Talk:Spygate (conspiracy theory)/Archive 8

Alex Jones
Does anyone else find it weird that the article reports that Alex Jones (wut) claimed credit for the term 'spygate'? I myself could not care less what crazy thing that fellow says. Also, doesn't the material in that paragraph belong in the "reactions" section of the article? I mean, if we're going to include it--I'd be ok with dropping it; we don't usually report reactions from these quarters. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with removing, since he's so uncredible that he's incredible. Unfortunately I think I added that.  starship .paint  (talk) 02:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's important to document that the background for this term is a fringe source. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, if Alex Jones coined the term, that would be important to include. Unfortunately, what we have is not a RS saying that Jones coined the term. Rather, what we have is an RS saying that Alex Jones says that he coined the term. And that's surely not important. That guy says lots of stuff. But if there is some RS saying that he really did coin it, I would definitely agree with putting that back in. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought Trump coined it - but can't remember why I thought so. I certainly wouldn't take Jones at his word. Can't include without a source. O3000 (talk) 11:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Good points. Otherwise, that article happens to contain some important information, so I'll be using for other content. -- BullRangifer (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * But Alex Jones is an investigative journalist! (Just kidding.) Agree with others that claims from Alex Jones are not notable without a solid external reason. Wookian (talk) 14:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Here's what I get from that source which is worth including. Let's work on it:

BullRangifer (talk) 13:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


 * With that quote youve unwittingly provided the best evidence for renaming or deleting the article. Was he rebranding Halperns work or creating a conspiracy theory?  It doesnt seem reasonable to claim both and puts the conspiracy theory description as itself, conspiracy theory. Why is misportrayal of an actual event conspiracy theory?)Batvette (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Trump made one true claim and several false claims about Halper's work as an FBI informant. The true claim was that there had been surveillance of his campaign. Now that this is nailed down firmly, we can ignore it, as it's not the part that makes this a conspiracy theory. Proving that there was surveillance is a red herring. It happened. We know it. Later investigations which proved there was surveillance have no bearing on the Spygate conspiracy theory. Trump made some false statements about Halper. That's it. It's not complicated. Nothing that comes later has any bearing on it.

Trump's rebranding of Halper was just one part of his conspiracy theory, as calling an informant a spy is just an attempt to make something legitimate sound wrong, illegal, unnecessary, etc. There was much more that was wrong and misleading about Trump's claims. The false claims were as follows:


 * 1) That a (as in ONE) spy was implanted in his 2016 presidential campaign. (Trump had just learned about Halper and tweeted about him without naming him.)
 * 2) That it was for political purposes.
 * 3) That the spy was "placed very early into my campaign".
 * 4) That a counterintelligence operation into the Trump campaign had been running since December 2015.

Facts:


 * 1) No spy was "implanted" in the campaign. Halper was just poking around the edges and asking some questions. He never tried to join the campaign.
 * 2) It was part of the investigation into Russian interference, IOW for national security purposes, not political purposes.
 * 3) Halper first started his investigations in July 2016, not early in the campaign, which started in 2015 (or 2013, if you really want to know how far back Trump started preparing and discussing with the Russians and they promised then that they would help him).
 * 4) The Crossfire Hurricane investigation into the Trump campaign's relations to the Russian election interference started on July 31, 2016. There was no investigation of the Trump campaign before this, only of Russians. It had all been about the Russians before that.

