Talk:Spygate (conspiracy theory)/Archive 9

Kessler
Here is the piece we cite in the lead from Kessler:. I have had a hard time telling what Kessler is assigning "Four Pinocchios" to in this piece. I've also been unclear on what Kessler means by "Four Pinocchios". So I emailed him, and I asked him whether his ruling applies to the whole May 24 tweet at the top of his article, or whether it instead applies only to Trump's claim that the spy was paid a lot of money (this was a dispute Starship.paint and I had some time ago). I also asked what his ruling of "Four Pinocchios" means exactly. Here is his reply:

For context, here's the May 24 tweet:

I'm not sure what you'll all make of this. If nothing else, it's interesting, and fun to hear from Kessler. But my take is that we can only use his piece to support the claim that the May 24 tweet is either false or unsupported by evidence, whereas we are currently using it to support the claim that "Trump's claims" (presumably this means Spygate generally) are false. That seems to me an incorrect use of this source given the clarification from Kessler. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's very interesting and I thank you for the footwork. Not clear whether we can use any of this due to it being primary material versus secondary. I'm also not sure what Trump's tweet is referring to. Are there secondary sources that discuss the tweet and give a credible explanation? Did Trump allege that Halper was paid big bucks? Was Trump talking about the money paid to Christopher Steele by the FBI? Would be interesting to see an analysis not based on ignorant and often hostile assumptions such as you often find among the Democrat sympathizing / left leaning outlets. Wookian (talk) 01:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, Trump rightly alleged that Halper was paid big bucks. It was over a million dollars, but mostly for research unrelated to his work as an informant. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The point is that we are currently misusing the source. The source does not support the claim that "Trump's claims" are false. Moreover, it's weird that we are citing a source not cited in the body of the article. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Then fix it. The source should be used in the body first. It can be used to document that Trump's claims were unsupported. Other sources can be used to support the "false" aspect. I don't see any difficulty here. It's a simple fix. Go for it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess the million dollars paid to Halper by the DoD caused people like Kessler to assume Trump was referring to Halper. Of course, Kessler's severe case of Trump derangement syndrome affects his analysis here, so even though in hindsight Trump was actually telling the truth in his tweet, Kessler felt he had to rate it as a lie. It would be nice if Kessler acted on his statement to Shine that the Pinocchio ratings are adjusted when new info comes out - there's no evidence I can see that his article has been withdrawn or corrected. It is embarrassingly out of date and has all the balance of a Media Matters piece. Wookian (talk) 02:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Just read this article. There you'll find other sources which identify that Trump was referring to Halper's million dollars. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Wookian, you wonder why Kessler rated the whole tweet with four Pinocchios, ergo "false". Then you claim that "Trump was actually telling the truth" and that Kessler should revise his judgment.

Let's break this down to see what was true and what was false. Let's start with Trump's misleading claims:


 * 1) "Clapper has now admitted that there was Spying in my campaign."
 * 2) "Large dollars were paid to the Spy, far beyond normal."
 * 3) "Starting to look like one of the biggest political scandals in U.S. history. SPYGATE – a terrible thing!"

Now to the facts of the matter:


 * No, Clapper did not make such an admission, therefore a false statement.
 * 1) Trump implied that Halper was paid that much as "the Spy". That's a false implication, otherwise, Trump wouldn't have mentioned it. He tried to take the fact that Halper had made some money over many years, and make it seem odious by making it appear it was for his work as a "spy". False, and deviously so.
 * 2) Only in Trump's and his supporters' minds is this a big scandal. In others' minds it makes Trump look like a liar and a conspiracy monger.

The above breakdown explains why Trump got the four Pinocchios for this tweet, which is the highest rating for a lie, except for the newer Bottomless Pinocchio, which was created because of Trump. Normal liars don't do what he does, so he's the only one who is in that category. That judgment is not caused by some left-wing Trump derangement syndrome; it's those pesky facts which do that. That's what Kessler traffics in. Doubting experts is not wise.

