximately matching their prominence in the public discourse. That's not a majority of the weight, but it's also not zero weight. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This article isn't the right article for his views. Russiagate isn't the same as Spygate, but a much larger, and alternative, narrative. We have the standard narrative that Russia hacked and interfered in the election to undermine American democracy, harm Clinton's chances, and help Trump. Then there is the alternative narrative, and Cohen defends it by denying that the Russians did anything serious, but that it was an inside job, that Putin is innocent, that the FBI acted for political purposes, etc. The article about that alternative narrative has yet to be written. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * He claims that the best explanation we currently have of the origins of charges of collusion (etc.) is that US intelligence had improper operations running against Trump. This is exactly what Trump has claimed in Spygate, and this is the subject of this article. So his view on this is highly relevant to this article. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Which is a big reason why he's not a RS. He is denying the massive evidence that there were myriad good reasons why the Trump campaign had to be investigated, and why it was not done for political purposes. The Russians engaged in "sweeping and systematic" election interference. Denial of such facts makes him a totally unreliable source. He has been accused of acting as "Putin's American apologist". I tend to agree. He's on the same side as Trump, Putin, Hannity, Limbaugh, Bongino, and Alex Jones (none of whom are RS for facts) and pushes their counterfactual "alternative narrative". He is thus against the conclusions of foreign and American intelligence agencies and RS, and we base our content on those RS, not on those pushing that alternative narrative for political purposes. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, so you're backing off the claim that his views are irrelevant to this article, but you're still claiming that his views should be excluded because He's on the same side as Trump. Got it. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Huh? Are you being facetious? Not backing off. He's both unusable (because he's unreliable) and off-topic for this article.
 * Stating that he pushes the same counterfactual narrative as Trump is just a statement of fact, and certainly not a stand-alone reason to not use him. On this subject he's just as unreliable for statements of fact as Trump ("The president is possibly the single most unreliable source for any claim of fact ever to grace the pages of WP." -- MPants 04:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)), and of course we don't use unreliable sources for statements of fact. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Not being facetious, just trying to understand. This article is about Trump's theory that US Intel misbehaved toward him. Cohen tends to agree that this theory is plausible, and says so. Your view is that his statement to this effect is off topic. You add that he is not reliable because he agrees with Trump's view, which you regard as false. Got it. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks to me like someone with a long term, close relationship with the Russian gov’t says it’s plausible that this conspiracy theory is not a conspiracy theory, but that this was the FBI actively attempting to illegally sway an election, and that the leak of Clinton emails was an inside job by the DNC (another conspiracy theory) contrary to the evidence, based on – what? Yes, we know he is expert in Russia, having been personal friends with Russian leaders. But, what expertise does he have on the inner working of the FBI? What expertise does he have on the DNC? If he has inside info on the Trump campaign, where did he get it? I don’t see how this is RS for this article, and it certainly appears to fit FRINGE. O3000 (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The title of the article you linked is not "Putin's American apologist." It is, "Is This Professor 'Putin's American Apologist'?" There's a difference, and it's not cool to change the title in that way. The article does not call him an "apologist." It goes over both the criticism of Stephen Cohen and the support for him within the academy. "He's on the same side as Trump, Putin, Hannity, Limbaugh, Bongino, and Alex Jones": That is not an accurate depiction of Stephen Cohen's views at all. We're talking about a respected academic expert on Soviet history and Russian-American relations here. I don't think you're even putting Stephen Cohen on the correct side of the political spectrum. Comparing him to Alex Jones just seems like a random smear tactic pulled out of nowhere.

What "close relationship with the Russian gov't" are you talking about? The article that BullRangifer linked to actually describes Stephen Cohen as critical of the current Russian government. He's a critic both the Russian government and the American government's approach to Russia. "I don’t see how this is RS for this article, and it certainly appears to fit FRINGE." I addressed the WP:FRINGE argument above. There is a difference between minority viewpoints and fringe theories. A minority viewpoint will have easily identifiable, prominent proponents. This minority viewpoint does have such proponents: Noam Chomsky, John Mearsheimer, Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi. Declaring all those people "fringe" is a bit implausible, don't you think? -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I don’t know. You listed a bunch of names but didn’t tell me how they all believe the FBI conspired to sway an election or the DNC leaks were an inside job contrary to available evidence, or whatever these conspiracy theories are about. And, nearly all Russians for centuries have been critical of some versions of the Russian gov’t. Few vacation with Russian leaders. Since there is no evidence behind his pronouncements, and he is not an expert on the FBI or DNC organizations about which he appears to be suggesting conspiratorial accusations; sounds like FRINGE to me as well as non-RS. Let us just stick to reliable, secondary sources. O3000 (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * "You listed a bunch of names but didn’t tell me how they all believe the FBI conspired to sway an election or the DNC leaks were an inside job contrary to available evidence": You're not accurately representing the views of Stephen Cohen. From what I've read, his position is that insufficient evidence has been provided to show that WikiLeaks obtained the DNC emails from Russia, and that although Russia probably did "interfere" in the US Presidential election, that "interference" was insignificant, and pretty typical of how Russia and the US normally "interfere" in one another's elections.
 * "Since there is no evidence behind his pronouncements, and he is not an expert on the FBI or DNC organizations about which he appears to be suggesting conspiratorial accusations; sounds like FRINGE to me as well as non-RS." He's an expert on Russia and Russian-American relations. You're not using the terms "FRINGE" and "RS" correctly here. Individual writers are not "RS," and opinion pieces are rarely reliable. WP:RS does not rule out mentioning notable opinions, as long as they are attributed. WP:FRINGE deals primarily with scientific theories, not with political opinions. WP:WEIGHT lays out a rule of thumb for when a viewpoint is significant enough for inclusion: namely, when that viewpoint is held by several prominent people. In this case, there are clearly several prominent "Russiagate skeptics," including those I named above. Their viewpoint is a significant minority viewpoint, not a "fringe" viewpoint.
 * "And, nearly all Russians for centuries have been critical of some versions of the Russian gov’t": Stephen Cohen isn't Russian. He's a very well known American academic who specializes on Soviet history and Russian-American relations. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know who he is. And who he isn't. He isn't an expert on the FBI or the DNC, and he doesn't appear to have any evidence supporting this conspiracy theory, or the conspiracy theory about an inside job in the DNC. I don't see how his opinions are relevant. O3000 (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Cohen is an expert on the Cold War and on America-Russia relations and politics. The suggestion that he isn't a relevant expert is therefore obviously false. And he does argue for his view. Nobody here should care whether his argument convinces O3K; that's not how we decide what to include. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * But he's making false claims without evidence. He's repeating the same conspiracy theories pushed by the most fringe conspiracy theory nuts and websites, none of which are allowed as sources here. His is not an opinion among several possibly true opinions. His is totally false. Therefore, on this matter, he is totally unreliable. On other matters related to Russian history and politics he might be fine, but not about this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 13:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Cohen is an expert on these matters, he's writing in an RS publication, and he argues for his view, so he does provide some evidence (i.e., an argument). Nobody here should care whether his argument convinces BullRangifer; that's not how we decide what to include. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * which supposes WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but that's not the point: WP:CONSENSUS, WP:FRIND (prefer independent sources to fringe partisan sources). — Paleo  Neonate  – 17:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It sure seemed like their point, since they were both nonresponsive to Thucydides411's arguments, and instead opted to argue that Cohen's views should be excluded because (they thought) his views are totally false and he doesn't appear to have any evidence. In fact, we don't (shouldn't) care about an anonymous volunteer Wikipedia editor's opinions as to the falsity of Cohen's views. In fact, Cohen did give evidence (i.e., an argument) for his view. And, finally, in fact, he isn't fringe. He's published these views in the Nation, he is a prof at Princeton and NYU where he is a published expert on these topics, he appears on television to share his perspective, and he shares views with a number of other experts on this topic, as has repeatedly pointed out. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Shinealittlelight, dare I say we are misinterpreting the usage of "fringe"? Perhaps someone can direct me to a more clear definition of the term. I would hazard a guess that the majority of editors on Wikipedia are "left-leaning" for lack of a better word; perhaps, on this site, not being similarly "left-leaning" is sufficient to qualify as a "fringe conspiracy theory nut"? Does every source supporting an opinion unpopular with editors fall under WP:FRINGE? Put differently: If an otherwise qualified source says something is true, but the editors are adamant this something is false, is it the responsibility of editors to deprecate the source, or is it the responsibility of editors to change their attitude? FFT — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 20:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This claim that anyone who disagrees with me is a leftist is tired. Debate the subject instead of trying to classify editors. O3000 (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This claim that anyone who disagrees with me is a "fringe conspiracy theory nut" is equally tired. "Classify editors" indeed. Only one brand of source is being actively resisted: conservative sources. User:BullRangifer said he would deprecate Fox News for articles about US politics if he were able. Fox News is the only mainstream conservative news organization (and therefore "RS") in the US, despite conservatives comprising 50% of the American population. What does that say about Wikipedia's approach to the truth, and its relationship to the media? It's unhealthy, I'd say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 21:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * So, I guess you'll keep arguing in this manner. It never sways consensus. O3000 (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Which proves my point. There is a prevailing attitude on Wikipedia which no amount of reasoning is sufficient to penetrate. The result is Wikipedia becoming an unreliable site for anything remotely involved with politics. Conservative users cannot trust the site because the only sources the site trusts are openly leftist, and because any attempt to include the inverse is met with open hostility. This "prevailing attitude" is distinct from "true consensus" when half of the argument has been "deprecated" before it has even been made. Any source can be "deprecated" when the "prevailing attitude" masquerades as "consensus". Do you follow? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 21:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I follow what you say. Having been here a while, I know it to be grossly exaggerated to totally false. I have seen consensus reached innumerable times on highly political topics between folk with differing personal viewpoints. What I have not seen is your attitude and attacks on fellow editors helping to reach those consensuses. (Yikes, I hate how that word is spelled.) O3000 (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I've addressed the claim that Stephen Cohen's views are fringe. He's in the minority in the American media, but it's a prominent minority, with adherents such as Noam Chomsky, John Mearsheimer, Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi. It is by no means fringe, in other words. If WP:IDONTLIKEIT is being invoked anywhere here, it is in the posts that argue that Stephen Cohen is wrong and therefore fringe, and which rather implausibly try to link him to Alex Jones and the like.

