Talk:Spygate (conspiracy theory)/Archive 4

RFC: "False conspiracy theory" in lead
Should the lead contain the phrase "false conspiracy theory"?


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

Survey

 * No- As proposer. Given the statement by Attorney General Barr that he believes spying did occur, dismissing this a conspiracy theory is inappropriate. A neutral statement should however include that the allegations are unproven.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No The Attorney General is "investigating" and "concerned" about the abuses described by the conspiracy theory, even if he would never use the term "Spygate" to describe them. It is dishonest to continue to name the claims enumerated in this article as outright falsehoods when they are just now coming under official scrutiny. "Unproven" is accurate. "False" reflects outdated RSs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 02:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If the Attorney General does not describe anything as Spygate, how do we know he is talking about Spygate? You’ve defeated the argument for using whatever the Attorney General said. starship.paint ~  KO   10:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Forget about Newsweek, then. Allow me to quote my unanswered question. "If you genuinely believe Barr's 'think'ing (investigation by the US Attorney General) is a different and separate topic from 'Spygate', would you support the creation of an new, independent article? Or do you believe this new information, derived from reliable sources, might be more relevant here? To be fair, we can always merge the two topics later." SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 17:46, April 12, 2019‎ (UTC)
 * This is a SPA account with very few editsVolunteer Marek (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What exactly are you insinuating, Marek? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 18:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * No More neutral language should be used SJCAmerican (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No The sources cited in support of the claim that the allegations are false do not say that they are false, with one exception: the Vox headline. But Vox is the most partisan source cited, and even the Vox piece (aside from the headline) only claims that the allegations are unsupported. And that's all the other sources say as well.Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see section "False vs. Unsupported" below for more discussion of this point. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Another good point if true; headlines alone do not qualify as reliable sources.