So far no evidence has been produced to support Trump's false claims. The Mueller Report hasn't changed anything about this historical event. Later sources don't change what happened. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Is this your original research? How do you know precisely what Trump knew? For example, how do you know he was referring to Halper? Wookian (talk) 03:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's the sources that say he's referring to Halper. Here is one.  starship  .paint  (talk) 06:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link, however it is an opinion source. The article also weighs in against Republicans in general. So it would be sufficient to establish that Zack Beauchamp says such and such, however not to establish an objective fact. If you read his other work (presented the same way on Vox), you can learn that Game of Thrones said goodbye to two of its biggest characters, "badly," and how it "felt wrong" to him. Wookian (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And if you think I'm splitting hairs, I'm really not. There was another undercover spy sent by the FBI under the pseudonym "Azra Turk" that Trump could have been referring to. If you think you have the same information as a billionaire elected president who got personal briefings from the director of the NSA among innumerable other sources, then you are mistaken. I doubt you'll find a non-opinion RS that will stick its neck out and claim exactly what Trump knows. It would obviously be stupid to do so. Wookian (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The "Azra Turk" revelation is recent and even Trump didn't know about that until much later. She was also a later participant, not used in the beginnings of Halper's work. If Trump had known about "Azra", he wouldn't have written "a spy" in his tweets. He had just learned about Halper and RS make it clear he was referring to him. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You are making a perfectly fine argument, and I grant that the anti-Republican opinion source linked by starship agrees with you and could be cited as a named opinion source to that effect. However, I'm still not seeing a non opinion RS that confidently claims what Trump knows. It is still pretty silly to claim that Trump knows (and knew) only the info available to a reader of the NYT. Wookian (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Your source, Vox, all but matter of factly describes Halper as a spy. This does not convincingly support BRs points and Halpers history if known by Trump make his allegations reasonable. I neednt mention most of the mainstream media were eager to skewer him at the time and still are. Thats okay a lot of them did it to Clinton too. However encyclopedias are supposed to be above this and shouldnt be political rags merely repeating media sources, RS or not, interested in selling copy with controversial political articles. If surveillance against Trump was legitimate why did the FBI hire a spy from outside their agency to do it? Batvette (talk) 09:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "if you really want to know how far back Trump started preparing and discussing with the Russians and they promised then that they would help him)." That directly implies Trump had long colluded with Russia to help him win the election. Can you support this with RS other than allegations? What did the Mueller report say about this?Batvette (talk) 08:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - Halper is an FBI informant. That's not a conspiracy theory. There was surveillance. That's not a conspiracy theory either. The conspiracy theory is that the spy was actually part of Trump's campaign, and that the spy was doing it for political purposes. You would do well to actually read this article. Trey Gowdy said I am even more convinced that the FBI did exactly what my fellow citizens would want them to do when they got the information they got. Paul Ryan and Richard Burr backed Gowdy. Tom Rooney and Jeff Flake called Spygate a diversion. These are Republicans. Even Fox News' Andrew Napolitano says that this other allegation with this professor, whose name we're not supposed to mention, that is standard operating procedure in intelligence gathering and criminal investigations ... such a stunningly unremarkable event, because law enforcement does this all the time. All of these are in the article, if you had read it, you could have known.  starship .paint  (talk) 09:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 1. "If youd have read it, you would know." Stop right there. Thats a BS debate tactic and argues that you are right because you or the article know something I do not. The argument fails because Trump does not have unanimous GOP support. Many bitterly oppose him. The fact some republicans disagreed with him is irrelevant. And I hope you arent suggesting I was supposed to have viewed an article with a partisan slant and just abandoned my arguments. I stated what the article said about Halper being a spy so obviously I skimmed it for points I could use. I am not under obligation to find arguments in it for anyone else. In closing your statement about not reading the article is tantamount to a personal attack. I wont deflect the discussion by saying I would care. 2. So because Halper merely spied on the campaign instead of being planted in it, that is enough to make this a conspiracy theory? How about he was just wording it wrong or got a detail wrong? 3. While there is legitimacy to the investigation its also not been proven it WASNT for political purposes and the FBI acknowledged at the time the Steele dossier had political capital origins. We know the Clinton campaign was behind that. So it doesnt reflect NPOV to continue to ignore that. Batvette (talk) 11:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Batvette, you write: "supposed to have viewed an article with a partisan slant and just abandoned my arguments". Actually, that's exactly what you should do. When discussing articles and article content, it's expected that editors exercise due diligence, IOW do your homework. When you speak from ignorance, you damage your case. You should have read the article and the sources and then brought your thinking into line with what the RS say, IOW changed your mind by following the evidence. Editors are expected to show a positive learning curve. When they don't, they end up in trouble because they cause various forms of disruption. Please start getting more informed. Read those sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I should delete your comment right there. Its a personal attack and its not your place to dish out condescending advice on life to other editors. Hes wrong, okay? I knew damn well a handful of republicans disagreed with Trump I guess you two are ignorant that Trumps nomination at the GOP convention saw near mutiny and a percentage of the party is never Trump. His point is that his claims are all the more outrageous because all republicans are duly obligated to be lock step with Trump. Thats HIS ignorance for arguing that not mine for not being a sucker and buying it. We know that neither of you are oblivious to Trumps unpopularity with some in his party so I can only take his persistence in pushing it as an argument of intellectual dishonesty and you both projecting it to my ignorance after stating the fallacious nature of the point to be trolling this discussion. You must have a lot of free time on your hands to want to fill these pages with such unconstructive actions. Batvette (talk) 20:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - you are right because you or the article know something I do not - that's plausible. It's also possible that you are right because you know something I do not. This is how the world works. We're not omniscient, and that's fine.
 * The argument fails because Trump does not have unanimous GOP support. - that's hilarious. That unanimous GOP support is needed to prove anything.
 * So because Halper merely spied on the campaign instead of being planted in it, that is enough to make this a conspiracy theory - that's for the sources to decide. Some have said yes, Spygate is a conspiracy theory.
 * How about he was just wording it wrong or got a detail wrong? - then it's wrong. "Barack Obama was born in Hawaii" versus "Barack Obama was born in Kenya" - that's just getting a detail wrong too. Humans typically have ten fingers versus humans typically have eleven fingers. Another detail wrong. One is a fact, one is a falsehood.
 * While there is legitimacy to the investigation its also not been proven it WASNT for political purposes - how do you prove a negative? Perhaps we can use the law of non-contradiction?
 * the FBI acknowledged at the time the Steele dossier had political capital origins - even if this is true, how is this relevant to the article? Crossfire Hurricane didn't get the dossier until October 2016.  starship .paint  (talk) 11:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Are you abandoning your argument (assumed to be) that there is significance on these lawmakers political party? Or are you shifting into confusion on purpose? Who argued unanimous support was required for anything? Ive explained the issue with your implied point if you havent gotten it now expect warranted personal insults if you persist with being obtuse. As for the larger remaining point I have read that the FBI knew the origins of the Steele dossier and went ahead with it noting it was questionable because it sought to help Clinton. I believe reliable sources published this. (BR again to display NPOV should scold you for shameful lack of research. (LOL at my cherub faced innocence as I feign willingness to work with other editors) Given that Turk and Halpers approaches to George P can be portrayed as a setup he didnt bite on, Halper was a spy previously accused of spying on a campaign for political reasons, RS reports an IG report with Halpers handler (partner?) Peter Strzok quoted (possibly under oath) that his activities reported straight to obama/white house/the supreme poobah and the IG stating Strzok showing willingness to take OFFICIAL action to hurt Trumps chances... and the FBI knowing Clinton paid for Steeles work.... you really dont know why all this is relevant? It proves that in may 2019 we and RS know what nobody knew a year ago. Trump wasnt promoting conspiracy theory. A cabal of wiki editors are. Wikis founders must be apalled at how this kind of thing destroys credibility here.Batvette (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want to link the Steele dossier with Spygate, provide WP:Reliable sources that link the two topics. Okay? If no sources - drop it.  starship .paint  (talk) 00:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't want to comment on everything you're saying here. But here's a source: [] from around the same time as the tweets, I think, that has Trump talking about "spies" in the plural. I've never been sure that the spygate tweets meant to be referring only to Halper because of this sort of thing. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - Trump doesn't know squat. "If they had spies in my campaign, that would be a disgrace to this country ... we want to make sure that there weren't. I hope there weren't, frankly." Either he knows that there are spies or he doesn't know. From his remarks, it seems that he doesn't.  starship .paint  (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make. I'm not claiming that Trump knew anything. I'm only claiming that in this source, he makes a claim about spies in the plural, and that suggests that, in the spygate tweets, it isn't clear that he meant to be referring only to Halper. My claim here isn't that he knew anything, but is only about what he intended to claim. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, Trump just says things off the top of his head without evidence. Yesterday, the Mueller team was “18 killers”. Ted Cruz’s father was involved in JFK’s assassination. Millions of illegal aliens voted in the election. Vince Foster mat not have committed suicide. Vaccines may cause autism. Muslims celebrated 9/11 on NJ roofs. Antonin Scalia may have been murdered. Climate change is a Chinese hoax. The FBI planted spies in his campaign to help Clinton. Conspiracy theories. O3000 12:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thats right muslims celebrated on NJ rooftops on 9/11. The footage of the newscast has been uploaded on youtube for years now. Tried to post a link it wont but its such a dead story I dont feel a need to. Perhaps BR has some sage advice for you too regarding responsibility in learning the other sides views before you come here and eat up their patronizing arguments. But that is only a direction to go in when the topical argument you present fails. This is not the case now because there were celebrations, Trump remembered and the news footage was found. Batvette (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Batvette, here's a fact check of Trump's false claim. If he had said it about Palestine and the Arab world, it would have been true, but Trump insisted it was in New Jersey. Well, that never happened, and when he was corrected he didn't retract his statement; instead, he doubled down. (That's why the Bottomless Pinocchio category of lying was created because of Trump.) Please don't repeat such counterfactual things here. Pushing Trump's conspiracy theories is not okay. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is absolutely false. Please do not spread hate material here. O3000 (talk) 21:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - Trump says “thousands and thousands” of Muslims celebrated. Reliable source says some people report “dozens”. “Truthful hyperbole” is a falsehood. Getting a detail wrong changes the entire meaning of the sentence.  starship .paint  (talk) 00:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There is actually no evidence of this other than anecdotal claims. OTOH, there is enormous evidence of Americans cheering the bombing of Baghdad in bars across the country. In any case, it is an Islamophobic smear that has no place here. I'd remove all of it -- but I'm up against 1RR. O3000 (talk) 00:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Now youre just plain lying as a source was provided proving your claims were wrong. You are becoming a problem editor here. Dont give me this islamophobia nonsense when YOU raised the issue with a claim I just proved as another false allegation against Trump. Batvette (talk) 01:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC) Absolutely false huh. https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/261805-trump-campaign-footage-supports-9-11-claims Here we have the previously mentioned footage of broadcast from 9/11 reporting "swarms of muslims" on a NJ rooftop celebrating the attacks. The claim you made above is just wrong. Will you man up and admit this? Dozens of purportedly RS media outlets, many of which are used in this article, still refuse to back away from their slanted coverage (which summarizes every aspect of Trumps claim as a lie) even after their own colleague's footage was produced revealing it amounts to semantics differentiating "swarms" from "thousands". Since the coverage Trump saw also included thousands of Palestinians doing the same to continue this narrative Trump made it up is irresponsible. The relevance toward the article is that every RS that is used in this article that has refused to update their claims about Trump lying he saw TV news reporting muslims celebrating, should not be considered RS for their reporting a year ago on Trumps claims in the article. I'm not declaring all of them fake news but we have clear precedent of their contempt for facts. This starts with 03000s willingness to show his integrity. The story as you knew it was false wasnt it?Batvette (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * People, what does this have to do with the article? Nothing. That's what. You're obviously not going anywhere in this discussion. WP:FORUM. A more productive route would be to determine whether we could build a consensus about something like 's "proposal 4" below. So far, all we know is that I'm somewhat positive on it and O3K opposes it. Anyone else? Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I take seriously bigoted smears anywhere in Wikipedia against any peoples. O3000 (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