So Kessler is right and Trump is wrong, and therefore there is no need to revise anything by bringing it into accord with Trump's latest twists and turns of conspiracy thinking pushed by Fox News and unreliable sources. We need evidence from RS to make such changes. Without them this thread is exhausted. Can we move on now? -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Kessler has been left with egg on his face in several respects. First, AG Barr acknowledged that it can be referred to "spying" and obviously Barr is more authoritative than Kessler on this since Barr is not only an extremely experienced AG, but is currently the boss of the entire departments who had engaged in this spying (FBI counterintelligence). Furthermore, the disclosure about "Azra Turk" has made it obvious that "secret identity" human intelligence surveillance of the Trump campaign did in fact happen. Kessler wrongly implied that the secret identity stuff was a crazy conspiracy theory, and that the FBI just got some boring reports from a guy who talked to a guy. Bottom line, we really shouldn't have much use for Kessler's error ridden article here, except perhaps as an example some of the mistaken early impressions of the anti Trump media.
 * Note as well that Trump didn't claim that the spy was paid the big bucks for spying on his campaign. He just pointed out that an unusually large amount of money was paid to the spy. That's an opinion, and all it needs to be is suspicious for Trump's tweet to be legitimate - threshold easily passed. Again, as our better sources document, Kessler's assumptions are both out of date and woefully mistaken here. Wookian (talk) 03:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that Barr is in the adversarial position in his own department. Former leaders in the justice department and intelligence community are appalled at what he is doing, which has been described as a cover-up.
 * He has taken over a department and doesn't yet know exactly what has been going on, therefore he is investigating. He is not an authority on these events, including the alleged "Spygate" and "spying", which he admitted he didn't know about. He's a newcomer. His quickly-debunked statements defending Trump were not based on evidence, but on preemptively, without evidence, spinning everything to defend Trump, which is why he quickly ran into so much protest and very accurate debunking. That's why he is now seen as Trump's acting defense attorney, and not as an unbiased server of the people. The job of Attorney General is something other than what he's doing. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Kessler is a more RS than Trump and Barr, which isn't saying much. Trump and Barr have their opinions. That's all. Barr is not acting as AG, but as Trump's defense lawyer, so he cannot be trusted.
 * Now what are these "better sources"? -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * At this point Trump and Barr are more reliable. PackMecEng (talk) 03:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * LOL!, Yes, that is one opinion, but some things never change : "The president is possibly the single most unreliable source for any claim of fact ever to grace the pages of WP." -- MPants 04:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC) -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * GOP Congressman Justin Amash makes it clear that we're dealing with competing narratives:
 * "Barr has so far successfully used his position to sell the president's false narrative to the American people." -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I kind of miss Mr. Pants. I hope he is doing well. PackMecEng (talk) 04:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. For the sake of others, here is our dear departed/blocked User talk:MjolnirPants. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - Did you miss how Barr distorted the Mueller Report? Did you miss the thousands of falsehoods Trump said?  starship .paint  (talk) 02:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope saw all that, I stand by what I said. PackMecEng (talk) 02:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Starship, where is your source that says Barr distorted the Mueller Report? That would be odd, given that Mueller says that Barr's summary of the report's bottom line findings was accurate. Perhaps you should check whether your source for this has a political agenda. Wookian (talk) 03:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - Associated Press President Donald Trump and his attorney general are distorting the facts when it comes to special counsel Robert Mueller’s report in the Russia investigation. You tell me if AP has a politcal agenda, I'm not sure how to check.  starship .paint  (talk) 04:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the link. I thought you were claiming that Barr's summary of the bottom line of the Mueller report was a distortion of its conclusions. The AP article is, as far as I can tell, concerned with issues of phrasing and other matters of secondary importance that don't really change the outcome of anything. Wookian (talk) 04:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the AP article is indeed showing that Barr was misleading. Ever since he first released his so-called summary, he has been getting hammered for misleading the public, and when the Mueller Report was released, it revealed that he had distorted its conclusions. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's just such a surprise that the political left came to the conclusion that Barr misrepresented Mueller's conclusions, whereas Mueller (bless his heart) said that Barr didn't. Obviously, the Democrats know best about these things. Perhaps the Democrats could explain to Mueller why he is wrong about that. Wookian (talk) 07:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Where did you get that? Mueller's letter said quite the opposite. O3000 (talk) 11:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, Mueller was "very clear" to Barr that Barr didn't misrepresent the bottom line findings or conclusions of the report in his memo. Mueller's objection was not about misrepresentation, rather was that he wanted more of his own writeup to be shared. Obviously this was shortly satisfied, when as soon as Barr finished Mueller's incomplete homework - i.e. redacting grand jury information, the whole report was released publicly. Wookian (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Mueller's letter stated that Barr "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions". Barr said that Trump did not obstruct justice. Mueller just stated minutes ago that the report does not say this. O3000 (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Almost everything you are saying is true. However everything I said is true as well. There is nuance of meaning here that eludes 30 second soundbytes. The part I'd quibble with is that I'm not aware that Barr said that Trump didn't obstruct justice. Rather, he declined to indict Trump for obstruction of justice. It's not a prosecutor's job to exonerate anybody per se, rather it is to make a prosecute/don't prosecute decision. Wookian (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "..."did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions." You don't have to be on the "political left" to understand this means the letter was misleading. O3000 (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Barr: "Special Counsel Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting, in response to our questioning, that he emphatically was not saying, but-for the OLC opinion, he would've found obstruction." And again: "He said that in the future, the facts of the case against the president might be such that the special counsel would recommend abandoning the OLC opinion, but this is not such a case." Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, we know Barr says that Barr did not misrepresent Mueller. O3000 (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There's clearly some friction between Barr and Mueller's group, for example Barr's characterization of the letter as a bit "snitty" (a legal term?). Certainly, a special counsel investigation is a weird animal, and even more so when it's investigating a POTUS. Normally when a decision is made not to prosecute, any iffy-and-almost-incriminating evidence is kept private. In this case, obviously Trump elected to allow the full report to be made public. However the pressure to show the public derogatory evidence is part of what got Comey fired. He badmouthed Clinton while announcing (again, inappropriately since it wasn't his decision) on behalf of his bosses at the DOJ that "no reasonable prosecutor" would pursue charges. Anyway, it could be that part of the friction is that Mueller has basically released his own dossier of material impugning the president. Mueller's team may want it to be used against the president, and be disappointed in Barr's decision that it doesn't meet the threshold for an obstruction of justice indictment. Wookian (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That is one huge pile of biased speculation. O3000 (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, there's a bunch of stuff there. Some of it might be debatable. You'll be happy to hear that I didn't come up with it. I've read lots of opinion/analysis pieces that argue along these lines. Wookian (talk) 21:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Consider the source. Of course one would come to such conclusions from reading The Federalist and other conservative sources. It's not the worst one, but it obviously runs counter to mainstream RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * To me, conservative and mainstream are not mutually exclusive. The Federalist is within the mainstream, and some left leaning outlets that totally contradict The Federalist are also mainstream. The mainstream is a messy place and includes a variety of swimmers. Some will prefer terminology of RS's... to me, The Federalist is a reasonable RS for opinion pieces, subject to reader's discretion just like anything. If a writer on The Federalist has good personal credibility and deals heavily and intelligently with original sources, that carries weight accordingly. If the WaPo publishes an op-ed by someone who may be threatened with prosecution in the near future and claims they did nothing wrong, that is subject to being taken with grains of salt accordingly. Caveat lector etc etc. Wookian (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Another opinion piece that says the same thing as the Federalist piece, and quotes Barr implying the same (i.e. the principle that prosecutors are never tasked with establishing innocence, and are prohibited from publicly reporting guilt apart from ordinary indictment) Wookian (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * An opinion piece by the author of the book: “The Russia Hoax: The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump.” Seriously? You are bringing here a source who claims there was no Russian interference in the election and pushes a conspiracy theory? O3000 (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Calm down. I've not read the book you cite, however referring to a "Russia Hoax" does not imply that Russia didn't attempt to interfere in the election. The mainstream (non conspiracy theory) idea of a "Russia Hoax" would be the fraudulent Steele Dossier and the narrative pushed on America for two years that Trump's campaign colluded with Russia. That narrative was false, and was based on lies (hence, "hoax"). If you have different information than that, i.e. if you know for a fact that Jarrett claims Russia didn't interfere in the election, then I'm all ears. Wookian (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 1.) I am perfectly calm. 2.) The dossier was not a fraud. 3.) The "narrative" that the media was pushing a Trump/Russia "collusion" was largely invented by Trump and right-wing sites. 