I would be careful about trying to sort people into "left" and "right" bins so easily. Stephen Cohen's political views are quite likely to the left of those of most of his critics. I don't think anyone would call Noam Chomsky "right-wing" or compare him to Alex Jones, but Chomsky has espoused similar views about Russiagate as Stephen Cohen has. I am worried, however, that perceptions of what "side" Cohen falls on are being used as a criterion for whether or not to mention his views. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know or care what side of what spectrum he's on. I simply don't see him as expert in the areas about which he has been theorizing, and therefore not RS. O3000 (talk) 22:02, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The question is why the dissenting editors see him as a non-expert. The answer seems to be: they disagree with his views. But that's not a legit reason. Rather, they'd have to argue, absurdly, that The Nation is not RS, that NYU/Princeton aren't serious places, or that his field is irrelevant to the topic. But all of these things are manifestly false. They could try to argue that he holds a fringe view, but as Thucydides411 has repeatedly shown that's not true. So all they have is their own political opinion that Cohen wrong. And we don't (shouldn't) care about that, it's not a legitimate reason to exclude his view. Note that as Thucydides411 says, Cohen is totally hard left, and so is The Nation. This tends to increase his credibility given the context. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I gave none of those reasons. I most certainly do not accept his position on a political spectrum as a valid reason any more than some are arguing that editors on perceived positions of a spectrum are reasons for determining RS and wish people would stop repeating this nonsense as it is not how Wikipedia works. I clearly stated my reasons, which have nothing to do with any spectra, and will not keep repeating them as that would add to the bludgeoning of the process. O3000 (talk) 22:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well let's just look at what O3K said and folks can decide for themselves if I've mischaracterized. He said that Cohen was suggesting conspiratorial accusations; sounds like FRINGE to me as well as non-RS. That is: O3K is of the opinion that Cohen's view is egregiously out of step with the evidence, and, on this basis, together with O3Ks judgment that this Russian expert from Princeton/NYU is not an expert, he concludes that the content should be excluded. I agree that there's no need for him to repeat himself. We all have to decide if we think this is an appropriate reason to exclude the opinion of this Princeton/NYU Professor who specializes in Russian history and politics and who has published his view, which accords with that of several other respected intellectuals, in an RSN-certified source. My own take is that this is obviously not an appropriate basis. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

And sources from a centrist paper calling it conspiracy theory:    — Paleo  Neonate  – 17:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * A few points on the links, if I may: NYT is more centrish than centrist, I would say center-left is more accurate; the last article of the four is the only one that is actually about Spygate, instead of merely mentioning it offhand, and so is the only one with any real weight; and finally, one of the "sources" is just a "quote of the day" which isn't what I think of when I think of an encyclopedic source. I actually think there are much stronger sources out there which better advance that point, and I don't find the volume approach here to be especially convincing. Now, we have already (exhaustively) established that our article can call Spygate a conspiracy theory. I was there and loved every second of it. But have we established that Stephen Cohen's "Intelgate", or he, or any of his other writing can be called a conspiracy theory? To my knowledge, there are no sources that can attest to that, and for this I believe O3K has jumped the gun in dismissing Cohen as FRINGE. Stephen Cohen may not be an expert in US politics or current events to the degree that he is in Russian politics and history, but I am certain he is scholastically familiar with the mechanisms of state-driven corruption. Regardless, The Nation is currently a "generally reliable" RS, and it has seen fit to publish Cohen's assessment/reporting; therefore, if we are to be consistent, barring any compelling reason for exception, that alone should be sufficient for everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 21:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Cohen is an established expert on US-Russia relations. He didn't endorse NYT's version of spygate--the view that there was a paid spy who was a member of the campaign for political reasons. His views aren't fringe because he's a mainstream expert from Princeton/NYU publishing in a recognized RS asserting a view that is shared by him and several other respected experts. The NYT articles cited do not bear on the issue we're addressing in this thread. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. I haven't read the full NYT articles (unable to afford a subscription to the paper) but if they reference something else entirely then you're completely right. However, I contend that Spygate (as characterized by Trump) is an abuse of power scandal as opposed to an international matter like Russiagate was alleged to be--and on which Cohen would indisputably be considered an expert. An insider or spokesperson from the FBI/DOJ, or a scholar who has studied the history of corruption in the US government, for example, would be more precisely qualified as an expert on the Spygate claims, in my estimation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 01:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * He's an expert on the cold war, so he knows about US intelligence. He published a book on the very topic at hand. His expertise is not disputable. Trump never defined 'spygate'; that's why RS use it in about a dozen different ways. We've chosen to cherry-pick the NYT definition. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Above there was mention of "Russiagate skeptics" like Cohen, and how Russiagate is not the same as Spygate. They are actually opposites.

Russiagate is "...the Russiagate allegation of a Kremlin “attack” on the United States." (From book review of Cohen's book.) Cohen, Trump, and some others are skeptics of this allegation. To them, it is not a fact that Russia interfered in the election. They claim it's a false allegation made by American and many foreign intelligence agencies. They only believe Russian intelligence and Putin, IOW they believe the guilty parties.

Spygate, no matter how it's defined, is the opposite, a purportedly illegitimate investigation/response to the purported Russiagate=Russian interference. (This article deals with Trump's conspiracy theory about a very small aspect of that investigation.) Trump and Co. allege that the intelligence community illegally surveilled and spied on the Trump campaign. Well, they did it because they believe the Russian interference actually happened, is still happening, will happen in 2020, and Trump has confirmed this by saying he would probably accept offered interference and not report it to the FBI.