And I take throwing down victim cards or false SJW whining to deflect every time you get proven wrong here seriously. One would think if I actually did what you just claimed you could bring it to the attention of the lowest level of admin here and rid me from this page immediately. Why havent you? Because like your claims about personal insults you are deflecting rather than give an inch about your numerous errors. Subjecting my person to your false allegations is in violation of wiki policy.Batvette (talk) 01:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - I understand that he is discussing spies in the plural, but: he used if and would and hope. He never said there were spies in his campaign (from the source you provided) So he did not claim that there were spies.  starship .paint  (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, good point. Do you think he was referring to Halper in the June 5 tweet? It has been reported that he was basing that tweet on a claim about a spy back in 2015. Does he take that spy to be Halper? Seems unclear at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinealittlelight (talk • contribs)
 * - does the June 5 tweet mention "a spy"? It only says a counter-intelligence operation - which cannot be concluded to be a spy.  starship .paint  (talk) 13:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * But the basis for the claim was--as reported in our article and the linked sources--a claim about a spy in 2015. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - Conspiracy theorists and Trump's allies claimed there were spies (plural) in 2015. Trump claimed that there was an operation in 2015. No mention of Halper at all. That's what it is. Are we in agreement?  starship .paint  (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with those statements. And I appreciate that you're being very careful. But I add this to what you wrote: by tweeting what he did, Trump himself was promoting Falco's claims, repeated by Dobbs, according to which there were spies (plural) in 2015. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - but can you relate this to your original question? It has been reported that he was basing that tweet on a claim about a spy back in 2015. Does he take that spy to be Halper? Seems unclear at best. - Nobody in June 2018 mentioned Halper, the reference was really on "ocunus lures". At least, our article doesn't say anything about Halper in the June 2018 allegations. If you have reliable sources on Halper regarding the June 2018 allegations, then they should be added. Otherwise this is a dead end.  starship .paint  (talk) 01:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I can relate it to my original point. What I'm arguing for is that BullRangifer and you are mistaken to say that Spygate (in the sense of our article) is only about a single spy, Halper. If Spygate includes the June allegations, then it includes Trump's endorsement of a theory according to which there were spies (plural) involved in the whole affair that he calls Spygate in 2015. So the view that spygate is only about Halper would be mistaken. Do we agree about that now? Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Trump's original claims were about a spy. He later began to beat this drum in an expanded sense. He saw that he could use it to rebrand all investigations and surveillance as improper spying, and his base believe him. That is the later history and development, but it's not the original spygate conspiracy theory. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The article currently portrays the June tweets as part of his spygate allegations. Is it part of spygate or not? If so, then spygate involves allegations of more than one spy. If not, then why is it portrayed that way in our article? If the idea is that 'spygate' changes definition over time, then where does it say that in RS, and why isn't this reflected in the article? Here's what I think: RS doesn't support the claim that spygate changed over time (at least to my knowledge), and we're better off to understand spygate as making an unspecified claim of spying on the campaign, with no specific idea of how many spies there were. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "Unspecified" would be counterfactual, because the term clearly started about ONE person, and then got expanded use, and RS do show that. If the article doesn't show that, then maybe it should, but that doesn't change the original use by Trump and what RS said about THAT use by him. That was how this started, and all else should in an "Other (or Later) uses" section. The problem with going too far down that road is that it then brings us to all the misuses of the term to brand all investigations as Spygate, when the term has a historical, very limited, and specific context. Later history has not changed that context. It referred to one specific set of circumstances: Halper's contacts with three campaign members. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The proper way to deal with this expanded use is to create a rather large article about it, and then write a short section here and leave a "main" hatnote pointing to it. Doing it in reverse order would also be proper. This is an application of WP:SPINOUT. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I agree. First, you say that the original tweet was about one person. What are the RS which say this? I've seen the Vox article, but Vox, and certainly Vox alone, is plainly not a very strong source. Are there others? It's not plain in Trump's language that he meant a single spy. "A spy" does not necessarily mean one spy. "There is a doctor on board" means that there is one or more doctors on board, not that there is exactly one. So we need RS to support your contention, and I don't think Vox alone is good enough. Second, I really don't agree with you that 'spygate' originally had a very narrow meaning that broadened over time. RS from 5/2018, at the very beginning, all vary substantively in their definitions of exactly what 'spygate' refers to--some define it narrowly, some very broadly. So I really think you should stop saying that it started narrow and expanded later. That's just not what RS say. Finally, if I'm wrong and in fact there are lots of RS who say that spygate originally referred to the one spy Halper, then we would definitely want to change the article. So I recommend assembling all the sources you think support that view, and list them out. That has seemed to be a helpful way to make progress. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "It's not plain in Trump's language that he meant a single spy." Actually, it is very plain, unless one does violence to the English language. "A spy" does mean "one spy". That's the plain meaning in English. To make it even more plain, RS have told us that Trump had just learned about Halper, and RS mention Halper as the "a spy" Trump tweeted about. We go by what RS say. That's the original Spygate story.
 * Later, and not much later, Trump began to expand his use of the terms "spy", "spying", and "Spygate" as he found that this rebranding tactic was working quite well with his supporters as a means to undermine the Mueller investigation. It's all in the RS. He started using the terms in a non-specific manner about any and all investigators and investigations, no longer just about Halper. It started with Halper (hence this article's creation), because RS described what Trump was saying in May 2018, and then it morphed from there into something much wider. That could fill a whole article which is outside of the scope of this one. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed when one thinks spying is going on, or even believes A spy is watching him, who would believe ONLY that spy is involved? Wouldnt any reasonable person understand the spy gets time off and another takes over his shift? Doesnt work alone but with support from an agency with fellow spies? An informant... who does he report to but other spies?Batvette (talk) 22:16, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTAFORUM WP:OR. Reliable sources, please.  starship .paint  (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

How about a post-Mueller definition of Spygate?
Here's Hugh Hewitt writing for the Washington Post: “Spygate” — the ongoing investigation into the possible abuses of power by a handful of senior FBI officials and possibly others in the intelligence community and the Obama administration..

This is one notable and carefully phrased journalistic opinion on what the term Spygate means. Obviously Spygate gets defined various ways by various people. Some define the term narrowly and seize on one or two early (potentially) false implications by Trump so as to render Spygate false by definition and get license to ignore it. ("The spy had to be employed by the campaign." "He/she had to be officially called a 'spy' by the FBI.") Those sorts of weaseling maneuvers are unencyclopedic and the article shouldn't follow that example. A much better approach is to look to the notable people who are making the "Spygate" accusation and see what they mean by it. I've been drawing attention to John Solomon, but Hewitt is also a great specimen.

Also (and I keep harping on this) he wrote this after the release of the Mueller report, which as he correctly notes, has changed this picture drastically due to the total collapse of the "Trump colluded with Russia" narrative. Wookian (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Even though there is an obvious mixup in the language (It is not the investigation which is the alleged Spygate, but "the possible abuses of power" which is the alleged Spygate), I understand your point.
 * He states why we can't write this content yet:


 * When enough RS really deal with it, it will find its way into the appropriate articles. Right now it's working its way up from the fringes. Mainstream sources are rightly reticent to give coverage to conspiracy theories and falsehoods. The Mueller Report does not change the original use of the terms, the scope of this article, or provide evidence that Trump's falsehoods are somehow now true. The fact that there were many investigations and surveillance are not the parts of the Spygate conspiracy theory that are dubious. It is the false parts, and they are still false. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * When there is proof that no astronauts landed on the moon, only then do the Moon landing conspiracy theories cease to be conspiracy theories.
 * When there is proof that the Bush administration was behind the September 11 attacks, only then do parts of the 9/11 conspiracy theories cease to be conspiracy theories.
 * When there is proof that Obama was not born in the United States, only then do the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories cease to be conspiracy theories.
 * When there is proof that Halper was actually part of Trump's campaign; that he was planted there by Obama, not the FBI, and for political purposes, not national security reasons; and that he was placed very early into the campaign in 2015, only then does Spygate cease to be a conspiracy theory. None of that has changed. It's still false. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The AG is not investigating whether the moon landing was a hoax. Please refrain from posting irrelevant and nonsensical material like the above on Wikipedia. Wookian (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually those illustrations are very relevant. Sometimes people need illustrations to help them understand the point at the end, which is that certain facts are needed to prove that Spygate is not a conspiracy theory, and they have not been produced by you or anyone else. Why don't you address the point of my post, rather than sidestepping it? -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We don’t know that the AG is investigating the theory that a spy was planted in the Trump campaign by Obama to help Clinton either. O3000 (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There are lots of things he probably isn't investigating. We could keep this up all day. However, it would be willfully obtuse for us to pretend that the term "Spygate" isn't used in a mainstream way (e.g. this WaPo editorial) to refer to what he actually is in fact investigating. Do you disagree? Wookian (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't "know" anything about what the AG may be investigating. Indeed, he backed off the word "investigation", just as he previously backed off the word "spying", and now uses the word "review". O3000 (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * O3000, you say: I don't "know" anything about what the AG may be investigating.. I would suggest you read articles on this subject so you can acquaint yourself with the subject matter. Here's a start.

Wookian, opinion writers do all kinds of things with the word "Spygate", but the "mainstream news media has a few problems" with that term which started in the darkest reaches of the most unreliable sources, without any evidence. That's where Trump found it and then used it, also without any evidence, even to this day:

BullRangifer (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that the question of how to define or use Spygate is an opinion. There is no objective, neutral answer to that question. As such, it could easily be appropriate for an encyclopedia to present more than one mainstream opinion on the matter. Hewitt's opinion piece is a great source of one of those. Agree? Wookian (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are clearly differing opinions and generally two sides, the intelligence community and Trump. The intelligence community are the experts who actually performed the investigations and surveillance because it was very necessary, legitimate, apolitical, and legal to do it, and there are Trump's supporters who believe his evidence-free marketing/rebranding of it all as illegitimate, a witchhunt, political, etc. One side tells the truth, and the other is known to tell falsehoods at the highest rate ever measured by fact-checkers. Who to believe? Evidence or no evidence? For some people that's a dilemma. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how to interact with you, BR, because the principle of AGF might lead me to hope that you're joking. Otherwise, your comments are just extremely counterfactual, and that's not an opinion. If it's simply Trump against the IC, what are Barr/Huber/Durham/DOJ IG looking into? Why does Nunes claim improprieties in the Russia investigation's surveillance and FISA applications? Why did AG Barr say that Trump's "witch hunt" language is justified, and he (Barr) would feel the same way if he were in Trump's place? If an editor finds him or herself unable to interact reasonably without retreating to "crazy Trump against the world" verbiage, then they would be abusing this talk page to push fringe conspiracy theories that have no place here. Wookian (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The explanation for that is very simple. Barr/Huber/Durham (and not sure yet about DOJ IG), and Nunes are clearly on Trump's side, attacking the IC, and pushing Trump's conspiracy theory agenda. His conspiracy theories started in the darkest reaches of fringe and unreliable sources. That is a fact. (Yes, I know that some consider Breitbart, Gateway Pundit, Bongino, etc. to be RS, but we don't around here.) Those conspiracy theories have not suddenly become factual.
 * BTW, having a difference of opinion here does not require one to abandon AGF, because that happens to cut both ways, so I think we should just agree to disagree, and that doesn't preclude discussion. Let the RS speak and let's not contradict them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not ready to agree to disagree. I would like for you to acknowledge that Hewitt's recent opinion column in the WaPo reflects a mainstream view of Spygate (not the only mainstream view, but one mainstream view held by a great many people). If you can't acknowledge that, then maybe let's discuss further and find out why? Wookian (talk) 01:46, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's certainly a conservative view, which obviously tends to defend Trump, et al. Yes, there is a significant minority who hold this view. So it's a conservative, minority view. What more can I say? -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to pry your arbitrarily narrow definition of Spygate out of your fingers. If you could let that go and acknowledge that it's only one of the definitions out there in the mainstream, and furthermore that it is appropriate for the article to cite various mainstream definitions of Spygate, that would be progress. Wookian (talk) 02:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you mean by this word "maintream" that you keep repeating, and how is it different from reliable secondary sources? O3000 (talk) 02:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I also note that "Spygate" is always in quotation marks in that article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I totally recognize that the word "Spygate" is used in various ways. There is the original use by Trump, and then a quickly expanding use to label all investigations of Trump and associates as Spygate. So what? Until we change the scope of this article, it deals with the original Spygate allegation by Trump. The other article would be very large. You're welcome to create it. Go for it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Titles are not RS, are they?
I reverted 's edit, as it quoted a CNN title, and I thought that titles are not RS. Also, it should be clear it was CNN not ABC that the quote was from. I'm open to a rewording, but I don't see how to do it. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it can be improved. To just save time, I won't even get into the title/RS aspect other than to say it varies on a case-by-case basis. Let's just use what's in the body of the sources, partially quoting and partially paraphrasing. I'll also reverse the order so it makes more sense. Here's what was removed:


 * "CNN and ABC News described the sequence of events, stating that Trump had "latched onto a conspiracy theory" that had evolved after starting on Reddit."


 * Let's try a different version so there is no doubt about who said what:


 * "When describing the sequence of events, ABC News described how the "conspiracy traversed" from a Reddit thread, to The Gateway Pundit, and finally to Lou Dobbs at Fox News, where Trump found it and then tweeted it. CNN described how "Trump tends to seize on conspiracy theories to further his arguments, blasting out unsubstantiated charges on Twitter to try to torpedo special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.""


 * How's that? -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources used:
 * Dobbs is at Fox Business News. I think this goes along the correct lines. Numerous RS state that Trump passes on what he hears from Dobbs, Hannity, Carlson, Ingram, Breitbart, etc. without filtering, without attempting to check out what he's heard. That is, he constantly tweets conspiracy theories from those known to spread conspiracy theories. O3000 (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's better. Maybe 'heard it' is better than 'found it'? Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's even better. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Problems with Vox piece in Lead
There are several problems with the Vox piece cited in the Lead. First, it only uses the word 'false' in its title; the body of the Vox article always uses terms like 'baseless' or 'no evidence'. Second, Vox is a partisan source. Third, it does not get cited anywhere but the Lead. Does anyone have a better source for "false" than this? And can we please not add stuff to the Lead that isn't in the article? Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Comey rebuttal
Without mentioning Spygate explicitly, [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/james-comey-no-treason-no-coup-just-lies--and-dumb-lies-at-that/2019/05/28/45f8d802-8175-11e9-bce7-40b4105f7ca0_story.html? here]'s what' amounts to Comey's rebuttal. R2 (bleep) 04:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

How reliable sources present the spygate story
I'm staying on task here! Here's my report of the sources that frame the story as I've suggested. I will label, but remember that the labels here differ from those in our previous discussion of sources. Also note that, because the presentation here is pretty lengthy, I'm not going to present quotes of every place where they say "unsubstantiated" or the like. But have a look for yourself: these pieces almost always tend to call Spygate unsubstantiated or without evidence instead of false. Moreover, the term 'conspiracy theory' is nearly absent from these sources, and is never directly applied to Spygate.
 * [A] NBC News states Trump has been referring to the FBI's use of an informant as "spygate" in what critics contend is an effort to discredit the initial investigation into the president's campaign and undermine special counsel Robert Mueller's ongoing probe.
 * [B] ABC News states In recent days the president, in tandem with his allies in conservative media, has launched a full frontal attack on special counsel Robert Mueller's probe into Russian election meddling and possible collusion with the Trump campaign. Earlier this week, he called for an investigation of Mueller's investigation and alleged the FBI spied on his campaign, a story he described as “bigger than Watergate.” But the president has provided no evidence to support his allegations.
 * [C] BBC News states President Trump calls it "Spygate" and a Deep State conspiracy against him. His critics warn it's a distraction tactic and an effort to undermine trust in the investigation into whether his campaign colluded with Russia.
 * [D] CBS News states President Donald Trump escalated his efforts to discredit the Russia investigation Wednesday, saying the FBI has been caught in a "MAJOR spy scandal" over their use of a secret informant to determine whether some of Mr. Trump's campaign aides were working with Russia ahead of the 2016 election.
 * [E] AP states President Donald Trump has branded his latest attempt to discredit the special counsel’s Russia investigation as “spygate,” part of a newly invigorated strategy embraced by his Republican colleagues to raise suspicions about the probe that has dogged his presidency since the start.
 * [F] Brian Williams at MSNBC stated WILLIAMS: President Trump has seized on this new branding effort to discredit the Russia investigation. He declared on Twitter today, quote, “Spygate could be one of the biggest political scandals in history.”
 * [G] Reuters reports the frame in Flake's words: Republican U.S. Senator Jeff Flake, who has not ruled out running against Donald Trump for the White House, on Sunday criticized as a “diversion tactic” the president’s unsubstantiated allegation last week of an FBI “spy” being planted in his election campaign.
 * [H] CJR repeats the AP story, giving it still more weight: President Trump’s use of the term “spygate” to describe his latest attempt to discredit Robert Mueller’s investigation is part of “a newly invigorated strategy embraced by his Republican colleagues to raise suspicions about the probe that has dogged his presidency since the start.”
 * [I] NPR states ...amid a concerted effort by Trump and conservative supporters to discredit that investigation. The president has accused the investigation of being a partisan "witch hunt" and the investigators of being "conflicted." There is a hashtag devoted to what the president and his allies are calling "SPYGATE" that the president himself is using. Trump boasted that it "could be one of the biggest political scandals in history!"
 * [J] Glen Kessler first in The Washington Post, and then reprinted in The Chicago Tribune says: President Trump, in a continuing effort to discredit the criminal investigation into his campaign's possible links with Russia entities, has now seized on "spygate."
 * [K] New York Magazine says Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani confirmed on Sunday that the president and his allies’ attempts to discredit the Mueller investigation — including the most recent so-called Spygate controversy — are part of a public relations campaign aimed at staving off impeachment.
 * [L] WaPo says Trump alleged the FBI treated him unfairly in 2016 by not tipping him off that his campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, was under investigation ... Such complaints are part of Trump’s overall strategy to discredit the Russia investigation by portraying special counsel Robert S. Mueller III and his team of prosecutors as partisan operatives determined to destroy his presidency ... Lately, Trump has been using a sinister catchphrase, “Spygate,” to refer to the FBI’s intelligence-gathering efforts...
 * [M] NYT says He demanded a Justice Department inquiry of the matter and named the matter “SPYGATE” in repeated posts on Twitter. Mr. Ryan became the highest-ranking Republican to throw cold water on that interpretation, which Democrats and former high-level law enforcement officials have claimed is part of an unrelenting effort to discredit the open investigation into Mr. Trump and his campaign.
 * [N] USA Today says Then he coined a term to try to discredit the Mueller investigation: "SPYGATE."