4.) The book pushes conspiracy theories that the "deep state" cleared Hillary of felonies while attempting to "destroy" Trump, and that Mueller was a part of this conspiracy. It isn't close to RS. O3000 (talk) 10:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to hear that you are calm. However I am getting whiplash from trying to keep up with your position here. First you said that the Jarrett book claims that there was no Russian interference in the election, and when called out on that, you shift to claiming that there was no "deep state" interference in the election and implying that it's a conspiracy theory to say otherwise. Well, it's not a conspiracy theory, and our AG is investigating specifically this question. This is in fact the entire alleged scandal of "Spygate" which if substantiated, will leave a stain on members of the Obama administration. Wookian (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There are no contradictions in what I said. Please stop pushing conspiracy theories here. O3000 (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, let's back up then, because I don't want to misunderstand you. Kindly substantiate your characterization of Jarrett as a source who claims there was no Russian interference in the election. Wookian (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Stop wasting time. An opinion article by Jarrett is not RS. O3000 (talk) 17:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If one finds oneself embarrassed due to being caught making a statement that appears to be false and unsupportable, one can always withdraw the statement. If one doesn't, then others might question whether one is here to advance an agenda, or to build an encyclopedia. Commitment to building an encyclopedia is incompatible with making and leaving in place statements that are known to be false. If you are right about Jarrett denying that Russia attempted to influence the election, then I will agree with you about him being an unreliable source, even for opinion/analysis statements. Wookian (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point. I suggest you self-rvt this embarrassing personal attack. O3000 (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I apologize if there is the appearance of an attack. I do want to believe that you can substantiate your characterization of Jarrett as a source who claims there was no Russian interference in the election or that you can somehow correct any misunderstanding if that's what happened here. However I can't read your mind, you're going to have to give me something to work with here. Wookian (talk) 18:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The point is moot as it is an opinion column by someone that pushes deep state conspiracies. I have other things to do. O3000 (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2.) Michael Isikoff and David Corn, two of the reporters given initial access to the dossier, have admitted it was full of bunk in multiple outlets (with MSNBC's Chris Hayes, USA Today, etc). Isikoff's Yahoo article, incidentally, was used as circular corroboration for the FISA warrant (as already noted on Wikipedia). Additionally, then Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kathleen Kavalec met with Steele on October 11, 2016 and did a cursory examination of his claims (Kavalec1, Kavalec2, Kavalec3), finding massive and obvious errors (ie. there was no consulate in Miami, etc) which she passed along to the FBI (so the FBI knew it was bunk as well, when they brought it to the court). It failed to hold up under even mild scrutiny by a non-investigative bureaucrat.
 * 3.) The Trump/Russia "collusion" narrative was firmly and completely debunked by Mueller. There is zero debate about that point, notwithstanding the goalposts having been moved to "obstruction" and a few centuries of jurisprudence upended for "guilty until proven innocent". I understand you are invested in a narrative, but Wikipedia needs to remain neutral.
 * 4.) I can't say much about how reliable the book is, not having read it. Nor can I say much about the author, having steadfastly avoided Fox News for the past few decades. From this discussion, it is sounding like the book is notable, in terms of the topic and does seem to represent a significant opinion from a well known source. I see no reason to not at least cite it as opinion, unless the goal here is to keep out any opinions that dissent from the preconceived conclusions.
 * Sadly, much like with the run up to the Iraq war, some typically "reliable sources" are far from neutral on the issue, which is why they are constantly wrong. It may be worth discussing what sources are actually reliable for this specific topic. Sources with a track record of erroneous reporting on the topic (anyone that hyped the aforementioned "Russian collusion" lie) should be regarded as highly suspect.
 * It's okay to have been wrong, happens to all of us at times. Relax, have fun, build an encyclopedia - all good faith efforts are appreciated.
 * In the spirit of fun, for those who don't already know, 4chan's /pol/ has claimed credit for the "pee tape" claims in the dossier. It's funny. Laugh. (link unavailable - see Encyclopedia Dramatica's Steele_Dossier article, which is apparently blacklisted here - alternatively a 4chan thread is available at archive.is/dCI17) Throwaway060519 (talk) 06:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

(2) the dossier is not relevant to this page, let's not waste anyone's time here. (3) - Mueller did not even investigate collusion. He found not enough evidence to establish conspiracy or coordination. Coordination requires an agreement – tacit or express – between the Trump campaign and the Russian government on election interference. Whereas two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests, which probably happened, is not enough to establish coordination. Mueller also said that his evidence might not have been complete due to encrypted, deleted, or unsaved communications as well as false, incomplete, or declined testimony. So no, The Trump/Russia "collusion" narrative was firmly and completely debunked by Mueller - this is false. (4) the book is probably nonsense. An official investigation was done by Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz, this was published: Inspector General report on FBI and DOJ actions in the 2016 election. It basically says Clinton's investigation was not rigged. . If Jarett contradicts that, he's proving himself unreliable in this field.  starship .paint  (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I hate to get into a tit-for-tat here, as it's not likely to be helpful.