Russiagate is, therefore, off-topic for this article. Russiagate is the subject of our articles dealing with the 2016 Russian interference. They should be combined into one Russiagate article. A conspiracy theory article called Russiagate conspiracy theory would document the views of the skeptics, what others consider a cover-up. If RS ever document that only the Russians were correct, then that article would be retitled. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

2019 poll
The article contains a poll taken in 2018 showing 33% believe Trump's spying claims. A more recent poll from this year says 38% of American voters now believe Trump’s presidential campaign was spied on during the 2016 election. Can a user add this relevant information to the article? Circulair (talk) 22:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed the poll as one poll seems WP:UNDUE. O3000 (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory?
Per the discussion at Reliable sources/Noticeboard:


 * "There's a distinction in connotation between the highly negative term conspiracy theory and less negative phrases (such as allegations of conspiracy). Since the conspiracy theory label is an exceptional claim, we would need multiple high-quality reliable sources that use the exact term conspiracy theory to support its use in any Wikipedia article."

and


 * "We all have biases, conscious and unconscious. Some of us are, for what we consider good reasons, Rooting For Team Blue or Rooting For Team Red in the ongoing dumpster fire that is US politics.
 * If you look inside yourself and see that you are indeed Rooting For Team Red or Blue, you are likely to have an unconscious bias causing you to not recognize conspiracy theories that attack the other team and to be especially sensitive to conspiracy theories that attack your team.
 * You may even have convinced yourself that only the other team has a problem with conspiracy theories or fake news. Please make you best effort to avoid any hint of unconscious bias."

and


 * "Since it was uncontroversial that Trump's Spygate theory alleges a conspiracy, it was deemed a conspiracy theory. But of course when we turn to an article where it goes for red and against blue to use 'conspiracy theory', we suddenly get real strict about what it means, and it can only refer to things like alien abductions and black helicopters and so on. So yeah, let's be less partisan in our use of the term, I agree."

So, do multiple high-quality reliable sources use the exact term conspiracy theory to refer to spygate? Or is it really true that every allegation of a conspiracy is automatically a conspiracy theory? Or is this only a rule for one side of the ongoing Team Blue / Team Red bare-knuckle brawl? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My take is a "Conspiracy theory" is one that is a theoretical conspiracy for which there is zero evidence. But from a wiki perspective, if RS call it a Conspiracy theory, if RS do not neither can we.Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like there are enough sources to me. It's, of course, always going to be politicized when it is being applied in a political context as in this article, but the term conspiracy theory itself is politically neutral. There are conspiracy theories that have been argued by Team Blue and conspiracy theories argued by Team Red. I am not convinced by the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS nature of the argument that somehow Wikipedia glad-handles conspiracy theories when they are promoted by Team Blue. jps (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We have three good sources calling it conspiracy theory in the article, I added two more. In addition it is objectively a conspiracy theory. Why shouldn't we label it as such? --mfb (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If indeed multiple high-quality reliable sources use the exact term "conspiracy theory" we should use the term. Your "In addition it is objectively a conspiracy theory. Why shouldn't we label it as such?" argument substitutes your personal opinion for what is in the sources, and thus is not a valid argument for inclusion. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of major news reports that covered this did not use the conspiracy theory framing. You can see in the archive that I had previously listed fourteen news reports from just about every major news organization did not frame it that way. Meanwhile, we had LA Times and Haaretz (setting aside opinion pieces) that framed it using "conspiracy theory". I see that there is now an additional (August 2019) report from NBC News which calls it a conspiracy theory. Nevertheless, the dominant framing--by my count 14 to 3--is not the "conspiracy theory" angle, but rather frames the story as: Trump made unsubstantiated claims in order to discredit the Mueller report. Because that's how nearly every major news organization broke the story, that's how we should frame it, with a note that some outlets and opinion columns have characterized it as a "conspiracy theory". Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:SOURCECOUNTING is not how we edit articles. If it is reliably sourced as a conspiracy theory, that's what Wikipedia calls it. I see no source which discounts this categorization. So, WP:ASSERT comes into play as well. jps (talk) 01:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing that we should not mention that several sources call it a conspiracy theory. I'm arguing that we should state the facts along the lines of the way that nearly every major news organization stated the facts, and note that some sources also called it a conspiracy theory. That's accurate, and reflects the actual sources that we have. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Are there reliable sources that clearly contest that it's a conspiracy theory? — Paleo  Neonate  – 04:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Not a good metric. There are zero reliable sources that clearly contest that Ryan Reynolds is the pope in disguise. If there were, that would be an indication that at least some people believe that he is, thus (very slightly) strengthening the claims. To state something as a fact in Wikipedia's voice requires multiple high-quality sources that say it. I am not commenting on whether there are or are not multiple multiple high-quality sources that say it, just pointing out that that is the standard. "Nobody contesting it" is not the standard for putting something in Wikipedia's voice as if it was an established fact. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with this. My suggestion is a matter of weight. The conspiracy theory angle has some representation, but far less than the framing which states that these were unsubstantiated claims meant to discredit the Mueller Investigation. My fundamental claim is that an accurate description of the available sourcing is something like: "Trump put forward these unsubstantiated claims in order to discredit the Mueller investigation, and some news and opinion outlets called his theory a conspiracy theory". That would accurately reflect the weight on these angles in the available sources. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Your example would work if we didn't have any sources calling it a conspiracy theory. There are no sources that call Ryan Reynolds the pope so asking for sources that don't is equally absurd. jps (talk) 11:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Not every new source calls the sea wet. I have also looked at many sources and they all call it a conspiracy theory, just not in every article on the subject.Slatersteven (talk) 07:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * THIS. jps (talk) 11:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Mfb: thanks for looking for sources. Also reposting here some I have previously linked (we're running in circles):     — Paleo  Neonate  – 21:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Are we back to this again? The sources that were given that did not call the sea wet (use the exact term conspiracy theory) were nearly all poor or off-topic. O3000 (talk) 10:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope, they were straightforward news reports from places like the AP and other major news organizations. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I will repeat what I said the last time you drug out this horse carcass: You continue to claim that the majority of RS don't call this a conspiracy theory. Yet, you reject many of what we consider RS, and you demand they have the exact two words in order: "conspiracy theory", ignoring those that use words like conspirators or conspiracy. Your claim that a theory about a conspiracy is not the same as a conspiracy theory is simply odd. This is a theory and it is about a conspiracy with no evidence. It is a conspiracy theory. O3000 (talk) 11:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There it is . The old consensus was just this: that a conspiracy theory is just a theory about a conspiracy. Obviously absurd to my way of thinking, but here it is. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You missed out "without evidence".Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * To be clear, Slatersteven, the question is whether a piece like this can be cited as support for the claim that Spygate is a conspiracy theory. O3K thinks it can. I deny that it can. You're saying that it can? If so, it looks like pieces like this support the claim that charges of conspiracy with Russia were a conspiracy theory. After all, the first line in the NPR story is Special counsel Robert Mueller did not find evidence that President Trump's campaign conspired with Russia to influence the 2016 election. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This was decided in an RfC. You rejected the consensus and started another long discussion, which ended in the same consensus. And now you are starting the same discussion yet again. O3000 (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, that isn't what happened, and please direct any relevant commentary you have about me to AN/I. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ANI?? Are you saying I can't respond to you on an article TP? O3000 (talk) 13:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a place to talk content, and not to talk about me. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I am talking about the talk page discussion. It is perfectly acceptable to bring up WP:STICK. O3000 (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want to argue that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I encourage you to make your case using the NPR source at the relevant article. We are here to discuss wording and sources about Spygate. jps (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments can be valid per the policy, and this matter was brought up precisely to ask whether we're being even handed in our use of 'conspiracy theory', so my point stands. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