 * Yes Really? Four comments so quickly? This is a conspiracy theory, plain and simple. It's a hoax. To call it "unproven" suggests it could be true. It's not. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * consensus is Rolling Stone is only to be used if attributed, see Reliable sources/Perennial sources In my opinion, really should not be used at all after the University of Virginia rape story. Since it hasn't been discussed since then at WP:RSN, maybe its time to look at whether Rolling Stone should be used as a reliable source at all, but we'll leave that issue for another day.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , try the BBC, then. Or any of a number of sources from the green lighted sites. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Both of these were written prior to Barr making his statement to congress.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , the statement he walked back during the same hearing after saying he had no evidence to change previous conclusions. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * For at least the third time, that's not exactly what he said, the full quote was "I have no specific evidence that I would cite right now"--Rusf10 (talk) 03:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no specific evidence that I would cite right now that Ted Cruz's father killed Kennedy. That doesn't make it an "unproven" theory. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * With all due respect an anonymous wikipedia contributor saying something about a topic he has no involvement in and the attorney general of the united states saying something he very much would have involvement in are two very different situations SJCAmerican (talk) 06:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ... but the attorney general has not said this is Spygate. Relevance has to be established starship.paint ~  KO   08:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have provided you with ample evidence in this talk section from sources deemed reputable by Wikipedia, which define "Spygate" as "allegations that the FBI had spied on his 20116 campaign team" Source. This is a contemporary article by a reputable source. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Adding Newsweek is Step 1. Then, we look at adding other things, although it would definitely, 100% be better if whatever article explicitly mentions Spygate. What’s going on is people are putting Step 2 first. starship.paint ~   KO   14:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not everyone sees it that way. Some would say step 1 should already have happened, but for some reason has been delayed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs)
 * Even if Step 1 has been delayed, I feel that you still need to take it step by step. Establish what Spygate is via consensus, then elaborate. Now there is no consensus for the other definitions in this article, so the elaborations can't magically go in unless people provide an abundance of reliable sources, which people are NOT doing. There's been like 2 reliable sources, from the same author on Newsweek. There's been 1 Axios and 1 RealClearInvestigations, both of which haven't been confirmed as a reliable source, they need to go to WP:RSN to get confirmed as reliable. Trying to do too much at one time loses the focus of editors, then we can't get consensus on anything much. starship.paint ~  KO   23:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * No It isn't yet clear if it is false. There is also the pointless redundancy of "false" and "conspiracy theory" together. Wingedsubmariner (talk) 03:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a fair point. "Conspiracy theory" is enough. It doesn't also have to say "false". But "unproven" is misleading. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes soibangla (talk) 03:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes as of now because reliable sources report it to be so. Beyond the Newsweek source brought up just a few hours ago (of which discussion is obviously ongoing), the rest of the sources, as presented in this article, present Spygate as a false conspiracy theory. Right now there are 55 sources in this article regarding this definition of Spygate. The opposers haven’t provided enough reliable sources explicitly connecting to Spygate to even establish an alternative definition as a minority viewpoint. Until then, this article should not be changed. starship.paint ~   KO   04:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Where in the current reliable sources is it said to be false (other than the Vox headline)? The sources consistently call it unsupported, not false. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No Reliable sources certainly do not all agree. For example: Periander6 (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That’s an opinion piece, only reliable for the author’s opinion and not for facts. And please sign your comments. starship.paint ~  KO   08:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes - do not change anything until RS say otherwise. Barr saying its real does not make it real, anymore than if Donald Trump says it. --Gonnym (talk) 07:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No obviously, per my comments in the above sections and the nominator. Anyways, saying something is a false conspiracy theory is an oxymoron and should be improved regardless. Mr Ernie (talk) 10:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes - Clearly what reliable secondary sources state, and we follow RS. Spygate is the conspiracy theory that Obama hired spy(s) to infiltrate the Trump campaign to help Hillary Clinton. No evidence of this has ever been provided. No spies have ever been named. Barr's statement has nothing to do with Spygate. Barr was referring to actions approved by multiple FISA judges as a part of an investigation into Russian influence in the 2016 election. FISA judges do not approve of infiltrating campaigns to influence elections. We should not allow imprecise language that suggests the Earth is flat. WP:RS O3000 (talk) 10:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No as it is a fundamental mischaracterization of both what "Spygate" refers to, and as a result a misrepresentation of the very real and growing public evidence for the underlying scandal. "Spygate" refers to the broader investigation by the United States' intelligence apparatus including the FBI's Counterintelligence Division against members of Trump's Campaign and Transition Team. It is not about Halper or Mifsud specifically, although certainly the alleged attempts at intelligence gathering by human sources should be included under the broader umbrella of "Spygate." The bottom line is that the definition used in this article is far too narrow. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 12:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, I moved your comment from the Discussion section below to this section. starship.paint ~  KO   12:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, in part because the "no" option prescribes a particular alternative that is much worse. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes - We follow reliable sources, not the pronouncements of politicians. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No - it's bad grammar in its redundancy. A theory is basically conjecture. Example: (1) John is spreading false information about a conspiracy theory to dismantle the power grid. (2) John's conspiracy theory is based on false information. Until proven otherwise, a theory remains a theory. Example: (1) The allegations of extortion were fallacious and motivated by conspiracy theories which led to investigations that failed to provide substantive evidence. Further, spying, surveillance, investigation - all similar but not necessarily illegal unless proven to be by a preponderance of evidence. Surveillance did take place without the knowledge of the people who were being surveilled - spying is defined as "secretly obtaining information". Semantics. Atsme Talk 📧 15:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes per existing sources. Barr is not an independent source from the subject, so his statements carry zero weight in and of themselves; and currently, secondary coverage is still treating it as a conspiracy theory. --Aquillion (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. We follow what RS say, and Barr's statement does not change the fact that Trump pushed an accusation, without evidence, which has never been proven to be true, but was in fact false. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. Many new editors here misunderstand how Wikipedia works. We really do follow what the news reports and other reliable sources say. If they say the theory was debunked, then we say it was debunked. If they say it wasn’t debunked, then we say it wasn’t debunked. That’s how our community standards were made, for American politics as well as every other part of Wikipedia, in part to avoid these very sorts of acrimonious debates. If editors have a problem with what the newspapers have written, then you can write letters to their editors or blog or tweet about it. But this recent campaign to depart from the reliable sources here on Wikipedia leads to nothing but frustration. R2 (bleep) 00:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes Per sources. End of the story.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes per the unanimity of the reliable sources. EllenCT (talk) 02:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No. It's clear that members of the campaign were under surveillance, making at least part of the theory true. Contrary to what many are saying here, the reliable sources do not generally declare "Spygate" to be false. They often discuss whether the real surveillance which is known to have happened amounts to what Trump is calling "Spygate." I see the attempt to put the phrase "false conspiracy theory" in the lede as blatantly political, and this sort of political editing has become a major problem in the American Politics subject area. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Every conspiracy theory has an element of truth to it. Your logic seems to be akin to saying that Pizzagate wasn’t false because John Podesta did in fact e-mail people about pizza. R2 (bleep) 07:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is quite a bit different from Pizzagate. One of the central claims, of surveillance of members of the campaign, is true. The question of whether or not the surveillance was politically motivated is not settled. There is certainly abundant evidence of anti-Trump bias among some high-ranking officials in the FBI (e.g., the texts which have been published, and the discussions about removing him from office using the 25th Amendment). It's also true that some of the surveillance was leaked to the press in order to damage Trump and his associates (e.g., Flynn's conversations). Calling "Spygate" a "false conspiracy theory" in this context is extremely misleading. It smacks of political posturing, not the type of neutral presentation we're supposed to be giving here on Wikipedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The exact same logic could be applied to Pizzagate. One of the central claims, that Podesta discussed pizza, is true. The question of whether he was actually referring to pedophilia is not settled between believers and the reputable media. There is certainly abundant evidence that many of Podesta’s colleagues went out for pizza with him and that many children had birthday parties at his favorite pizzeria. It’s also true that Podesta’s e-mails were leaked to WikiLeaks in order to damage Clinton and her associates. Calling Pizzagate a “false conspiracy theory” in this context is, to its believers, extremely misleading. To its believers, it smacks of political posturing, not the type of neutral presentation we're supposed to be giving here on Wikipedia. R2 (bleep) 09:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think you find that argument convincing. There's more than a slight difference in plausibility between these cases, as I'm sure you see. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * No.Per WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL, language must remain neutral to avoid bias. Calling it a conspiriacy theory definitely has negative connotations. Mgasparin (talk) 07:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not how WP:NPOV works. We follow the reliable sources, even if the facts they convey appear biased to some. R2 (bleep) 09:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * - by your logic, we can't call anything a conspiracy theory on Wikipedia, let's go change articles like New World Order (conspiracy theory) and Pizzagate conspiracy theory. Also by your logic, we can't have any negative connotations on Wikipedia, or positive ones. starship.paint ~  KO   07:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * starship I guess you have a point. Thanks for explaining that. Mgasparin (talk) 08:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