Overall, then, I'd say this is a pretty impressive list of central RS, and it shows that the dominant framing of this story in the media has been that Trump made unusbstantiated claims about spying and pushed the idea of a scandal that he branded "Spygate," in order to discredit the Mueller investigation. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, just like Pizzagate -- a conspiracy theory. O3000 (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, O3K, what I'm saying is that these sources didn't say it was a conspiracy theory, and didn't compare it to Pizzagate, but chose to frame the story in a different way than that. Good to know you think it should be framed as a conspiracy theory like Pizzagate. I'm not aware of RS that makes that comparison. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What does the Christian Science Monitor (CSM), Wall Street Journal, New York Post, and other newspapers that have a different bias (or almost no bias in the case of the CSM) say about it? And how about the books that have been written about it?  I notice that Wikipedia editors often overlook books because they can't be easily looked up on the Web- you have to buy them or check them out from the library. AppliedCharisma (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m not saying RS compared it to Pizzagate. I said it’s a theory about a conspiracy with no evidence, like Pizzagate. And, I believe most RS didn’t use the specific term “conspiracy theory” about Pizzagate either. O3000 (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * O3000 - your initial comment certainly wasn't clear on this. It wasn't helpful in my opinion.  starship .paint  (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't find these long discussions suggesting that Spygate was an actual scandal helpful. -gate means scandal. When it is misused, it is a conspiracy theory, not a scandal. O3000 (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Once again, a serious problem with many of these old and out of date articles is that President Trumps campaign DIDN'T conspire with Russia to influence the election, so his "interference" takes on a new light after the Mueller report's release. AG Barr admitted that if he had been in Trump's position he would have shared the view that the Russia investigation was a "witch hunt" - which sounds like an even stronger claim than that the spying was improperly predicated. That the NYT and WaPo reporters shared a Pulitzer prize for pushing the false narrative of Russia collusion is, in hindsight, a journalistic embarrassment. Why are we prolonging that false narrative (and thus prolonging the journalistic embarrassment) by pushing these old articles? Wookian (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The Mueller Report was about Russian interference in the 2016 campaign, which absolutely occurred. It also detailed obstruction of justice. It specifically stated that it was not about “collusion”. I don’t know what Pulitzer Prize you are talking about or why it would matter if it existed as you say. I don’t know what “false narrative” you are referring to. The “false narrative” discussed in this article is that there was an Obama/FBI conspiracy to harm the Trump candidacy by planting a spy in the campaign. There is no evidence of such. O3000 (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There are several moving parts here... part of our disagreement is over the definition of the term "Spygate." My definition would be more along the lines of Philip Rucker's WaPo article quoted above as "L" in Shine's list: "Lately, Trump has been using a sinister catchphrase, 'Spygate,' to refer to the FBI’s intelligence-gathering efforts at the outset of its Russia interference investigation." And from the same article: "He accuses the FBI of infiltrating his campaign with spies." If you use that more general definition of Spygate, recognizing as AG Barr does that investigating an opponent's political campaign requires solid predication which is not clear that they had -- then you have the basis for a scandal, as is currently being investigated. Post-Mueller report there is no "conspiracy theory" to it. Prior to the Mueller report there shouldn't have been either, however there was sort of a feeding frenzy on the political left. Charitably, we would suppose many journalists really believed there was illegal conspiracy with Russia to influence the election, but in any case, they were obviously wrong about that. Wookian (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Wookian, you write: "investigating an opponent's political campaign requires solid predication which is not clear that they had." There is loads of "predication". There were a number of reasons why the investigations into the Russian's "sweeping and systematic" election interference led to suspicion, investigations, and surveillance of the Trump campaign.
 * I suggest you study the background for the Trump-Russia investigations. Trump campaign members had no legitimate reasons to be holding so many secret meetings with known Russian agents and then lying repeatedly about it. We know they weren't talking about the weather because we know they were discussing election interference. How do we know? Because, starting in August 2015, and before U.S. intelligence agencies started any investigations, they began to receive alarming reports from eight foreign intelligence agencies (United Kingdom, Germany, Estonia, Poland, Australia, France, a Baltic state, and Holland) describing overheard conversations between known Russian agents and Trump campaign members. The conversations "formed a suspicious pattern", and while their nature is known by intelligence agencies, it has not been revealed to the public. I have collected more evidence and sources here (this is spread around in our articles):
 * Foreign surveillance of Trump campaign members. Later, U.S. intelligence also overheard conversations.
 * This foreign surveillance made some totally incidental and unintentional discoveries. The Trump campaign members were not under surveillance, but the Russian spies they were talking to were indeed under surveillance. This was the earliest recent evidence of active collusion between the campaign and Russians, and lots more was to come. (Strictly speaking, in 2013 (before Americans knew about his plans), when Trump and Russians were discussing him starting to run for president in 2015, and that the Russians promised to help him, that was earlier.)
 * I'm not sure how much more "predication" would satisfy you, but, based on what the Trump campaign was doing then, and Trump's weird relationship with Putin now, there was and is plenty of good reason to be suspicious and suspect collusion.
 * Giuliani said it best: "I never said there was no collusion between the campaign, or people in the campaign. I said the President of the United States. There is not a single bit of evidence the President of the United States committed the only crime you can commit here, conspiring with the Russians to hack the DNC." -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The Mueller Report spells out the predication for what actually occurred. And, there is no evidence of anything odd about the FISA requests, which were approved by multiple Republican judges. And if you want to be considered serious here, avoid phrases like: feeding frenzy on the political left. O3000 (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want to be considered serious here, avoid phrases like: there is no evidence of anything odd about the FISA requests. The FISA applications included material from the Christopher Steele Dossier, claiming it to be trusted and verified. That is precisely some of what is being investigated now, so let's not pretend there's nothing odd there. The great thing is that ignorance is curable, so if you read some of Solomon's investigative journalism on the subject - documented directly from original sources, you can start to understand this. Wookian (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence of anything odd about the FISA requests. None. That claim is a part of the conspiracy theory. The dossier was one bit of evidence; and its source was outlined to the judges. The Mueller Report established that there was Russian interference in the election, and that there were a huge number of connections between the Russians and the Trump campaign. Why wouldn't that be investigated? And please don’t point me to opinion sources. And watch that word ignorance. O3000 (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Wookian, you write: "Steele Dossier, claiming it to be trusted and verified."??? Not true. They made no such claim in the application. On the contrary. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "on the contrary?" Do you mean that they represented in the FISA application that the Steele Dossier was untrustworthy? That would have been great, but it's not what happened. Of course, if they correctly mentioned that it was untrustworthy then it obviously would have been inappropriate to include at all. Here's Solomon: It is important to note that the FBI swore on Oct. 21, 2016, to the FISA judges that Steele’s “reporting has been corroborated and used in criminal proceedings” and the FBI has determined him to be “reliable” and was “unaware of any derogatory information pertaining” to their informant, [...] That’s a pretty remarkable declaration in Footnote 5 on Page 15 of the FISA application Wookian (talk) 02:41, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