If you can't make your point without using tu quoque, I think you've done a bad job of making your point. YMMV. jps (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The APCnews source does not say it is a conspiracy theory, and thus I would say no it cannot be used to support the claim. This [] does. I was not aware this was all just about the use of one source.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not all about the use of one source; the AP story was just one example. The previous consensus, as O3K stated it above, was that conspiracy theories are by definition just (unsubstantiated) allegations of conspiracy, and that sources like the AP source (there are lots of these, this is one example) can therefore be used to support the statement that Spygate is a conspiracy theory. If you are saying that you agree that we cannot use the AP source for the claim that Spygate is a conspiracy theory, but have to rely on sources that explicitly use 'conspiracy theory', then you're apparently departing from the previous consensus. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As was just pointed out to you, that is not my claim. Unsubstantiated and "with no evidence" are not close to synonymous. A theory can be unsubstantiated but still have loads of evidence. No evidence means it was a total invention, i.e. conspiracy theory. In any case, life is too short to repeat discussions. O3000 (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, allegations of conspiracy for which there are no evidence are conspiracy theories, unless we're talking about that NPR piece. Exactly my point. If Slatersteven requires that the actual words 'conspiracy theory' are used in the source, he's disagreeing with you, since you don't think that. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Déjà vu. O3000 (talk) 16:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, not the exact words, similar or related terms would be acceptable. wp:v merely requites that any reasonable person reading a source would say "yep that says that". Now I am not sure the APCnews source is that clear cut, it says "no evidence has been produced", which is not the same as saying there is no evidence. But (as I have said) We have sources explicitly saying it, so we can leave this source alone.Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The No. 1 reason Trump’s ‘spygate’ conspiracy theory doesn’t make sense (WaPo). one such conspiracy theory, loosely called Spygate (NBC) Even Conservatives Are Realizing Trump’s ‘Spygate’ Conspiracy Is a Hoax (Rolling Stone). Trump’s nonsensical ‘Spygate’ conspiracy theory ends with a whimper (MSNBC). Republicans distance themselves from Trump’s ‘Spygate’ conspiracy theory. How many is "multiple"? Guy (help!) 17:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That seems like "multiple" to me. (To be clear, I only objected to the "any theory about a conspiracy is by definition a conspiracy theory" argument while accepting the "say what the sources say" argument.)


 * Merriam-Webster definition of conspiracy theory:


 * "A theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators"


 * Oxford English Dictionary definition of conspiracy theory:


 * "The theory that an event or phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties; spec. a belief that some covert but influential agency (typically political in motivation and oppressive in intent) is responsible for an unexplained event."


 * Wictionary definition of conspiracy theory:


 * 1. A hypothesis alleging that the members of a coordinated group are, and/or were, secretly working together to commit illegal or wrongful actions including attempting to hide the existence of the group and its activities. In notable cases the hypothesis contradicts the mainstream explanation for historical or current events.


 * 2. (dismissive, derogatory) Hypothetical speculation that is commonly considered untrue or outlandish."


 * Wictionary Usage notes:


 * "The phrase conspiracy theory is sometimes used in an attempt to imply that hypothetical speculation is not worthy of serious consideration, usually with phrasing indicative of dismissal (e.g., "just a conspiracy theory"). However, any particular instance of use is not necessarily pejorative. Some consider it inappropriate to use the phrase "conspiracy theory" in an attempt to dismissively discredit hypothetical speculation in any form."


 * Wikipedia Conspiracy theory article:


 * A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful actors, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable. Conspiracy theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it, are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth, and the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than proof.


 * Research suggests, on a psychological level, conspiracist ideation—belief in conspiracy theories—can be harmful or pathological, and is highly correlated with psychological projection, as well as with paranoia, which is predicted by the degree of a person's Machiavellianism. Conspiracy theories once limited to fringe audiences have become commonplace in mass media, emerging as a cultural phenomenon of the late 20th and early 21st centuries."


 * --Guy Macon (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Y'all are gonna do what you're gonna do. But there's a permanent record of this stuff, and there's an actual U.S. attorney now who's opened a full criminal investigation of this so-called "conspiracy theory", so don't think you're not hosing Wikipedia's credibility.

For balance, one from Vox: And one from Fox:

--HenryV1415 (talk) 00:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That Vox source explicitly refers to it as a "conspiracy theory." So we're good to go here. Thanks for finding that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , the AG is pushing a US attorney to investigate a conspiracy theory as if it was real, yes. That is a thing that is happening. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, as I said, you're gonna do what you're gonna do. Just don't think you're helping Wikipedia's reputation as an unbiased source. It's an increasingly blatant illegal Super PAC, and watching it defend itself from the coming litigation is going to be hilarious. Good luck raising money! --HenryV1415 (talk) 01:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , your concern trolling is duly noted. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

No, you have it wrong, buddy. I find Wikipedia highly valuable. It's worth taking action to wrest it from the sort of people who are turning it into Pravda. Which you are more guilty of than most. But then, you're probably one of those guys who thinks al Baghdadi is an "austere religious leader".

--HenryV1415 (talk) 04:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

IG Report
I think that a report in the NYT from anonymous sources who were briefed on a draft of the report is undue and of no encyclopedic value. We should wait two weeks for the report to be released before including something about this. We should then be able to incorporate the material better and provide more context. As it stands, we have an absurd one sentence section and a mention in the lead? That's clearly not the best way to do this. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * We've discussed this before and no one has come to your defense in the matter. The previous NYT story was published above the fold on front page. The NYT has reported this in its voice, regardless of citing unnamed sources. I created a subsection to accommodate your comment, and it can serve as a stub until the full report is released. soibangla (talk) 04:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As I see it, you reintroduced the material against consensus. We will see what others have to say. Perhaps consensus will agree with you. It isn't yet clear. Shinealittlelight (talk) 04:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Soibangla, why would you put a report based on anonymous sources in the introduction to an article like this when you could just wait until the report comes out? LOL, the National Enquirer just called, and they want their spin-tactics back.  AppliedCharisma (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * By the way, should we be using the New York Times as a source? Remember, last year it was revealed that one of their reporters was sleeping with a source in Washington DC in exchange for classified information (the poor mark was convicted of perjury over it).  Should we be using a source that engages in such ethical lapses?  AppliedCharisma (talk) 19:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the poor judgment of a few individuals over the course of many years, which is to be expected in any line of work one can name, the NYT remains one of the most reliable sources on the planet. soibangla (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

RfC about requested name change at Trump–Russia dossier
Please participate:


 * Talk:Trump–Russia dossier

BullRangifer (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

IG report released
The IG report, released today, confirms that confidential human sources were used to record conversations with Carter Page and Papadopolous. So, it appears that the title of this article needs to be changed. It is no longer a conspiracy theory (it never was, actually). The FBI really did spy on the Trump campaign. 173.66.156.205 (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The IG report confirms that the investigation was not politically-directed or politically-motivated, and that the agents conducting the investigation were not politically biased against Trump. The IG report, in fact, confirms that this was a conspiracy theory. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Spying, even if as part of a legitimate investigation, is still spying. We need to update the article to include that. Our government spies all the time, and is legally allowed to do so. Spying just describes the tactics. Which were clearly used against the Trump campaign per the IG Report. Barr and Durham have also intimated more is coming. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The IG did not characterize FBI activities as "spying." soibangla (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * A rose by any other name and all that. Using confidential human sources and wiretaps are commonly used tactics falling under the umbrella of "spying." To "spy" is to "observe someone furtively." I think that's a pretty accurate description of confidential human sources and wiretaps, and so does Bill Barr. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The Trump campaign was “clearly spied upon,” is the quote from Bill Barr today on MSNBC. The AG at the moment knows more than anyone else about what’s happened, as the boss of both Horowitz and Durham, as he is likely privy to their completed and ongoing, respectively, investigations. Note that Durham has a wider scope than Horowitz. I think we need to report what he says. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Whether he knows more than anyone else is one question (maybe maybe not). Whether he's telling the truth is another. And no way we're using Foxnews for THIS particular piece of info.  Volunteer Marek   `
 * For at least the hundredth time, Fox News is a reliable source (It's been debated countless times at WP:RSN) We do not exclude Fox News just because you personally do not like what they have to say.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don’t follow you there - that was from MSNBC. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, you can include what Barr said. You just can't assert it as fact. And others can include that the IG didn't characterize it as spying. I'm sure you've heard the many, many characterizations of Barr as acting as Trump's attorney. soibangla (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Congressman Devin Nunes just said that the FBI was "spying" on the Trump campaign. When a Member of Congress, who is a subject matter expert on government affairs, makes a statement like that, then it is arguably no longer a "conspiracy theory."  In order for this article to comply with WP:NPOV, the title needs to be changed, because right now it's taking a side in the debate. 155.19.91.37 (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Nunes is about as unreliable a source as there can be. He has violated a number of rules and been working for Trump, rather than doing his duty. He has also just been busted for supposedly "investigating" a scheme in which he was secretly a participant, IOW taking part in a scheme and trying to cover-up/hide his involvement in that scheme. He's screwed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That’s not true Bull and you know it! Nunes was never in Vienna and never met Shokin. Nunes memo was corroborated by the IG report. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Mr Ernie, that's the second or third time you have failed to AGF. Please stop it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If you're accusing Nunes of being an unreliable source, violating rules, and scheming, then those are BLP violations and I will call them out. He's not screwed - far from it. Amazing to see Schiff connecting Congressmembers phone numbers and releasing them for no apparent reason. In the past this type of thing used to outrage liberals. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Look, this is a difference of opinion based on the sources we read and believe, and my objection is when you write "That’s not true Bull and you know it! " (Underlining added.) No, I don't "know" that, so AGF and don't make such an accusation. You know better than to do that. Focus on content, not the editor.
 * "The allegation comes from Lev Parnas, a business associate of Giuliani’s. ...Parnas has produced thousands of pages of documents and even video about his work with Giuliani in Ukraine. We don’t know what, if anything, these documents say about Nunes.
 * "CNN first reported Friday night that Parnas would be willing to testify that Nunes traveled to Vienna last year to meet with former Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Shokin. CNN looked at congressional travel records and noted that Nunes traveled to Europe around that time on a taxpayer-funded trip."
 * We'll have to wait to see the outcome. Nunes is suing CNN, which will be futile, as libel cannot be proven. They were just reporting what Parnas said. It is Parnas he should be suing, and Parnas is supposedly on "his team" with Giuliani and Trump. Odd situation. It would have helped a lot if Nunes hadn't refused to answer direct questions on Fox News and other sources when he was asked if he had met Shokin. By refusing, he increased suspicions that Parnas was telling the truth. You're welcome to dispute the alleged events, but don't insinuate I'm lying, because that's what you did. You know better.
 * As far as Nunes being an unreliable source and violating rules, that goes back to his actions when he secretly made that "peculiar midnight run" to the White House in March 2017. There was so much wrong about that, and there is abundant coverage of that. He proved that he wasn't doing his job, but serving Trump's partisan interests, and ever since then that's what he's been doing. One is not allowed to share evidence in a case with the suspect or secretly work for them. He was supposed to stay neutral and do his job. His partisanship has placed a cloud of suspicion over his head ever since then, and his Nunes memo was just a partisan hit job. Again, you're welcome to dispute my views on that, but don't impugn my honesty. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Nunes has stated multiple times on Fox and Levin radio show, that I’m aware of, that he never met Shokin. I saw and heard it personally more than once. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that he said it or that you heard it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You listen to Levin and admit it here? What you "personally" heard is not RS. O3000 (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * In related news: Referring to Parnas and Fruman, on October 10 Trump said, "I don't know those gentlemen," although that day The Wall Street Journal reported Trump had dinner with the men in the White House in early May 2018. soibangla (talk) 01:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * They were present at a dinner with Trump, and I think they may have met in passing there, but it's certainly possible Trump doesn't remember every minor interaction with people at crowded dinners. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "If true, the allegation would mean that Nunes ... was himself involved in the very plot the committee is investigating." See also -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Has Nunes produced proof to support his assertion? Are you aware that in addition to suing CNN, Nunes is also suing a Twitter cow? What elements of the Nunes Memo did the IG confirm? soibangla (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course he did. He was in Libya and in Malta, repatriating the remains of an American service member. Have you seen any proof he was in Vienna or talked to Shokin? Note also Shokin said they never met. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * He said he was in Benghazi. It was reported he was in Europe. Can he produce evidence that he was exclusively in Benghazi? Shokin said they never met There is no compelling reason to believe anything Shokin says; after all, he got fired because he, at minimum, turned a blind eye to corruption. And no, it wasn't because he was getting too close to Hunter Biden. soibangla (talk) 01:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You can read the lawsuit and see the pictures for yourself. I’m surprised you’ve been so fooled by that. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Any lawsuit can claim anything, including that CNN is liable for reporting an assertion made by the attorney of an indicted Trump associate, not an assertion CNN itself made. The suit is risible on its face. Ironically, Nunes co-sponsored the Discouraging Frivolous Lawsuits Act of 2017. I’m surprised you’ve been so fooled by that. Anyway, NOTAFORUM. soibangla (talk) 01:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Mr. Ernie, you keep claiming claims by biased people are facts. We don't do that here. O3000 (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Devin Nunes is the guy who is suing a fake cow for aggravated butthurt. Who can forget his late-night trips to the White House as Chair of HPSCI, or his phone logs showing conversations with indicted Kremlin-linked fraudsters? He's a party hack and I would not trust him to tell the time. Guy (help!) 00:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Going to throw my hat in here and say I agree with all of the points Mr. Ernie has made so far. There's more than enough information available at this point to stop treating this issue as a "conspiracy theory" and frame it in a more neutral, balanced POV as an encyclopedia should. Edit5001 (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , Nope. Nobody "spied" on the Trump campaign. The Trump campaign did hire a truly incredible number of extravagantly shady characters, some of whom may well have attracted the attention of law enforcement - indeed several had already been the focus of investigations before 2016. Trump's National Security adviser and campaign chair during his campaign were both unregistered foreign agents. His personal lawyer was engaged in electoral finance fraud. His son was trying to negotiate oppo research from the Kremlin. Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, Michael Cohen, George Papadopoulos, Alex van der Zwaan (married to the daughter of the Alfa Group co-owner German Khan - remember the call-home traffic to an Alfa server from Trump tower?), Richard Pinedo, Sam Patten, all convicted or pled guilty. That's a staggering haul. To say that there was "spying" rather than legitimate investigations is certainly a Trump talking point, but no reality-based source backs your assertion. Guy (help!) 00:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Of the names you listed, only roughly half were actually convicted of crimes relating to what you claim the Trump campaign was investigated/spied on for. The rest were convicted for things like lying to or obstructing investigators. And does Pinedo even relate to the Trump campaign? Edit5001 (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * IG Report, p. 411: "we found no evidence that the FBI attempted to place any [Confidential Human Sources] within the Trump campaign, recruit members of the Trump campaign as CHSs, or task CHSs to report on the Trump campaign." It was and remains a conspiracy theory. soibangla (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Rebuttal is found in the primary source. The IG Report, Page 7: “the Crossfire Hurricane team used more intrusive techniques, including CHSs to interact and consensually record mult iple conversations with Page and Papadopoulos, both during and after the time they were working for the Trump campaign, as well as on one occasion with a high-level Trump campaign official who was not a subject of the investigation.” Whatever term is used, surveillance or spying, it did occur, multiple times, without the subjects’ knowledge. (GreekLantern user) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreekLantern (talk • contribs) 08:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This highlights a problem going forward with all of the pages related to these subjects. The above statement in the IG report may lack context or something because it has been widely reported that the FBI did indeed place CHS’s to solicit information/report on the Trump Campaign. Stefan Halper being one widely reported. Halper was tasked as a CHS according to the FBI. The statement on page 411 cannot be true. It is possible it’s specifically in reference to no other unknown actors found, but there’s no denying Halper was a CHS. It is also possible he is outside the IG’s extremely limited scope. To help some understand how limited the IG is, he can’t interview federal lawyers even though he’s the IG for the Justice Department. It’s important to understand these things in order to get this right. I would recommend no longer using that quote unless a more specific context can be noted. To clear up some possible confusion with other mentions on here we need to realize many of the media articles on the report will be wrong until more time has passed to digest it all. For instance: the IG declared they didn’t find evidence of political bias only at the opening of the investigation. Even with that he’s clear to specify we didn’t find. The IG did not say there was no bias/bad actors. The reason for this should be self evident to everyone because of the Strzok emails. The IG also noted the extremely low bar to open an investigation plays a role in his evaluation of the start of the investigation. It takes next to nothing to open an investigation, thus making it extremely difficult for him to extrapolate bias without an actor flat out telling him that’s the case. Context. I see citations on the page right now from well known publications claiming or implying no political reasons played a role according to the IG. This is a false claim, an understandable one due to the specificity of the language used, but one that has no place on this page. John Durham and Bill Barr reported otherwise, however, again context is required so for now it’s just reporting what they said. To clarify one point on Barr & Durham, you don’t get better sources - period end of story. As a retired law officer myself you’ll be hard pressed to find two more respected people. Durham especially is a legend in the business of putting dangerous bad guys away. That’s my opinion, but it’s likely shared with most of the prosecutors and law officers in this country. Durham’s nickname “The Bull” fits. I’m not going to make any edits as I'll leave it to the more skilled writers like yourselves. I write this strictly to caution all of us that we all need to re-evaluate what we thought we knew about the Trump/Russia Collusion conspiracy theory. I’m not even going to claim it’s on shaky ground at this point. I now have to objectively question nearly every source of news I’ve trusted in the past. I’d recommend all of us dig deeper into sources, checking sub-sources thoroughly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Havoc1649 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 December 2019
Spygate is not conspiracy theory 2605:E000:2553:B700:F0F7:490E:B9DC:AB95 (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done:
 * Edit requests must not be made before "consensus should be obtained before requesting changes that are likely to be controversial."
 * RS describe it as a conspiracy theory, and it's important to note that the fact that three campaign members were surveilled by Halper is not unfactual, and that fact is not part of what makes Trump's claims a conspiracy theory. It is the false parts which do so.
 * So you have two hurdles to jump before we can do this: (1) RS are against you, and (2) you must obtain a consensus before making such a request or attempt. This applies to every editor, whether or not they use the edit request template. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 December 2019
I would suggest to drop „conspiracy theorie“ since spying did occur.