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

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

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

ALERT - possible meatpuppetry for this page and thus maybe this RFC also /r/the_donald ''There is a big argument between Wikipedia editors on "Spygate" here. Clearly some of them suffer from TDS.'' starship.paint ~  KO   03:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest you strike that allegation. The page you linked has not had a post since I began the RFC. Please don't muddy the waters.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * - this isn't an allegation against you. That page clearly links to this article. People will click and come here. It doesn't need to have more posts. starship.paint ~  KO   03:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I never took it as an allegation against me, but you're still muddying the waters.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see how I am confusing people, if that's what you mean by "muddying the waters". starship.paint ~  KO   04:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not muddying the waters. The waters appear to have been muddied already, if you catch my drift. It's not you, but there is some suspicious activity here. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I too am concerned about some of the conclusions being leapt to here. The existence of the link is worth noting, as is the observation that it is a dead post. Can we now address the questions being asked and the challenges raised? That "meatpuppetry" comment rings like one of those that blames each and every dissenting opinion on "Media Matters" and "the shills". I invite you to apply some of your customary skepticism here. This is a popular and controversial topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 04:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This post 15 hours ago, 5000+ upvotes, 280+ comments, is not so 'dead' (the first post, at 5 hours old, can hardly be considered dead either), and also links to this page. starship.paint ~   KO   05:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "Too many people have tried to edit the fake news out of this title in the past 24 hours, so Wikipedia has locked it from editing" AFAICT This is not an inaccurate assessment. But where does the OP then suggest people go and try to flood the talk page? How many people read that post and commented, and how many new editors arrived? Do you see how your assumptions do not help your case? If I find the treatment of this article alarming and concerning, imagine how the "conspiracy theorists" must feel. People are concerned by the treatment of this article because this treatment convinces them of everything they have been saying. The thread is an expression of genuine concern, not a call to arms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs)
 * - the main problem is - the people coming from that thread, they might not be new to Wikipedia, but they are not experienced enough to know how Wikipedia works. If you’re calling this fake news, in my opinion, you don’t know how Wikipedia works in reporting what the reliable sources say, and you probably haven’t read this article and understood it. What people should be doing is bringing out reliable sources to support their view. But this is not what is being done. That’s the problem. starship.paint ~  KO   08:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Do not mischaracterize my argument. "Fake news" here is not my words, but nevertheless clearly refers to the special treatment of the article title. Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump) is a terrible title, highly controversial, without precedent, and reflects an ugly bias. What is frustrating is the lack of progress being made about affecting that change, and the lack of progress regarding the implementation of RSs that have already been nominated for inclusion in the article, and the lack of progress made regarding changes to the article as a consequence of these RSs, and the lack of serious consideration for the RSs that could be legitimately used if the first sources were to be included. This barricade prevents the development of an article that is becoming relevant to current events, and as such it is not unreasonable to suspect this barricade exists to serve political means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 18:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Just like to point out that 2 editors who haven't edited or actively edited in almost a month found and replied to this RFC in less than 5 minutes, and 1 more editor who hasn't edited in about 3 weeks found the RGC in less than 1 hour. starship.paint ~  KO   03:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've also been suspicious of some sort of advocacy campaign to stir this up over the last few days. I already brought this to the attention of Requests for oversight. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, if there were future meatpuppetry, if they read my comment, they might very well edit some other pages before coming here. starship.paint ~  KO   04:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to me, yes I did read the reddit post and yes I did come here and create my account because I find the article egregiously false. Nevertheless, I have provided you with helpful information that is very relevant to the construction of this article elsewhere, and I think that information should be treated seriously and respectfully. I have been respectful of Wikipedia and its rules and done my contributions are in good will - I believe there is objective evidence that suggests this artice is inaccurate, both in its definition of "Spygate," and its characterization of it as a "false conspiracy theory." I think you would do well to continue to address those concerns seriously, rather than cry foul because you have a problem with the people bringing those concerns to your attention SIPPINONTECH (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * - thank you for telling the truth. I do take your concerns seriously. I do think people are coming in good faith. But, I also do think that we have established policies like WP:RS to follow. You did respond appropriately. I was actually thinking of creating a separate section to discuss how to include the Newsweek source by Zhao, and I was going to advise you to open a WP:RSN on Axios to get it certified as reliable by the community, then we could discuss how to add the Axios source in the article too. But the problem is with the RfC and the requested move, this talk page has gone into chaos. I’m not sure how to get agreement when there are so many discussions at once. Had more editors followed your lead and answered my calls for a reliable source, I think you would have more success. But now the cart is before the horse, and that can’t be undone. starship.paint ~  KO   14:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW this page was brought to my attention by this unusually worded RfC on another page: "Any further editor input on Talk:Spygate (Donald Trump conspiracy theory) would be appreciated. It seems that as a result of the Barr letter, many on the Right are trying to reopen the debate about the validity of counterintelligence on the Trump campaign or whatever they claim was going on. I have a busy day today IRL." Many on the Right might reasonably suspect "meatpuppetry" or some kind of "advocacy campaign" when editors use language like this. Remember, the reddit thread you pointed to never suggested coming here to combat the many on the Left who are stonewalling the development of this article, so consider where you are throwing your stones from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 19:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Just a note regarding the proposal of this RfC - - you’ve proposed this, which is a content dispute, and offered no reliable sources to back up your claim. starship.paint ~  KO   10:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The reliable sources are plenty, they are any and all RS that report Barr's statement before congress which is still something that the article still completely ignores. CNNFox News Washington Post, take your pick--Rusf10 (talk) 02:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * None of these sources mention Spygate. Therefore it seems to me that these sources don't relate Barr's testimony to Spygate, and this is exactly why the article 'ignores' it. starship.paint ~  KO   02:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory, again
Spygate is not a conspiracy theory. If there was surveillance of any kind on anyone associated with the campaign then it was spying. The fact that people want to redefine what spying doesn't change the normal language used by virtually everyone (spying) when someone is surveiled. This title (and the fact that there is a debate about this) is just more evidence that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of factual information. A conspiracy theory is a theory (an unverified hypothesis) that someone has conspired to do something. Spygate is something that actually took place and is verified. People associated with the Trump campaign were spied upon by government agencies. The former agency heads have themselves said that there was surveillance under oath. Donald Bowers (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Your opinion doesn't trump reliable sources. WP:RS WP:OR O3000 (talk) 16:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Donald Bowers, you're missing the point. Nobody denies that surveillance occurred. This article isn't about any and all surveillance that included Trump and his campaign. It's about specific, limited, and false claims made by Trump. He engaged in conspiracy theory creation and mongering. Yes, Halpern did contact three campaign members, but it was later in the campaign, and he never joined the campaign.
 * Yes, other surveillance also occurred, whether Trump (and you) misleadingly call it "spying" or not, but it was legal, not for political purposes, and was part of the necessary and proper investigation of the Russian interference in our democracy and elections. If Trump and his campaign hadn't had over a hundred documented, secret, and lied about contacts with Russians, for no legitimate purpose, but mostly proven to be about the election, then Trump wouldn't be involved in this at all. It's his own fault. Now the Mueller Report contains many proven instances of collusion with Russians, but apparently not quite enough to meet the standard of "beyond a shadow of a doubt" necessary for a court case. Mueller deliberately didn't try to create an impeachment case, but instead collected plenty of evidence and passed it on to Congress. Now we'll see whether they take that evidence of collusion and try to impeach Trump. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a bit notforum-y, but Donald Bowers, I think BullRangifer's main point is that there are reliable sources saying that Spygate is a conspiracy theory, and there are reliable sources saying that the surveillance that's known to have occurred was not "spying." To complicate matters, different reliable sources describe Spygate in different ways. This is why we're struggling. But to insist that spying did occur and that editors here are trying to "redefine" spying, all without pointing to any reliable sources, isn't very helpful. R2 (bleep) 16:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Editors here are not redefining anything. We are maintaining the original definition of terms. Halper was an "informant", not a "spy". The ones claiming a "redefinition" of terms should be looking at Trump, his followers, and some sources. Legitimate investigations of foreign nationals are "spying", but not of Americans. That was legitimate, non-political, national security work, and, in this case, involved ONE informant who asked three campaign members a few questions.
 * Trump admitted he was rebranding (redefining) "informant" when he chose to call Halper a "spy". Ever since then, accusations that legitimate investigations have been "spying" are misuses of the term for political propaganda purposes. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Aside from spin, it was clear that the Trump campaign was spied on, and the grounds for which (a phony dossier) are likely to be investigated/prosecuted if AG Barr has anything to say about it (hint: he does). Why is Nellie Ohr being referred to the DOJ for prosecution by a Congressman? Why is Barr adamant that "spying" did indeed occur?66.141.235.58 (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theory" in title
Is a shame that given the information which is emerging, including but not limited to misleading of the FISA Court to obtain authorization, this article still has the (conspiracy theory) as part of the title. It makes Wikipedia look REALLY BAD!!!