- thanks for the great effort. I'm going offline right now, but in my quick look over I did see several sources backing up in order to discredit the Mueller investigation. Won't comment on the rest yet, this is just a preliminary analysis.  starship .paint  (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Starship.paint. If any of the rest of you folks want to present a comparable or better list of RS that support a different claim about how RS present the story, then go right ahead, I'm all ears. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - you definitively established the “discredit” portion in the sources. But “unsubstantiated” claim is only quoted to [B], while “critics said distraction tactic” is quoted to only [C] and [G]  starship .paint  (talk) 00:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I say at the outset that I don't provide sufficient quotes to establish "unsubstantiated". I did not do this to keep it reasonably compact (it's already pretty long). Would it be helpful to have me extract all explicit statements to the effect that the claims are unsubstantiated? I didn't want to post so much that it couldn't be taken in. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - maybe that’s for another section. This one has already been steered in the direction you set out.  starship .paint  (talk) 00:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I suspect that once the DoJ IG, Huber, and Durham special investigation reports are released, the narrative on this story is going to change A LOT. Arguing about it before then is probably a waste of time, although in the meantime we definitely, with Barr's testimony and the Mueller report, hae good reason to drop the "conspiracy theory" from the article title. AppliedCharisma (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I will make one small quibble here - instead of how RS present it's more like how RS presented since many of these articles are old and out of date, not reflecting the dramatically turned tables after Mueller's release. Wookian (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that all anyone cares about is RSs, Wookian. So if you have a list of your own superior (more up-to-date) sources, let's hear it. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ...dramatically turned tables after Mueller's release Sorry, but it now appears that you are pushing this conspiracy theory. The Mueller report has turned no tables. There is no evidence that Obama and the FBI spied on Trump's campaign to harm his electoral chances. It's a conspiracy theory. The report details massive interference in the campaign by the Russians, and shows justification for the investigations. It also details efforts to obstruct justice. O3000 (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I appreciate Shinealittlelight's efforts here to move beyond the strictly binary "is-it-or-is-it-not-a-conspiracy-theory" debate. I hope others will come along for the ride. I haven't reviewed these sources in detail, but they appear to verify that Trump's critics have contended that the Spygate allegations are an attempt to discredit the Russia investigation. I see no reason not to add that information to the article. I think it belongs in the lead. R2 (bleep) 17:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, R2. But I'm arguing for something stronger than just inclusion of this information--something you may not agree with, but it's worth making clear what the disagreement is. I'm arguing that the above list shows that the present Wikipedia article frames the whole topic in a way that is substantially different from the vast majority of mainstream sources. If I'm right about this, then the article needs a whole new orientation. I'd still agree to include the "conspiracy theory" point, but the presentation should weight that point according to it's lack of substantial representation in mainstream sources. At present, the "conspiracy theory" point is framing the whole article. I'm arguing that this is way out of step with the weighting of the point in mainstream sources, which largely (per my list) do not mention that point at all. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I get that. I favor an incremental approach. I suspect we can obtain consensus that something like, "Trump's critics have contended that the Spygate allegations are an attempt to discredit the Russia investigation," belongs in the lead section. Then we can decide whether that content should be featured more prominently than the conspiracy theory part (a more dubious proposition, but one that some editors-who-believe-it's-a-conspiracy-theory might be open to). R2 (bleep) 18:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think R2’s proposed sentence is a good addition that should be inserted now. On conspiracy, the sources provided by Shinealittlelight make it clear that these are unsubstantiated claims of extreme wrongdoing by multiple people in the FBI to harm Trump to the point of possibly being “one of the biggest political scandals in history”. In Trump’s own words, “a deep state conspiracy”. The articles also state in many ways that there is no evidence for this. Realizing that we are not RS, our own article states: “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.” What we have here is a conspiracy theory. Now, sources are all going to use their own phrasing, as is their wont. But, I see no reason to use ten different phrasings when they all amount to theories of conspiratorial activity, particularly since Trump himself, he who coined the term Spygate and originated the claims, called it a deep state conspiracy. O3000 (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I boldly conjecture that we will never achieve consensus about whether spygate is a conspiracy theory. But perhaps we can agree that we need to follow RS, and that RS tend not (per my list) to explicitly present it using that term, so we should also tend not to explicitly present it that way. O3K, you're suggesting that although these sources by and large do not explicitly use the term 'conspiracy theory', they use other language that, in your opinion, is tantamount to calling it a conspiracy theory. Namely, that it is an unsubstantiated claim of a conspiracy. If you're right, then let's follow RS and use that language instead of 'conspiracy theory'. I just want to get away from the partisan effect of associating Trump with martians and the illuminati.Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, you left out the RS that called it a conspiracy theory directly, probably making it the most common label. And deep state is listed by us as a major conspiracy theory, as well as others about the Clintons, Obama, George Soros, etc. And Trump has called global warming a Chinese conspiracy, claims MS-13 is flooding across our border and used the nickname "MS-13 Lover Nancy Pelosi". No need to stretch the term to Martians and the Illuminati. O3000 (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, if you have a competing list of comparable RS that support a different framing, I'm all ears. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You want me to go back through this TP and find them yet again? O3000 (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, are we back to arguing that we shouldn't describe Spygate as a conspiracy theory? Because if we are then I ask you again to drop that stick. R2 (bleep) 19:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not what I'm arguing about. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, then I think I misunderstood If you're right, then let's follow RS and use that language instead of 'conspiracy theory'. R2 (bleep) 20:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought O3K suggested that the sources I listed support the conspiracy theory framing. I was responding that even if he were right about that, it would support the course of action I suggested. Anyway, I don't want to argue with O3K anymore. It's not productive. My main point in this section is just what I've said. And if someone wants to assemble a competing list of excellent RS that supports a different framing for the article than I'm advocating, I suggest that they do so. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, you have a point that discussions with you have not been productive. Circular arguments never end. O3000 (talk) 00:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Proposed: "Trump's critics have contended that the Spygate allegations are an attempt to discredit the Russia investigation, (2-3 sources) and some of them have described it as a conspiracy theory."(2-3 sources) This uses R2's good wording and attributes the CT to the critics. As usual, the sources tell who says what. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm definitely against the "and some of them have described it as a conspiracy theory." This suggests, among other things, that the "conspiracy theory" description is just an allegation by Trump critics. In fact as we know there are plenty of reliable sources that have described Spygate as a conspiracy theory. I'd start the article as follows: "Spygate is a conspiracy theory(2-3 sources) initiated by President Donald Trump in May 2018 that the Obama administration had implanted a spy in his 2016 presidential campaign for political purposes.(2-3 sources) It has been described as an attempt to discredit the Special Counsel investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.(2-3 sources)" R2 (bleep) 23:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with R2. Claims by the President of the US that the FBI has committed treasonable acts (which are punishable by the death penalty), cannot be dealt with by using weasel wording. This is a conspiracy theory. There is no evidence that Obama and the FBI committed treason by placing a spy in Trump's campaign to harm his candidacy. Why are we trying to minimize this conspiracy theory? O3000 (talk) 00:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I must agree. Striking my proposal. Please make yours as a proposal. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with R2's proposal that we add: "Trump's critics have contended that the Spygate allegations are an attempt to discredit the Russia investigation." I don't believe anything that already exists should be removed at this time. We can continue debate after that. O3000 (talk) 00:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with R2’s proposal. I would have the unsubstantiated part be “widely described”. Shinealittlelight has definitively proved it.  starship .paint  (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that proposal. This addition alone would not, however, reflect the fact that the conspiracy theory angle is way less prominent in the RS than this angle in terms of branding and discrediting. One small step in that direction is to omit the first paragraph of the body that talks about Max Boot. In my view, the fact that very few RS approach the story that way should make us hesitate to open the body that way. It is not how RS frame the whole story, so it isn't how we should frame it. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * How about we shift Max Boot to Reactions, ?  starship .paint  (talk) 02:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep, that seems reasonable. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

New Proposal: I would then suggest adding to the fourth paragraph in the lead the claim that "some sources have described Spygate as a conspiracy theory" with the LA Times report and the Haaretz report as sources. Here are a few things to like about this proposal.
 * First, it doesn't explicitly define 'spygate', which is good because there is no one correct definition of it in RS (as I've repeatedly argued).
 * Second, it prominently implements the framing of all the RS that I listed above.
 * Third, it still mentions the reports that it is a conspiracy theory, but gives this lower billing, in accord with the less prominent representation of that point in RS, and also in accord with the structure of the article itself, which has several mentions of conspiracy theory in the reactions section. It does not relegate the conspiracy theory angle to "Trump critics," which is good, since that angle has shown up in the news sources I mentioned. Thoughts? Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I would add "...in May 2018 about the actions of FBI informant Stefan Halper in order to discredit..." That was indeed the immediate context, and without that, this article wouldn't even exist. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * BullRangifer, you make this point a lot, and I've had reservations about it. I'm just not so sure that he was only referring to Stefan Halper. He had heard about Halper, but it seems to me that he was suggesting that there could have been any number of spies in his campaign, and you get that from other things he has said (much of which is unsubstantiated or implausible, of course). So I hesitate to be so specific. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What about: "...in May 2018, (after/in response to) the revelation that ...Halper..." Would that do the trick? (And are we quite sure this is true?) Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yesterday, after being reminded by a reporter that treason is a death penalty offense, Trump named four FBI agents and accused them of treason. He also suggested people above them were guilty of treason. That would seem to be Rosenstein and Sessions. This all started with the Spygate conspiracy theory. I think an encyclopedia should make it clear that there is no reason to believe that the FBI/DOJ attempted a coup d'état in the US for the first time in history. Numerous conspiracy sites claim that there was an FBI conspiracy to harm the POTUS and that it isn't just a theory. Although not all RS use the specific term "conspiracy theory", I don't think any suggest this conspiracy actually existed. O3000 (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I am suggesting that we follow the emphasis and framing of the RS. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As am I. In addition to Bullrangifers six conspiracy cites, I’ll add five RS using the words conspiracy or conspirators: NYTimes, NPR, CBS, NewYork Mag, BBC. O3000 (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you please lay out the text of your proposal? Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We add R2's suggested text and stop this circular argument. O3000 (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, so you won't lay out the text for us. Thanks. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I already did and I'm tired of repeating myself. As per my edit well above, we add: "Trump's critics have contended that the Spygate allegations are an attempt to discredit the Russia investigation." I don't believe anything that already exists should be removed at this time. O3000 (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I still don't know where you would add it in the lead, and you never said. I'm not asking anymore. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