 * 2) You should talk to O3000 who has been incorrectly stating that it was not debunked. Numerous reliable sources have shown it to be untrustworthy, and the FBI was aware of that fact, and that exculpatory fact was not reflected in the ex-parte FISA warrant application. That is one of the numerous substantiated claims that fall under the various definitions of "spygate" (and it should be documented in the article).
 * 3) Collusion is not a legal term. It is, however, a commonly used term by the media and general public for what was investigated by Mueller. It was common in media reports before Mueller was appointed, meaning it has been in heavy use for 2-3 years. We all know that, and silly semantic arguments used to derail the conversation are disruptive. I will assume good faith and trust that you are only being disruptive inadvertently and not intentionally.
 * Mueller (at his recent press conference): "The first volume details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy." (Vox) - Shorter: "No collusion." What you think "probably happened" is of zero relevance or value here. Mueller indicted exactly zero people (associated with the Trump campaign or otherwise) for any form of conspiracy involving the campaign to commit any election fraud or related offenses.
 * "Trump-Russia Conspiracy" is commonly understood to be synonymous with "Russian collusion." No less than the New York Times admits, "Mueller Finds No Trump-Russia Conspiracy". That was the heart of the collusion delusion, it is settled. You can thrash around and flail and scream at the sky and argue about obstruction (a dead end), but the collusion hoax is over.
 * 4) To paraphrase you, the OIG's report is not relevant to this page. That said, Wikipedia already documents that relevant evidence was withheld from Horowitz's office by Strzok (at a minimum, if not others). Additionally, a recent set of FOIA emails between Strzok and Page revealed that at least four witness reports (302s) in the email investigation were never written. The DOJ may, according to Barr in a recent interview when asked about the status of US Attorney Huber, be investigating the "matter" further. Finally, the IG issued at least one criminal referral related to that investigation (McCabe) for lying (was it obstructive?). I will leave it to you "experts" to debate whether or not there was obstruction of justice here. That said, the issue does seem arguable, at a minimum.
 * Apparently, Jarrett has a JD from UC Hastings, spent a few years working as an attorney, spent no less than a decade reporting on legal matters for numerous reliable outlets (local NBC and ABC affiliates, MSNBC, CourtTV, and Fox News), and taught at New York Law School. That makes him a legal expert and his opinion is worth quoting. He wrote a best selling book, a significant work, published by Broadside books, an imprint of Harper Collins, a legitimate publisher presumed to have industry standard editorial oversight.
 * Your WP:Idontlikeit does not magically make him not an expert, worthy of having his opinion (properly labelled as such) in the article.
 * Coincidentally, your account of his opinion seems partly in line with that of one of the nation's most famous lawyers, Alan Dershowitz, who feels the IG went too easy (see here).
 * Further bolstering Jarrett's suggestion that the Russia story was a hoax - There is a not-insignificant opinion on both the left and the right that the Russian collusion narrative was false and intentionally propped up by an out of control, biased media. Respected, left-leaning journalist Matt Taibbi has carefully chronicled the media's extreme bias on this issue (he characterizes it as worse than their lies in support of the invasion of Iraq). Chris Hedges, another respected, left-leaning journalist has voiced his support for Taibbi's analysis. To pile on, you could look to no less than Glenn Greenwald, Noam Chomsky, and Van Jones. This is just further reason why typically reliable sources must be viewed with extreme skepticism on this topic.
 * This recurring pattern of a cabal of editors fighting tooth and nail to narrowly define the topic and keep out any information that might reflect poorly on their preferred narrative does not seem very WP:NPOV and really does border on WP:Own. Throwaway060519 (talk) 09:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * (3) Mueller Report: In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of 'collusion' - end of story. Collusion was not investigated.
 * (4) Jarrett has gone against the OIG. Without reliable sources going against the OIG too, we will accept the OIG's claims, as they conducted the investigation, and probably have way, way more access to classified information compared to Jarrett. Only when reliable sources say the OIG is part of a conspiracy, or the OIG was wrong, and Jarrett was right, then we will take OIG seriously.  starship .paint  (talk) 09:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * 3) You have been told that "collusion" is the commonly accepted term for what was investigated. Numerous reliable sources say exactly that and/or use the term themselves with regards to the investigation: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. They also say that no collusion was found as a result of the investigation. We go with what the reliable sources say, including the terms that they use. Your personal preference in terminology does not matter to me in this case.
 * At this point, it is clearly intentional on your part. In the interest of civility, I am asking you to knock it off. This is not constructive and is unnecessarily combative. My wording is clear, accurate, and in line with what the sources say - No collusion.