I want to make clear that I am a great admirer and user of Wikipedia when I am saying this, but is not the first time when I see this kind of problems, and I am starting to question what is going on more and more. And if I am doing this, for sure there are LOTS of other people who are starting to questions this. I post it here for whatever is worth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HykL-5CMhQU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.115.6 (talk) 04:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * That's not a reliable source. As for your apparent request to remove "conspiracy theory" from the title, you probably should have skimmed the rest of this talk page before posting. A proposal to change the title to Spygate (2016 United States presidential election) was recently proposed. There were many votes going both ways. In the end, there were not quite enough votes to establish a consensus supporting the move. (FWIW I personally supported the move.) R2 (bleep) 16:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

But there sure was an easy "consensus" when it came to biased and partisan leftist Wikipedia editors falsely claiming Spygate was a "conspiracy theory", rather than an conspiracy fact, which the Attorney General and the Special Council has now confirmed it to be. Funny how that happens, eh? It's like magic!!174.112.31.231 (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC) venue.rocker
 * The reason for that is because at least initially a number of reliable sources have called Spygate a conspiracy theory, and our core policies require us to follow the reliable sources to avoid these very sorts of accusations of bias and bad faith. There is currently an active discussion on this topic, and you are invited to participate, provided you remain civil and assume good faith. Our editing policy may be different than wherever you're coming from. There has been a lot of snark and other unpleasant conduct on this page and I respectfully ask you not to contribute to that. R2 (bleep) 17:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The controlling admin here clearly has an unshakeable agenda and he will never properly admit this is now a proven fact and not a conspiracy theory. Expect him to continue moving the goalposts on what a reliable source is, and how "spying" is defined, and what "Spygate" is about. Until and unless Colbert tells him to think differently, I'm afraid Wikipedia is stuck with his partisan activism as "fact". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.217.119.197 (talk • contribs)

Straw poll on changing (moving) the article title to be more NPOV based on NYT report
The New York Times just released a bombshell article which, if true, proves that President Trump was correct when he said that the Obama Administration spied on his campaign: article. Based on the NYT's reporting, should the "conspiracy theory by Donald Trump" be removed from the article's title and it be renamed simply "Spygate?"


 * Support: The NYT's reporting is very clear that President Trump was essentially correct when he said that the Obama Administration was placing spies in his organization.  Article title will meet WP's NPOV policy by dropping the editorializing from the current article title. AppliedCharisma (talk) 12:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion 2
This is a bit premature, we can't have two move discussion going on at same time. Need to wait on the other one to finish(which has various options already), or propose a change there. Also proves spied on campaign is a stretch. It proves that they investigated Papadopoulos and his claims of knowing that Russia had some of Clinton emails, which we already knew they did. We know now that an undercover agent was used for an interview, which I guess now is the equivalent of a spy. WikiVirusC (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Why is latest change visible only when logged in?
I can see this change (removal of "highly paid") reflected on the page text when logged in - but when not logged in the "highly paid" text is not visible. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spygate_%28conspiracy_theory_by_Donald_Trump%29&type=revision&diff=895216580&oldid=895208070

Why does this occur?