The title should reflect the question why the spying was done.

Within the information provided an open discussion about the reason for the action taken and the potential conflict of interest between the parties would be helpfull. As of now it reads one sided and does not sufficently reflect the information provided by the inspector general. 2003:C3:9F31:EC01:2CB2:76AC:CC14:792B (talk) 08:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This is under discussion at . O3000 (talk) 12:34, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Suggest Merging with Crossfire_Hurricane article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossfire_Hurricane_(FBI_investigation) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.228.14.136 (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, that wouldn't be right. There was legitimate surveillance, and that is described in the Crossfire article, while this is about a very specific and limited conspiracy theory about the actions of Halper and his contacts with three campaign members. The Crossfire article does link to this article, as it should. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * But IG's Michael E. Horowitz's report and testimony suggest otherwise (not legitimate surveillance and there may indeed have been a spygate since no one was vindicated by report):
 * "When asked by Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) if Horowitz’s report vindicated former FBI Director Comey, Horowitz responded that, “It doesn’t vindicate anyone at the FBI who touched this, including the leadership.” "Kennedy followed (at 6:06:30 mark) up by asking, “Does this vindicate Mr. [former FBI Deputy Director] McCabe.” Horowitz responded, “Same answer.”
 * 174.228.14.136 (talk) 03:53, January 4, 2020 (UTC)
 * John Kennedy is being dishonest and you should actually read the conclusions of Horowitz's report, which are in opposition to what Kennedy said. We're not merging these articles. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed. That quote from Horowitz is not dealing with the Spygate allegations, but refers to the "sloppy" handling of the FISA applications by FBI personnel. The FBI does need to tighten up their procedures.
 * The surveillance described in this Spygate conspiracy theory is only a part of the larger Crossfire Hurricane investigation. The whole investigation, and this specific surveillance of the three campaign members by Halper, was all necessary, justified and legal:


 * I hope that clears it up. We document what RS say, and I have included quotes in some of those refs, so read them too. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I'm brand new to both articles (and spygate as a media topic honestly) and these responses to oppose merging say https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_(belief_revision) to me. Reasoning not to merge uses RS anachronistically and are borderline absurd from my newbee perspective in light of the December 2019 IG report and testimony. 174.228.14.136 (talk) 13:33, January 4, 2020‎ (UTC)
 * Maybe I've misunderstood you. Would you be more specific?
 * I tried to address this statement of yours:
 * "(not legitimate surveillance and there may indeed have been a spygate since no one was vindicated by report)"
 * I see three elements in that statement, and I'll address each one:
 * The RS I provided show the surveillance was legitimate.
 * Vindication has nothing to do with whether or not there was a "spygate".
 * The "vindication" quote you provided is not about "spygate" at all. It refers to another subject entirely, as I explained above.
 * As far as "belief revision" goes, that is a natural human tendency for both liberals and conservatives. At Wikipedia, all editors, including yourself, must live with this. Our guiding star here is supposed to be RS, and some of us try to let them guide our beliefs, while others live in filter bubbles and allow unreliable sources to guide their beliefs, so RS are only a small factor in their belief systems. That subject is analyzed and researched by social scientists, and the statistics are pretty clear (note the word "tend"): older Americans tend to be more conservative, less educated, and vote GOP; they also tend to get their information from very few sources, most notably Fox News and some extreme right-wing sources; and they tend to believe and share conspiracy theories and fake news much more than left-wing liberals, who get their information from a wide variety of sources. Liberals also tend to be better educated, use fact-checkers, and are more likely to allow those sources to change their beliefs (by definition, liberals/progressives change beliefs easier than conservatives). You can read about all this here Fake news and also in these articles from Pew Research Center.
 * These pages are especially helpful:
 * Political Polarization & Media Habits
 * Where News Audiences Fit on the Political Spectrum. Really great interactive chart.
 * I have no idea where you lie on the left/right political spectrum, and it's really rather irrelevant to me. All I can do is provide you with what I know from RS, and I don't pretend to know everything, but I've been here since 2003 and do know a bit. Feel free to ask more and be more specific, and I'll try to shed more light on this subject.
 * Also, feel free to share what you know, backed up with the sources you have. That's what this talk page is for. That way we're less likely to misunderstand each other. Hopefully, we'll all learn more and get closer to figuring out whether a suggested change is advisable. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The claim that the "surveillance was legitimate" is now not verifiable given the IG report, which found that there were serious questions about the legitimacy of the FISA warrant underlying some of the surveillance. As the IG report puts it, the OIG concluded that the information that was known to the managers, supervisors, and senior officials should have resulted in questions being raised regarding the reliability of the Steele reporting and the probable cause supporting the FISA applications, but did not. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You're confusing two different matters. That only applies to the way the FISA applications were handled, the "probable cause supporting the FISA applications", and there are split opinions on that: Some of those involved say the FISA applications would have been made without the Steele information, and others involved say they would not. The matter is explained in intimate and well-sourced detail here:
 * Steele dossier
 * Regardless, what you're talking about only applies to the FISA applications, not to the Russia investigation (Crossfire Hurricane), or this surveillance of three Trump campaign members. This was unrelated to the FISA matter, was justified, necessary, and a duty for the FBI. They would have been "negligent/derelict" if they had not investigated the mountain of suspicious evidence they had received, and which Trump and his campaign were lying about and covering up. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