 * 4) First, Wikipedia itself and Alan Dershowitz also take issue with the OIG's investigation. Recently released FOIA documents show that yet more evidence was withheld from the OIG. The OIG also has no prosecutorial power and criminal referrals from that investigation are still outstanding. Thinking that the OIG was too lenient does not make someone unreliable, by any means. And to suggest otherwise is quite unreasonable.
 * In any case, let me remind you, the topic here is not the OIG. It is the accusations of spying against the Trump campaign under the guise of investigating Russian collusion (which we now know, conclusively, never happened).
 * That said, Jarrett's credentials seem solid. His properly attributed opinion stands. Your disagreement with his opinion on other matters aside from the topic of the article is not relevant and does not negate the significance of his opinion here.
 * Don't like it? Take it up with WP:RSN. Until then, an experienced lawyer with a decade of major broadcast journalism experience at respectable outlets who wrote a best selling book on the topic has a notable legal opinion.
 * A properly attributed reference to his opinion is informative, relevant, of due weight, and merits inclusion. No more, no less. Throwaway060519 (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Given that the Mueller report states that 'collusion' is defined by a legal dictionary as a synonym of 'conspiracy', I think the quote you keep providing from the report, which says that they did not apply "the concept of 'collusion'", should be understood as meaning that they chose for legal reasons to use the word 'conspiracy' rather than the word 'collusion', but not meaning that they do not regard the terms as synonyms, since the report literally says that they are indeed synonyms. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, Broadside Books apparently "specializes in conservative non-fiction". It seems reasonable to me to take up the question of its reliability at RSN, which has not yet been done as far as I can tell. Why don't we do that, Throwaway? Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems fine by me. No idea how that process works, so have at it.
 * However, I don't think the reliability of the publisher is at issue here. The question is whether Jarrett and his opinion on this particular topic are noteworthy. Judging by his resume, he seems qualified to weigh in. As far as verifying the reliability of the publisher, all that does is verify that the book reliably relays his opinion, which I think is a very safe assumption.
 * Unless I am mistaken, the intention was to cite his opinion here. If the goal was to include information from his book to support the facts of the case, then the publisher would come into play. So, it can't hurt to hash that out now, just in case. Throwaway060519 (talk) 11:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Policy treats self-published sources with more caution than opinion pieces published in RS, and I think the reason we (should) do that is that the editorial oversight, even on opinion pieces, adds a level of credibility and reliability. So I would disagree with you that the only point is to verify that the book reliably relays his opinion accurately. Rather, if there were a discussion of this at RSN, it should focus on whether Broadside adds good editorial oversight of the sort we expect from Harper Collins proper, or of any other RS that publishes opinion pieces. I have no idea what the answer to that question is. I'm not going to take it up at RSN, however, because I think I know what the result will be no matter what the facts are: Broadside will be treated as conservative opinion outlets usually are at RSN. And so it seems like a waste of time. Here's what I'm basically saying, then: this book is not going to get cited in this article, so why don't we just leave this issue and focus on areas where there could conceivably be consensus? Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * For most of my adult life, that would have seemed like a reasonable assessment, that conservative publication outfits were unreliable. I would argue that the situation has changed drastically in the last few years. Even the left itself is acknowledging that they have gone off the deep end, with the New York Times banning its reporters from appearing with deranged conspiracy theorists such as the formerly reputable Rachel Maddow and Don Lemon among others. Taibbi's book chapter is really the definitive piece on media bias in favor of the Russian collusion hoax, and I could see that being cited here once the full book is published.
 * Regardless of that, it seems inaccurate to call Jarrett's book "self published", as an imprint of a major publisher like Harper Collins sounds pretty professional to me (speculation on my part, admittedly). Further, Jarrett's opinion seems noteworthy and it could be sourced from the book or perhaps other media instead.
 * This one source is definitely not the hill to die on, and doesn't significantly change the article, but the determined intransigence of certain editors in support of a crumbling narrative is quite alarming. It seems like bringing this article up to encyclopedic standards is going to be an unnecessarily hard slog.