Note - Mobile View does show the change with "highly paid" removed. Uncle uncle uncle 19:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I confirmed that this is indeed occurring, but I don't know why. The article isn't PC protected, so I don't think it should be happening. Moreover, the problem appears on the bare page but not when you view the latest version. I think it's some sort of glitch. R2 (bleep) 20:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I've had this issue with other articles, multiple times, before. starship.paint ~  KO   05:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Barr’s “spying” comments
Did we decide to leave that out? soibangla (talk) 00:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - he never referred to the Spygate conspiracy theory which is what this article covers...?  starship .paint  (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth (since we're not including it) .Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

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



Francewhoa (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We have discussed this quite a bit above. Because it's off-topic, it has engendered some controversy. The question is: Should we expand the article to include any and all later mentions of "spying" by Trump that are not directly related to his original, false, Spygate conspiracy theory about Halper? We're still discussing that issue. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe this is in response to removal of the material citing per talk. I have not been following the page closely lately, is there consensus on talk for removal? PackMecEng (talk) 13:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * From the timing, it appears this was written immediately before Francewhoa added the content to the article, which was removed by VM the next day. There is no consensus for including this content yet, at least not that I know of. We are still discussing whether to add such material, which would radically change the scope of the article.
 * When I commented above, I hadn't noticed that it had been added. I saw his comment as a proposal ("suggest") for discussion, not an announcement he would do it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Almost every discussion on this TP focuses on the word "spygate" rather than the broader scope of what spygate entails. Dismissal of the Attorney General's statement as being off-topic doesn't make any sense to me or quite a few other editors, and has taken on the appearance of stonewalling to keep a particular POV out of the article rather than encouraging productive NPOV discussion. At the very least, it's splitting hairs to push a single interpretation of what "spygate"is supposed to mean, especially since it is an incorrect interpretation. Articles are improved and expanded by adding relative information. Per a May 2018 BBC article titled 'Spygate': The facts behind President Trump's conspiracy, the following explanation summarizes what spygate means in general terms: "He even coined a term for it - "Spygate" - a reference to the Nixon-era Watergate break-in, a scandal he insists is dwarfed by what he alleges was politically motivated surveillance of his campaign. More recently is the April 11, 2019 USA Today article, Spygate: Did American intelligence agencies spy on Donald Trump? Barr says we'll find out. - which begins with On Wednesday Attorney General Bill Barr startled Senators when he said during a budget hearing that he believed that “spying did occur” during the 2016 presidential race, and that “spying on a political campaign is a big deal." The aforementioned does not imply that it is/ever was about a single informant as what is stated in the lead; rather it tells us spygate is about the entire surveillance of the Trump campaign and those connected with it, much the same way Watergate was about a series of events. We should not have to call an RfC for every single piece of material that should be included in this article. Atsme  Talk 📧 16:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Watergate was a scandal as it started with an illegal act for political purposes and continued with a coverup of WH activities. Spygate was a conspiracy theory that an illegal act for political purposes (planting a spy in the Trump campaign) occurred. There is no evidence that this happened. Now, under questioning, Barr hemmed and hawed and said he though spying did occur. He then backed off of that statement. We don’t know what he meant. He says he’s looking into it. If and when he investigates and reports, we can decide what if anything to add. O3000 (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Atsme, with the possible exception of BullRangifer, I think there's agreement on this talk page that different reliable sources have described Spygate in different ways. The question is what to do about it. Your comment here suggests that we should treat it as broadly as possible, but I don't quite understand that logic. The fact that Barr said "I think spying did occur," doesn't mean he was referring to Spygate, nor would I think should it influence the scope of this article, since the Spygate theory was around well before Barr made that comment. In any case, in a discussion above, has agreed to draft some language that will attempt to accommodate all of the different ways sources have described the theory--not just the narrowest and not just the broadest. I think we should see what they come up with. R2 (bleep) 17:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * R2 and Atsme.
 * Quote: "with the possible exception of BullRangifer, I think there's agreement on this talk page that different reliable sources have described Spygate in different ways."
 * Actually, there is no exception from me. I agree that Spygate has been "described in different ways" and also that the use of the term has morphed and strayed from the original use by Trump, ergo the original Spygate claims by him, which were about ONE informant (Halper) he chose to label a "spy" to make it seem more odious, who never joined the campaign, contrary to Trump's false assertion. RS still describe that original claim as false and a conspiracy theory.
 * Quote: "The question is what to do about it." Full agreement. Indeed, the question we are trying to decide (and I'm onboard with seeing a consensus on this) is whether to broaden the inclusion criteria. I am not totally against including later and diverse mentions in some sort of "Other uses" section(s), but only on condition we keep the original historical context and definition as is. It is that origin which made this article notable enough to even create. We don't change history here, but we often document later developments, including deceptive historical revisionism, but they must have some connection to the original scope. They must be on-topic.
 * Later/other uses/misuses of the term "spying", applied to any and all legitimate investigations that touched on the Trump campaign's widespread and proven involvement in Russian interference, are an extreme broadening of this article's scope, especially since most such uses are totally unrelated to the original Spygate claims.
 * A disambiguation article would be the best solution. Take a look at what I have written here: Spying on Trump campaign (disambiguation). What do you think of that? -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I like it! At least as a short-term solution. Getting consensus on the dab page language might be challenging. R2 (bleep) 20:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh yes! It definitely needs work and improved wording. I'd welcome any help. It might even become suitable for use here, instead of as a separate disambig page. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's what RSes say in compliance with NPOV, but that is not what is happening. It's actually quite simple - we use updated RS and attribute it per our PAGs. We include all relevant views per NPOV. And we use common sense without splitting hairs for such statements as "spying did occur". Everything in this article is based on interpretations of evidence and what the Mueller team thought about that evidence - none of it is science-based fact anymore than what Barr stated in his report. It's Barr's interpretation (what he thinks) after reading the report and various information he has gathered the same as the Mueller Report is about what the Mueller team thinks after reviewing the evidence - high likelihood, not that it did happen matter-of-factly which is why there were no indictments based on the collusion illusion or conspiracy theory, which is exactly what it was from day one. That is where noncompliance with NPOV comes into play. None of this should be stated in WikiVoice, particularly in the lead, "Trump's claims have been shown to be false." No they have not, and that statement should be removed. Atsme  Talk 📧 17:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ...collusion illusion. Good grief. O3000 (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's what RSes say in compliance with NPOV, but that is not what is happening. What is what which sources are saying? Links and quotes please. R2 (bleep) 18:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It was in response to your question...I think there's agreement on this talk page that different reliable sources have described Spygate in different ways. The question is what to do about it. Atsme Talk 📧 18:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't follow. Maybe you misread what I wrote? I didn't say that sources are saying that Spygate has been described in different ways. I said that sources are describing Spygate in different ways. To my knowledge there's no source that addresses any discrepancies in how Spygate is described by other sources. I don't understand what that has to do with sources being "compliant with NPOV" (which is kind of a weird thing to say, because reliable sources can be biased). R2 (bleep) 18:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to feed the stonewalling. Read NPOV. Atsme Talk 📧 19:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not a helpful or good faith comment. Please AGF. We are working toward a solution. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with BullRangifer. We're here to improve the article, not to share our rants. R2 (bleep) 20:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * NPOV applies to article content, not your views of RS, which belong elsewhere. The only “stonewalling” I see is that required by RS. O3000 (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