IG Report
Here's a bit from the Horowitz IG Report:

This seems like it changes the story: the report says that FBI confidential informants had a role in the Trump campaign or a connection to candidate Trump, and provided info on Page and Manafort. Thoughts? Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "but who were not tasked as part of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation." The CHS provided unsolicited information, not asked for it. No spying. soibangla (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Should we add "tasked by the CH investigation" to our characterization of the theory to make sure it's still defined in a way that we can call it false? Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This is tiresome. The IG report stated that the Obama administration did not place a spy in Trump's 2016 presidential campaign for political purposes as posed by this conspiracy theory and you continue to push this conspiracy theory in an encyclopedia. And Manafort is incarcerated in the Federal Correctional Institution, Loretto. Are you arguing that he was convicted illegally? O3000 (talk) 01:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Add? It's in the lead from p. 411: "no evidence that the FBI attempted to place any [Confidential Human Sources] within the Trump campaign, recruit members of the Trump campaign as CHSs, or task CHSs to report on the Trump campaign." soibangla (talk) 03:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you understand that there were CHSs in the campaign who passed info on Page and Manafort to the FBI ? That's what I'm saying, because that's literally what the above quote says. The IG found no evidence that the FBI sent them to the campaign, but they were in the campaign and passing info on Page and Manafort to the FBI . Shinealittlelight (talk) 04:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Lead, line one: Spygate is a conspiracy theory initiated by President Donald Trump in May 2018 that the Obama administration had placed a spy in his 2016 presidential campaign for political purposes. soibangla (talk) 04:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, it has been widely reported that CHS’s were used. Halper was paid a lot of money for his work. Where there may be confusion is in the terminology used to describe his activities. The argument comes down to he wasn’t placed for political purposes but for investigative purposes. So we’re in a tomato tomato back and forth. The FBI routinely utilizes CHS’s in counter intelligence investigations and did in this case. Halper told his targets he wanted to assist the campaign. Argue all you want if that was “placing an asset in the campaign or not”. The point is, claiming any of this is debunked is absurd. We were all told for years all this stuff was conspiracy theory and the IG just confirmed much of it. The IG with an extremely limited scope that is. Now we have reports coming out of a FISA Judge excoriating the FBI. I expect further information that may help clarify that coming from the courts. Tonight I’m seeing the following report on Foxnews: “Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) Judge Rosemary Collyer "completely destroyed" the criticism from Democrats of President Trump's repeated accusations that the FBI "spied" on his 2016 campaign, former Department of Justice official Francey Hakes said Wednesday.” Obviously the “destroyed” remark is an opinion but if the substance of the rest of it is indeed accurate (should maybe give a little time to corroborate this), there’s simply no possible way this can continue to have the words “conspiracy theory” or “no spying” anywhere near it. The FISA Judge has access to it all, far far more than an IG and you’re not going to find a more independent source. I’d wait for some corroboration but if the FISA Judge said that, this page and god knows how many more will need to be throughly fixed. Havoc1649 (talk) 08:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Halper was paid a lot of money for his work the money came from the Defense Department’s Office of Net Assessment, not the FBI soibangla (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "It completely destroys the Democrats' argument that there was anything partisan at all in the complaints that President Trump and [his] supporters and the Republican Party were making early on all the way last year...and even before that talking about this FISA warrant against Carter Page and talking about being spied upon while people are trying to make much of the fact that President Trump said his wires were tapped," said Hakes. Horowitz concluded the accusations of partisan bias were false. soibangla (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope, the report never puts its conclusions like that. What the report says is that they found no testimonial or documentary evidence of political bias, and of course the OIG was limited in what sort of evidence they could collect. That's obviously not the same as a finding that these accusations of political bias were false. Read more carefully. More importantly, though, they found that there were FBI CHSs (you know, what normal people who aren't professional FBI empoloyees call spies) inside the campaign--the very thing that has repeatedly been claimed to be false on this very page, and what I have repeatedly called unsubstantiated, not false. Well, it's substantiated now, and indeed it is true. There were FBI informants inside the campaign passing information on high-level campaign officials to the FBI. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Read more carefully Oh the irony. soibangla (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, if you think I'm the one who needs to read more carefully, go ahead and quote the part where they say that accusations of political bias were false. Oops, there is no such part! Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It clearly states that political bias did not take any part in the FBI investigations. O3000 (talk) 19:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I asked for a quote where it says that accusations of political bias were false. Still haven't provided one. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Everyone has political biases. And I'd bet that nearly all investigators and prosecutors are biased against those that commit bad acts. The question is whether biases played a part in decision making as claimed by this conspiracy theory. Th IG report says no. O3000 (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. The IG report says that the OIG found no testimonial or documentary evidence to that effect. Prove me wrong with a quote. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Horowitz reported that there was no evidence of political bias at the root of the investigation. There are innumerable RS. O3000 (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Report on F.B.I. Russia Inquiry Finds Serious Errors but Debunks Anti-Trump Plot Debunk: to expose the sham or falseness of soibangla (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Still no quote from the report. Must be impossible to find one. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read our guidelines. We use reliable secondary sources, not our interpretations of 400 page investigation reports. If you want to argue that NPR, BBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, The NYTimes, WaPo, etc are not reliable -- take it too WP:RSN. O3000 (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Lol. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Laugh at our guidelines if you will. But, at this point you have become disruptive and discussion is no longer useful. O3000 (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The IG report is a secondary source on these issues. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Trump and his allies have claimed numerous times that the FBI under Obama had implanted a spy among his campaign, another potentially explosive accusation, dubbed “Spygate,” that was debunked by Horowitz. WP:DROPTHESTICK soibangla (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Please note that no quote has been provided. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * See that? DEBUNKED. soibangla (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Can I get a quote from the IG report? Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a primary source. WP:DROPTHESTICK. The horse is well beyond dead and you are engaging in WP:BATTLE again. O3000 (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It is a secondary source. I conclude that you guys have no quote from the IG report. Glad to conclude there, unless you want to take up the stick again. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It is a secondary source. I conclude that you guys have no quote from the IG report. Glad to conclude there, unless you want to take up the stick again. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to offer a correction; the report says that there was an FBI CHS with a close connection to Trump who was passing information on Page and Manafort to the FBI, and it also says that there were FBI CHSs inside the campaign, but it does not say that any FBI CHS inside the campaign was passing information on Page and Manafort to the FBI, contrary to what I said before. So I struck those statements above. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Can we remove the "for political purposes" part? Since that was clearly added with the intention of calling this a false conspiracy theory as opposed to a verified fact. Trump's campaign was spied on and that should absolutely be stated in the article. 67.79.70.148 (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Read through the talk page and archive and you'll see that the Trump campaign was not spied on, and this is merely a Trump conspiracy theory. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Initial Report of Internal FBI Source within the Trump Campaign
Muboshgu deleted a post of Senate testimony referencing an FBI internal Trump campaign source on August 22, 2017. The source of the testimony later walked back on January 9, 2018. Muboshgu reasons for deletion is: "If the statement was erroneous, and was walked back, why add it? Seems []WP:UNDUE]]" This is misguided for the following reasons: (1) whether it was later demonstrated to be erroneous or not, that does not diminish its relevance as an originating source of Trump's tweets. (2) public sources _at the time_ disputed whether this "walk back" was in fact true. Again, adding to its relevance. (3) current information from governmental RS are confirming that the FBI had internal sources reporting on the Trump campaign, but they were not FBI personnel. The distinction between "an internal Trump campaign source" to an "FBI placed internal Trump campaign source" would provide substantial clarification to this subject. Tachypaidia (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It is known that individuals who joined the Trump campaign had been FBI informants on unrelated matters. But this article is about "a conspiracy theory initiated by President Donald Trump in May 2018 that the Obama administration had placed a spy in his 2016 presidential campaign for political purposes." soibangla (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The insight here is that the Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS's statement:
 * [the FBI] "had ... an internal Trump campaign source
 * is easily understood as "the FBI source was an FBI source", i.e., the source was FBI, rather than the correct intent, i.e., the FBI had a [non-FBI] source in the Trump campaign.Tachypaidia (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Moreover, this interpretation of what was meant by an "FBI source" was taken up by subsequent conservative news outlets, such as National Review (Andrew C. McCarthy) on May 12, 2018 saying that Glenn Simpson was "dead accurate" when Steele said that the FBI had a spy inside the Trump Campaign." https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/did-fbi-have-spy-in-trump-presidential-campaign/
 * I also see that on January 18, 2018, Glenn Simpson's lawyer, Joshua Levy, "retracted the retraction", saying, "Mr. Simpson stands by his testimony." https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-01-18%20Fusion%20GPS%20to%20CEG%20(accuracy%20of%20testimony).pdf
 * The content is relevant, these are Trump-used sources, and the timing is correct; it is completely in context.Tachypaidia (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any evidence that the source was one planted by the FBI. It could have been George Papadopoulos, Carter Page, or Sergei Millian, all of whom were associated with the campaign and were "loose lipped". We also know that Steele used many anonymous (some unwitting) sources whom he knew, and that Millian was one of them (Source D & E in the dossier, and Person 1 in the IG Report). He was a source for Reports 80, 95, 97, and 102 in the dossier. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * An interesting RS PBS, unlike McCarthy, who, like John Solomon, is not a RS. They write conspiracy theories. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There was an FBI CHS inside the Trump campaign according to the IG report. This is an established fact. You can deny that FBI CHSs are "spies", and you can deny that the FBI "placed" that CHS in the campaign as part of the CH investigation, but it is plainly misleading to deny these things without admitting that, yes, there was a CHS in the campaign. It is also a BLP vio to smear Solomon and McCarthy like that without citing and attributing to a source. I request that you strike those remarks or attribute them to a reliable source. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That the Obama administration had placed a spy in Trump's 2016 presidential campaign for political purposes is a debunked conspiracy theory. That's what this article is about. O3000 (talk) 13:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The replies above repeat the same-old, same-old, on whether or not there was a "placed spy" within the Trump campaign, without addressing the crux of this post, i.e., that Trump's tweeks of a spy within the campaign were predicated on prior news releases. Predication on these news sources is incontestable, as Trump himself in his May 17, 2018 tweet explicitly cites McCarthy, who in turn relied on the August 22, 2017 Senate testimony of Glenn Simpson (and later confirmed by his attorney, Joshua Levy) that the FBI "... had ... an internal Trump campaign source." I don't see how possibly this can be excluded from the article.Tachypaidia (talk) 03:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, .Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The only thing preventing such content is the proper wording and sourcing without engaging in OR or SYNTH violations. Go for it. We know that Trump generally relies on unreliable sources and labels RS "fake news", so he sets himself up for failure. Rejecting experts is another of his big weaknesses. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 April 2020
This article should be updated to show that Spygate was proven not to be a "conspiracy theory" and additional citations to support this fact. https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf 67.241.38.141 (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 May 2020
This "conspiracy theory" has morphed. It has now been proven that many members did in fact spy on the Trump campaign: https://justthenews.com/accountability/media/making-myth-timeline-media-role-selling-trump-russia-collusion-narrative 47.180.60.4 (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: No such thing has been "proven". JustTheNews.com is not a reliable source. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Also known as "Obamagate"?
Trump has been making deranged comments about "Obamagate". Is that the same as Spygate? Should it be added to the lead as "also known as Obamagate"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Nah. He has a name for everything and everybody. O3000 (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is their new political strategy? Okay. We may have to include it at some point but it's too soon now. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes. This is the same thing as Obamagate. There have been a few notable articles on this now (for instance ) and I think it would be worth for now putting in the intro "also called Obamagate." Currently the word Obamagate doesn't appear anywhere on the page, though Obamagate does redirect to here.Wikiditm (talk) 08:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