, Got any thoughts? Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Totally contrary to our core policies as well as WP:FRINGE. You already know my position about attributing the "conspiracy theory" statement in-text. I am completely against it. Now you're proposing that we call Spygate an "unsubstantiated theory" in the first para and then demoting "conspiracy theory" to the fourth para, with the weasely and non-neutral attribution to "some sources." No way no how no. I think you could have anticipated this response. Frankly I think this whole line of argument has been dragging on too long and is getting ridiculous. You've spent how much time bickering amongst the the group, and you still seem to have no sense of what has a plausible chance of receiving consensus. This is why I took this page off my watchlist. R2 (bleep) 19:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Disagree, as Shinealittlelight has made a reasonable case. If anything (as I've noted) it doesn't go far enough, cf. out of date sources. However it is a step toward representing this topic in a way more in line with the best sources and less aligned with sources that not only carry an unsustainable partisan slant, but also skew away from a factual and Occam's Razor view of the world, post Mueller Report. Wookian (talk) 20:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The Mueller Report has not changed anything other than detailing the need for investigations. If you have a problem with RS, take it to WP:RSN. 20:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)O3000 (talk)
 * Well that hurts my feelings, R2, and I don't see why you have to be so mean. But, more importantly, it's implausible on every point. First, why would I ping you if I knew what you were going to say? Of course I felt that it was important to get your perspective, even though we've often disagreed, and I wasn't exactly sure what you would think. I actually thought it might convince you! In my view, that's how this place works. I'm not beyond being convinced of things, even when I've argued about it at length. As for the point about WP:FRINGE, The language I used is very similar, on purpose, to the language at the beginning of the AP article linked above. So your suggestion that I'm violating WP:FRINGE is, to my way of thinking, not reasonable. As for weaselyness, I wasn't trying to be weasely, but to reflect RS and the structure of the article. I'm certainly inviting help improving the wording there if it can be improved. For the record, I've tried to be reasonable and I have made a new argument here in good faith. And, in any case, I'll be interested to hear what the other editors think. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We had a well-attended RfC. You have been arguing to, essentially, undue it at enormous length without gaining consensus. No RS gives any credence to this conspiracy theory. You continue to suggest changes to raise doubt in the mind of the reader that maybe there really was an attempt by the Mueller team/FBI to harm or oust the POTUS. Meanwhile, it just gets crazier and crazier. The President just called the Mueller team "18 killers". It just isn't there in RS. O3000 (talk) 22:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

On the contrary. The release of the Mueller report has changed the tone and context in which all these sources framed their coverage. It is relevant to a number of their claims in this article such as Trump creating a conspiracy theory to discredit an investigation into... something we now know he didnt do. Every one of those sources was working under the assumption he was guilty and they were wrong. So unless you support witch hunt and trial by media and mobs culture, ANY of these sources from pre release are lesser than sources post release. Your view that the only change was revealing the need for the investigation suggests a willingness to ignore the results of due process and persist in publishing mere allegations. Look around, your RS are no longer filling the airwaves with stories claiming Trump colluded with Russia. Batvette (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * My proposed language calls Spygate unsubstantiated in the first sentence, and attributes nakedly political motives to Trump's assertion of it, exactly like the Associated Press. Like the AP, I do not intend to raise doubts in the mind of the reader about Mueller, etc. Moreover, I would welcome alternative proposals, or suggested amendments or rewording. And, finally, the idea that I'm not seeking consensus is just hard to understand. I just pinged R2, who I've almost always disagreed with. I'm not proposing to do anything without consensus. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Nowhere did I say you weren't trying to gain consensus. O3000 (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I see, well, perhaps I misunderstood your sentence You have been arguing to, essentially, undue it at enormous length without gaining consensus. If so, I apologize. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal #2
 starship .paint  (talk) 00:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the proposal. My view is that this proposal places undue weight on the claim that it is a conspiracy theory, based on my review of sources. It also does not accurately reflect the body of the article. Do you disagree? Nevertheless, it is an improvement over the current wording. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I think the order does reflect the weight. You've provided numerous examples of "discredit", so it's mentioned first. You haven't provided numerous examples for "unsubstantiated", but I'm assuming in good faith that there are indeed such numerous examples, so that's mentioned second. We have several examples calling it a conspiracy theory, I'm assuming less than "unsubstantiated", so we put it third. As for the body, we can, and we should, update it. I've already advocated for it to be changed above, and before the lede is changed. But it seemed like you proposed a change to the lede, so I'm going with the flow here.  starship .paint  (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Understood. I wasn't aware that people wanted a change in the body of the sort you are suggesting. I may have lost track of what was being proposed. I really like the idea of changing the body first, and making the lead reflect the body. Thank you for your good faith; I do agree I need to pull together the references for "unsubstantiated" and gain consensus about that before it would be implemented. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the attempt at compromise. My review of the sources show that it is without question a theory involving a conspiracy, and zero RS say it isn’t. In any case, it looks like moving a dispute from the TP to the article, which doesn’t sound like a good method of developing an article. Must be an essay about that somewhere. If not, perhaps I’ll write one – if I can think of some humorous anecdotes required by a good essay. (Thanks for starting a new section.) O3000 (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, let's call it a theory involving a conspiracy instead of a conspiracy theory. I agree that RS support that, and I'd be fine with it. Here you go:


 * Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you really feel about my new proposal, O3000. It doesn't say Spygate is not a conspiracy theory.  starship .paint  (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I think its problematic to say the purpose of him presenting (what some call)a conspiracy theory was solely to discredit the investigation, particularly in light of its results. Even if RS say this isnt it purely speculatory (opinion injected) to state what his intentions were? At the very least it does not reflect NPOV, because it only approaches it from a POV that he WAS in collusion with Russia so the only rationale could be that. Im assuming most Presidential candidates do not appreciate having their campaign spied on by an incumbants agencies and their belief it happened would be motivation enough to voice such allegations. Batvette (talk) 02:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Batvette, I'm just trying to follow what RS (as defined here at Wikipedia) are saying. I agree that these sources lean left. The lead I proposed is in no way my own view of the situation. It is just what I think RS (as defined here) say. You cannot expect that you are going to collaborate with left-leaning editors--as you must here, since it's open to people on all sides to edit--and come out with a result that you, as a conservative, think is exactly right. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - sources are allowed to have POV. It's Wikipedia that must be NPOV in presenting the sources' POV which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.  starship .paint  (talk) 02:38, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 4
 starship .paint  (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is an improvement over the current wording. If 'conspiracy theory' means the same thing as 'theory about a conspiracy', as some here have claimed, then the final sentence is repetitive, since the sentence just before calls it a theory about a conspiracy. On that basis, I'd prefer a version that drops the final sentence. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Looks like a pretty nuanced and accurate description of what happened. — JFG talk 08:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No way no how, same reasons as above. R2 (bleep) 05:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The reasons that R2 gave above, as I understand them, are these.
 * 1. The proposal is contrary to our core policies.
 * 2. The proposal violates WP:FRINGE.
 * 3. The proposal wrongly attributes the term "conspiracy theory" in text.
 * 4. The proposal uses the "weasely" words "some sources."
 * My replies to these four concerns are as follows:
 * r1. Which policies? This is not specific enough to be a serious objection.
 * r2. I agree that it may violate FRINGE in the "conspiracy theory" langauge, insofar as this is the most weakly sourced part of the proposal. But this is of course not what R2 means. Rather, R2 thinks the other parts of the proposal are in violation of FRINGE. But this is false, as every other single part of the proposal is extremely well-sourced, as demonstrated on this page.
 * r3. This proposal no longer places an in-text attribution. It simply says that Spygate has been described as a "conspiracy theory".
 * r4. The proposal does not use 'some sources' any more.
 * So, in conclusion, it seems to me that proposal 4 does address the concerns that R2 had, where they were specific enough to be addressed, anyway. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In no way does it address any of the concerns you listed. WP:NPV: Do not treat facts as opinions. If all RS say the same thing, we must say it in our own voice. It's required by this core policy. WP:FRINGE: Clearly identify fringe theories that do not have support in reliable sources. Do not describe a conspiracy theory merely as an "unsubstantiated theory," even if we go on later to describe it (kind of sort of) as a conspiracy theory. WP:WEASEL: Don't say something "has been described as..." If you're going to say something was described, say who did the describing. All of these problems are addressed by simply calling Spygate a conspiracy theory. I have yet to see any policy-based justification for these myriad proposals. What I do see are unrelenting efforts to legitimize a fringe theory against consensus. R2 (bleep) 21:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * First, I think I've contributed to improving the article in a lot of different ways, and I think you're being rude for no good reason. Please stop that.
 * I'd like to reply in detail and good faith to what you've said here, but some of your reply is just impossible to engage with. I mean, obviously we all agree that fringe theories without RS support should not be in the article. If we're assuming good faith--and I surely am, and I hope you can try to do likewise--then I know that what we disagree about is not that this is the policy, but rather on exactly how the policy applies to this particular case.
 * You have complained that I have not provided a policy-based reason for the suggested rewrite. Well here you go. The problem I have raised is that very few--exactly three so far as I can tell--of the non-partisan, high quality news outlets describe Spygate as a conspiracy theory, while all of the major news outlets nevertheless reported on the story and framed it differently than that. Given this, the "conspiracy theory" aspect of these three reports does deserve to be in the article, but should be appropriately weighted given its relative paucity of sourcing. The article should not be framed, front and center, in terms of "conspiracy theory" precisely because the vast majority of the high quality RS do not frame it this way. I want to frame the article like the AP frames its report, for pete's sake. This is not pushing a fringe view! So that's my policy-based argument.
 * I get your worry about "has been described". I'd be happy to name the three outlets in question. Would that help with this problem?
 * Finally, if you are unpersuaded by what I've said so far, at least try to recognize that the lead currently does not reflect the content of the article. That's obviously a problem. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There are at least a couple of reasons why your line of argument is inconsistent with our community standards. First, we don't restrict our reliable sources to those that are "non-partisan" and/or "high-quality." Second, there is absolutely no requirement or expectation whatsoever that we must "frame" our articles the way that news outlets do. We are not a newspaper, and I don't believe anything in our community standards says anything about framing. I'm sorry if I seem rude, I'm just being direct and to the point. R2 (bleep) 00:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 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) 00:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to use 'theory about a conspiracy' front and center, throughout the article. If you think that's exactly the same as 'conspiracy theory' then it looks like we have a consensus. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not so fast. That is a very awkward phrase, and since they mean the same, we should use the common phrase, as found in multiple RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, you write the following:

I explained this awhile back, so I'm surprised to see you still hold that view. Maybe I didn't explain it well enough, so I'll give it another try.

First of all, counting sources is not how we determine weight. 20 sources describing one aspect of a story does not nullify or make smaller one good RS describing another aspect of the story. Both can easily carry the same weight, or even give the content from the single source more weight. In this case both should get equal weight, so just word it so there is a nice flow.

Secondly, you are, no doubt inadvertently, using a straw man (or red herring?) argument/reasoning by expecting straight news sources to mention "conspiracy theory". That's not what they do, so the "lack" there is not a lack, and it's a bit surprising when they do it. We turn to opinion and analysis sources for that, but will welcome it when a news source also does it.

So I hope you stop counting sources to determine weight and just give equal weight to both matters. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I never gave up the view that we should follow the framing of the vast majority of RS, incorporating alternative minority framings found in prominent sources in a way that reflects their relative weight in RS. Yes, that does involve a count, among other judgments. I do not give up that view now, and I doubt that I ever will. That's the sensible view, and, as far as I can tell, it is Wikipedia policy. I notice that you seem to care about the lead a lot. Could we try to at least harmonize the lead with the body? E.g., there should not be sources in the lead that aren't in the body. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 5
The last sentence is weirdly redundant in my opinion. But O3K says that this wording is equivalent to directly calling it a conspiracy theory, which R2 has said solves all the problems he raised. Since I do agree that the claim that Spygate is a theory about a conspiracy is very widely supported by all RS, maybe this proposal has potential. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You are suggesting that I approve of this awkward wording. I do not. I approve of the current wording, as I have said several times. Plus, my sources were in addition to other sources. They do not stand alone. Further, I disagree with having piles of sources in different groupings. O3000 (talk) 00:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Non-starter. This is getting disruptive. R2 (bleep) 00:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You're both being non-responsive. This is a good faith response to what you said. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, we have already responded. You are beating a dead horse. O3000 (talk) 01:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, you're being non-responsive. But that's ok. You don't like proposal 5 for no stated reason. How about this instead: "Spygate is a theory put forward by President Donald Trump in May 2018 according to which there was a conspiracy in the Obama administration to implanted a spy in Trump's 2016 presidential campaign for political purposes." If 'conspiracy theory' and 'theory about a conspiracy' are equivalent, then this sentence is equivalent to the current wording. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Please stop making these accusations simply because we disagree with your awkward language. I stated my objections. For the sixth time, I believe the current language is better. It is concise, accurate, supported by RS, and does not suffer from overlinking. O3000 (talk) 01:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The wording in my last comment is in no way awkward. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You're not listening to the feedback of your fellow editors. Several of us have explained our objections, then you come back with a marginally different variation on the same theme that raises the same objections. Rinse and repeat. R2 (bleep) 04:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Shinealittlelight, no, we are not being non-responsive. We are objecting, again and again, to your awkward wording. I did it just above. The current wording is just fine. Please stop your line of repetition. We aren't buying it. You don't like our responses and aren't listening. That's not good. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:21, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, in no way is this final proposal awkwardly worded:

This proposal is equivalent to the current wording if 'conspiracy theory' and 'theory alleging a conspiracy' are equivalent. Only O3K said those were equivalent, so maybe the other two of you disagree with that, and then I'd understand your not wanting this wording in that case. But, if you think the terms are equivalent, I don't see why you'd oppose it. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The ridiculously awkward twisting of words to avoid saying the magic words "conspiracy theory" (which are widely used in reliable sources) is obvious here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope, the wording is pretty smooth. That isn't the problem. You don't actually think my formulation is equivalent to the current wording. And good for you, neither do I. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Please don't take this rudely Shinealittlelight, but I'm going to spell this out for you as clearly as possible. Like it or not, there was a very well-attended survey discussion earlier this month in which a majority of the participants !voted to include "conspiracy theory" in the article title. I was not even one of those in the majority. Since then you have repeatedly pushed to have us say that it wasn't necessarily a conspiracy theory, and when that effort failed you have repeatedly pushed to call it an "unsubstantiated theory" and to de-emphasize that the theory is a conspiracy theory, and now that that effort has failed you're on to removing "conspiracy theory" from the lead. I daresay that you've devoted 475-odd of your last 500 edits to this one narrow issue, which is inconsistent with the existing, recent consensus. I believe that you've been acting in good faith the whole time, but do you understand how disruptive this has been? When will you drop the stick and accept the existing consensus? R2 (bleep) 22:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * + a bunch. bludgeoning the process can be one of the largest time sinks. O3000 (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your reply, and your assumption of good faith. It really is well founded! I do get that there was a recent RfC, and I recognize that I disagree with the ruling that came from that. However, I believe I have made a number of contributions to improving the article. I think you would agree with that, but maybe not. But that's what I think. Also, I have tried to be civil, and I have sought a new consensus, with arguments, new information, and so on. I have tried my best to be responsive to your objections. I know you don't think I've succeeded, but I really have tried. I have been careful to avoid any edit warring, and I don't think I've made tendentious changes to the article itself. This talk page has been pretty wild for a while, and I honestly think I've been more focused on content here than many others have. It has become pretty forum-ish here, and I haven't participated much in that. Consider an example: I've asked several times for help harmonizing the lead with the body, and I asked an honest question about the use of the Vox source in the lead that has not been answered so far, while everybody is basically debating daily political news of dubious relevance to any proposed change in the article, and in fact (oddly enough) debating this in the very section on Kessler that I started because I emailed Kessler himself and got new information from him! I just feel like it's not totally fair to say that I'm being uniquely disruptive here. I certainly have failed to gain consensus about a change to the first sentence, and despite the fact that I'm unsatisfied with the responses you guys have given me, I won't follow up if you don't on that issue. So sure, let's all back away from the issue of the opening sentence for the time being. But also, let's work together where we can, ok? And it would be really kind of you to try to put yourself in my shoes; I'm obviously outnumbered here by folks who are left-of-center. I'd like to make a contribution anyway, because I believe in Wikipedia, and I think it's going to make your work better if you try to work with me instead of just wishing I'd go away. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all of that. I appreciate that for all of your POV pushing you've been remarkably and commendably civil. Really a breath of fresh air. And I did not accuse you of being completely unproductive or uniquely disruptive, nor for that matter of being more disruptive than anyone else. However, that doesn't change the fact that this mission you've been on, to remove or deemphasize the words "conspiracy theory," has been very, very disruptive--not because it's morally wrong or whatever, but because of its effect. As Objective3000 noted, it's been an enormous time sink for so many editors. As a group we all could have and should have moved on from this issue on May 2. Civil, non-edit warring editors have been sanctioned for less, with the blessing of the community. I'm not saying that as a threat; I think you have the disposition and intelligence of a kickass editor and I have no interest in seeing you get in trouble. You just have to get off of this singular WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS thing and broaden your editing interests. R2 (bleep) 23:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the nice words. Well, I had a case to make, and, you may not believe me, but it was not for my POV on the subject matter at all. I recognize that my own POV on this subject would never, never be allowed to appear in this article, even if it were attributed to a respected opinion columnist. So I don't really accept that I was POV pushing. Rather, I sincerely believe that the article is out of step with Wikipedia policy. But I've made my case, and you all have not accepted what I have to say. I do believe I had the stronger argument; of course you'll disagree. However, I also have come to believe that reasoned argument plays very little role in determining content here. I find that to be unfortunate. But there's little to be done about it, I'm afraid. In any case, I'll try to be more cognizant of people's time in the future. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)