If it's true that the wall of text above is not stonewalling/filibustering, then (a) stop the PAs against me, (b) restore the Barr material that was wrongfully reverted or provide a logical explanation why it shouldn't be restored, (c) update this article to reflect what the Mueller Report revealed, (d) stop referring to the DOJ's spying/surveillance/intelligence as a "conspiracy theory", and (e) change the lead to reflect a NPOV. If you don't understand what I mean by NPOV, then by all means, read WP:NPOV which explains it exactly the way I interpret it. As for my views about WP:RS, I'm not the one with the problem. My views/interpretations are spot-on so put the gaslights away. My concern begins with the sources cited to improperly use WikiVoice to state opinion (that has since been debunked) as statements of fact using the following four cited sources: Now let's see some productive discussion about changing the lead, citing better sources or properly using the sources that are currently cited. Atsme Talk 📧 15:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * A news analysis in the NYTimes. See WP:NEWSORG: Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.
 * The second source cited source is The Intercept, which describes itself as "adversarial journalism". They have a left bias, their use of anonymous sources is questionable, and then there's the Juan M. Thompson scandal. Ironically, they reported on the The Ten Worst, Most Embarrassing U.S. Media Failures On The Trump-Russia Story, including several cited in this article.
 * The third source is Paste Magazine, again left bias, primarily a monthly music and entertainment magazine.
 * The fourth source is LA Times, which has had its share of chaos and is considered center left.
 * Rather than perpetuating the conduct discussion here I'm going to leave a note on your user talk explaining how this comment is disruptive. As for content, those seem like reasonable arguments... however at base they seem to be contrary to WP:BIASED. That is, just because sources may be biased doesn't mean their content isn't reliable. As for the New York Times analysis piece, I believe there's broad consensus that sometimes they can be cited without attribution, and sometimes they can't be. The bottom line is, what's your substantive argument for why these sources aren't reliable? Have they not been fact checked and do they not have a reputation for accuracy? Please answer without accusations of stonewalling, gaslighting, or other types of bad faith. R2 (bleep) 15:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Lead Discussion