No mention, at least not at this point. Trump seems to have invented the term and introduced it into the lexicon just this week. There is a fair amount of coverage but it is all recent and all about Trump's use of the term. (Along with the fact that Trump can't even define what he means by it. "Trump refused to explain the 'Obamagate' conspiracy he keeps promoting, saying it is 'very obvious to everybody'") -- MelanieN (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I can find a handful of earlier uses, but they are linked to the Trump Tower wiretapping allegations. See for example . I don't think this is a neologism of Trump, though as you say it's not abundantly clear (considering these earlier uses) which exact conspiracy theory the term refers to.Wikiditm (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right, "Obamagate" isn't even about the same subject as this article. To the extent that "Spygate" has a clear subject, it's about Trump's claim that the Obama administration planted a spy in his campaign, or maybe the claim that they wiretapped him. When those ideas didn't go anywhere, he widened it to be about the FBI investigation into Russian meddling. To the extent that "Obamagate" means anything nowadays, it appears to be about the investigation into and prosecution of Mike Flynn. "Obamagate" shouldn't even be a redirect to this article. It certainly shouldn't say "also called Obamagate". Apples and oranges. I'll look around for a better target. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Has no more value in this article than any of the other nicknames at List of nicknames used by Donald Trump. O3000 (talk) 00:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you are reading way too much into this. He has no clue what Obamagate is:
 * Uh, Obamagate. It’s been going on for a long time. It’s been going on from before I even got elected, and it’s a disgrace that it happened, and if you look at what’s gone on, and if you look at now, all this information that’s being released — and from what I understand, that’s only the beginning — some terrible things happened, and it should never be allowed to happen in our country again. -- Donald John Trump, President of the United States (Source: ).
 * Also, it looks like news outlets are actually starting to cover this excuse for a conspiracy theory. Good grief. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I just looked at an image of Obama's home -- and there's no gate in the front. O3000 (talk) 02:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, it looks like news outlets are actually starting to cover this excuse for a conspiracy theory. Good grief. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I just looked at an image of Obama's home -- and there's no gate in the front. O3000 (talk) 02:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose There's a large difference between a neologism and hypocorism. The term is intended to be derogatory and has no place in a wiki article. No matter how often it's said or how much it's picked up by the media, we wouldn't put "Joe Biden - also known as Sleepy Joe" in a wiki article or call Andrés Manuel López Obrador Juan Mexico. This will likely blow over, but even if it doesn't, the redirect is more than enough acknowledgement. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

For those interested, there is a relevant discussion on this currently going on here: Wikiditm (talk) 08:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Update: Some people have been trying to find out what Trump means by this, and their interpretation is that it isn't about the phone tapping allegations (in other words nothing to do with this article) and only peripherally about the case against Mike Flynn. In this interpretation, the "crime" was unmasking the name in the intelligence reports, which reported that somebody (name deleted, aka masked) was talking to the Russians. The apparent crime was that some people, who were legally entitled to have the information, asked to see who it was. They of course had no idea whose name it would turn up; it happened to be Mike Flynn. Maybe they had some kind of precognition? Without some kind of ESP ability, it's kind of hard to see where the crime was. But since one of the people who asked for the name to be "unmasked" was Biden (the names of who asked for unmasking are hardly ever released, but in this case a compliant Trump appointee released them), this will probably be blown up into a full fledged conspiracy theory by election time, with chants of "lock him up!" Excuse me, I think I'm going to go be sick now. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

In addition to the comment above, the White House have put out this video about Obamagate:. It is still not at all clear what it refers to, but it is now clear that Obamagate and Spygate are not the same thing.Wikiditm (talk) 08:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)