 * Suggestion: Spygate is a term coined by President Trump in May 2018 with reference to Watergate, a scandal that occured during the Nixon presidential campaign; "a scandal he insists is dwarfed by what he alleges was politically motivated surveillance of his campaign." (cite BBC}. Atsme Talk 📧 15:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Only there is no evidence of "politically motivated surveillance of his campaign". We cannot suggest that a conspiracy theory is true. O3000 (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And terribly undue emphasis on Watergate. R2 (bleep) 16:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And Spygate is a theory, not a term. R2 (bleep) 16:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Its more like a Hypothesis.--MONGO (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It isn't up to us to determine what it is or isn't - UNDUE is not even an issue - it's what a RS has stated, and we cite what RS say. Reword it to fit better but that's what the RS says. As for politically motivated surveillance - wasn't the entire Russian collusion allegation based on theory - NO VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE - and it had to be investigated for nearly 2 years based on nothing more than allegations? Yet the lead says in WikiVoice that Spygate is a conspiracy theory? Did I miss something? We have RS available with updates to correct the article now that the Mueller Report is published stating no evidence of collusion or whatever it states verbatim - if published in RS, include it. There are ongoing investigations - just like there were when the allegations of collusion were made. The Barr summary along with some secondary sources do confirm surveillance and intelligence (spying) into the Trump campaign, right? We simply cite the RS. Atsme Talk 📧 21:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "Collusion" is a word that Trump keeps using. The investigation was about interference in the 2016 election by the Russians, and it detailed rather a huge amount. That is not a conspiracy theory. It also is WP:OTHERSTUFF. O3000 (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Trump was for sure investigated for collusion, I can't even count how many times Rachel Maddow said the term. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47688187, https://www.ft.com/content/42c1913e-4e48-11e9-b401-8d9ef1626294, https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/03/24/trump-putin-russia-collusion-226110 Sourcerery (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not relevant to this article. This article is about a conspiracy theory that there was "politically motivated surveillance of his campaign". There is no evidence of this. O3000 (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * But why say it wasn't about collusion when it clearly was?Sourcerery (talk) 21:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with O3000, this is a nitpicking distraction for the purposes of this discussion. Please let it go. R2 (bleep) 22:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. No.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

To address the "terribly undue emphasis on Watergate" (R2), Atsme's suggestion could be reworded, because we don't mention Trump's comparison to Watergate, and it should be mentioned. Here's an alternate wording:


 * Trump tweeted that the use of an informant by the "Obama FBI" was "bigger than Watergate". Anthony Zurcher referred to this claim as a conspiracy theory and noted it as an apparent reference to the Watergate break-in by the Nixon administration.

I'm not sure where it would be best to include this, but it would improve the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * We might be getting our wires crossed. I'm pretty sure Atsme was proposing a new first sentence. I have no problem with mentioning Watergate somewhere in the article, assuming the secondary sources merit it. R2 (bleep) 19:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point. I definitely think mentioning Watergate in the first sentence, or even close to the top, would be "terribly undue emphasis on Watergate", but I think it deserves short mention, hence my proposed wording. The sources are good enough, so it can just be included somewhere. I'll take a look. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have now added it to the Background section in chronological order. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm ok with whatever you decide is appropriate per my suggestion to update the article. It's all about what RS say, and that's what we have to live with when dealing with NEWSORG and RECENTISM rather than the higher quality academic sources. That will happen over time as it always has with US presidents. I simply look for ways to accommodate a wide-based readership while at the same time adhering closely to NPOV. I also consider things we need to include in an effort to keep an article stable. Stability is/should be a priority. We don't want to constantly fight trolling which forces us to grow our watchlists and consumes a great deal of our time. I realize it's impossible to stop it completely but we can at least try to reduce it somewhat. Atsme Talk 📧 20:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree. At the same time we should avoid feeding the trolls by making concessions to them. Therein lies the rub. R2 (bleep) 20:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It's definitely not due for the lead. One sentence somewhere in the article, perhaps, but his comparison of Spygate to other things he's talked about is basically a minor bit of trivia, not a defining aspect of the subject.  This isn't a matter of WP:RS or recentism, it's a matter of focus - he's specifically talking about unrelated conspiracies he has theories about in your quote; obviously we can't put it in the lead just because he mentioned his previous conspiracy theories in passing. Again, this page is for his debunked May 2018 accusations, not whatever new and unrelated accusations he's decided to level against his political opponents since. --Aquillion (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Spygate is a term coined by President Trump in May 2018 with reference to Watergate, a scandal that occured during the Nixon presidential campaign; "a scandal he insists is dwarfed by what he alleges was politically motivated surveillance of his campaign." - regarding this suggestion .... it's vague and unhelpful. Doesn't get to the point. Oppose. starship.paint ~  KO   03:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)