 * Other legal scholars such as the aforementioned Dershowitz, Jonathan Turley (GWU professor, TV talking head), and Jack Goldsmith (Harvard professor, Lawfare founder, recently referenced by WaPo as the leading expert) might be worth consideration if you want reasonable legal analyses. Throwaway060519 (talk) 12:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I see BLP violations (deranged conspiracy theorists such as the formerly reputable Rachel Maddow and Don Lemon), attacks against editors (determined intransigence of certain editors), an absurd claim (the left itself is acknowledging that they have gone off the deep end), and something about a crumbling narrative – but nothing we can use. O3000 (talk) 12:42, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And all this in a section called "Kessler" Lol. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to imply that the book was self-published. It obviously was not. The point was to illustrate that there is value in editorial oversight of opinion pieces, and the quality of that oversight needs to be evaluated at RSN for each disputed opinion source. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Stephen F. Cohen and "Intelgate"
I was surprised to see this piece in the left-leaning publication The Nation today. It is a piece by Stephen F. Cohen, a professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at Princeton and NYU. He has written several articles and a book that refer to what he calls "Intelgate": the view that US intelligence agencies undertook an operation to damage, if not destroy, first the candidacy and then the presidency of Donald Trump. He connects his remarks to Spygate at the very end of this piece: We are left, then, with this paradox, formulated in a tweet on May 24 by the British journalist John O’Sullivan: “Spygate is the first American scandal in which the government wants the facts published transparently but the media want to cover them up.” He also appears in an interview here. Key quote: I think that there has been an intelligence operation run against Trump, surreptitiously, since at least early 2016. I would call it Intelgate. And it is that, not Russiagate, that really rivals Watergate. And it needs to be investigated what these intelligence agencies have been doing, in addition to breaking the law. With this pattern of secret surveillance, and leaking to the press, for months and months. Who are these people, who sat through, I guess, the Obama administration, and have only now departed, who ran our intelligence services. My question is: should we include his perspective, attributed to him, in the article? Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If he had also called it Spygate, then I could accept this perspective. But he called it something different, and didn’t explicitly said he was rebranding Spygate to Intelgate right? Something like “what others call Spygate, I call Intelgate.”  starship  .paint  (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said above, he connects the terms at the end of his piece, when he suggests that O'Sullivan's reference to Spygate was a reference to what he (Cohen) calls Intelgate. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * - unfortunately, that is a mere suggestion. We can't rely on suggestions, someone may interpret differently. If The Nation is a reliable source (I don't know if it is), we could report the last paragraph. However, I'm already wary that this piece says the Mueller report found no “collusion” - when the Mueller report explicitly did not investigate "collusion", rather, it investigated "coordination" (which is a higher standard).  starship .paint  (talk) 01:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's stronger than a suggestion. His quote of O'Sullivan literally makes no sense if he thinks that O'Sullivan is referring to something else by 'spygate'. Aside from that, his own definition of 'intelgate' is clearly within the broad family of definitions of 'spygate' in news reports that I've repeatedly pointed out on this page. Finally, the Mueller report states as defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy. Given that the report itself says that the terms are "largely synonymous," Professor Cohen's use of 'collusion' here--a term broadly used in the popular level conversation that he means to join in this opinion piece--is totally warranted and does not tend to undermine the credibility we should rightly accord him for being a Professor and expert on these matters at Princeton and NYU. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * - not sure that if there is a misunderstanding. We are left, then, with this paradox, formulated in a tweet on May 24 by the British journalist John O’Sullivan: “Spygate is the first American scandal in which the government wants the facts published transparently but the media want to cover them up.” - this is relevant. If the Nation is reputable, I can support including it. The other stuff, not really. We don't have the expanded definition in this article (yet). RE: collusion, the report says this Office's focus in resolving the question of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law, not the commonly discussed term "collusion."  starship .paint  (talk) 01:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I'm being slow, but I'm not following. This Princeton/NYU Professor who is an expert on these matters published his opinion in The Nation, which is currently regarded as a reliable source at RSN. His opinion is that it is possible--and credible enough to be worthy of investigation--that, as quoted above, US intelligence agencies undertook an operation to damage, if not destroy, first the candidacy and then the presidency of Donald Trump. This seems to me relevant and worthy of an attributed and short mention in the "reactions" section of the article. He's a recognized expert at two of the world's leading universities and he is expressing his opinion in a source that is currently seen as reliable by RSN. Our opinion of what he says is surely not any basis for excluding this perspective. Moreover, his use of the word 'collusion'--in scare quotes, no less!--is totally appropriate in order to connect what he is saying to the standard and widespread media use of that term, especially given that the full quote says that the Mueller report found no “collusion” or other conspiracy. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll reply in another 24 hours.  starship .paint  (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * So, I did have some time to think about this . I still don't think any paragraphs than the last one is worth mentioning. As far as I remember, the sources for the other definitions of Spygate did not go into them in much detail. They were simply definitions. As such, the other definitions won't be elaborated much. If they won't be elaborated much, then it's not clear that Intelgate is relevant to Spygate.  starship .paint  (talk) 07:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, just to make sure I'm understanding you,, you think that it is worth mentioning his view that the news media have been uncharacteristically disinterested in uncovering the facts, but you don't think that we should mention the credence he gives to the idea that the intelligence agencies may have been coming after Trump? If I have that right, could you relate your judgment on this to some Wikipedia policy? Because I thought our policy was that we should include relevant opinions of experts when they are published in reliable sources, and that's what this clearly is. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * - his last paragraph mentioned Spygate, so that must be relevant. His prior paragraphs do not, so they are not immediately relevant. Alternative definitions of Spygate have been mentioned in reliable sources. But have the alternate definitions been explored by the reliable sources? If reliable sources do not first further explore their alternate definition of Spygate (rather than as a passing mention that I see now), I wouldn't report further on anything other than their definitions. Thus, it appears to me that this man's views on intelligence agencies are not relevant, at least until reliable sources really explore Spygate's definition in a similar way.  starship .paint  (talk) 13:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand that you're unpersuaded by my argument involving the varying uses of 'spygate'. Fine, forget that. Still, the mention of 'spygate' at the end of the article is totally out of the blue if 'spygate' refers to something that isn't under discussion in the article. You suggested that there are other interpretations of that part, but I honestly don't see them. Additionally, Cohen's view that there's enough evidence indicating wrongdoing in the intelligence agencies to deserve investigation is clearly directly relevant to spygate even if he never used 'Spygate' at all. I guess we just disagree. Not sure what else to say.Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you are placing way too much credence on the opinion of one man. I don't see how this passes WP:WEIGHT considering all the available RS. O3000 (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * - your first sentence seems inaccurate. I saw that there are some alternative versions of Spygate. See what I added into the article? But I don't think we should explore everything from those definitions unless the reliable sources actually do. If reliable sources report "Spygate is a blue fish", I don't find other sources talking about "blue fish" and add them if they don't mention "Spygate". If Cohen said "Intelgate is Spygate" then I would support including what he said about Intelgate. But it's not 100% clear how he connects the last paragraph to the previous paragraphs. Seems like WP:SYNTHESIS if we make connections beyond the sources.  starship .paint  (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry,, what I said wasn't clear. I did see what you added, and I approve of that. What I meant was that you're unpersuaded by my suggestion that, because of the varying definitions and the loose way in which 'spygate' has been used, we can clearly see that Cohen's use falls within the broad range of uses. Anyway, bottom line, I think his opinion deserves a brief mention for the reasons I've indicated, even if he never used 'spygate' at all. If I were a reader, I'd want to know about his view. At this point, I've made my case. What do you say about R2's idea (below) of possibly considering a paragraph on the various calls for investigation? Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * - I'm simply strict on it because he didn't mention it. I try to be equally strict. R2's idea is okay if they actually mention Spygate.  starship .paint  (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright, strict is is. I will bear that in mind in the future. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Stephen Cohen takes it just as far as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, but without the frothing mouths. He's in fringe "deep state" conspiracy theory country. We give such opinions less weight than the opinion sources we normally are allowed to use, IOW they get no weight because they are counterfactual and ignore proven facts. Our content is based on facts and opinions which are fact-based. Cohen's opinions are not fact-based, and the fact they are found in a normally RS doesn't save him. We don't cite Limbaugh's and Hannity's opinions, and neither should be cite Cohen's extremely fringe opinion piece.
 * Just what he says about the FBI is way off-base, since Comey's deviation from the FBI's operating procedures did cost Clinton the election, and then, by following standard procedures and not allowing a single leak, the FBI literally protected Trump, in spite of the fact that they could have blown his candidacy out of the water by leaking what was going on. They didn't at all, showing they could keep their personal opinions and their actual work separate.
 * Strzok also pushed the Clinton email investigation, even though he didn't like Trump. (Who wouldn't dislike him after learning what type of person he is and discovering what his campaign was doing with the Russians?) -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Prof. Cohen is a Princeton/NYU professor, and an expert on these matters, who is publishing his opinions in a RSN-recognized reliable source. If you (or for that matter, Limbaugh or Hannity) were a Princeton professor and were publishing opinions in such a source, I'd think we should include them. But, unlike Prof. Cohen, you're not that (at least as far as we know!), so your opinions about the subject matter are not relevant to the content of the article. As we always say to newbies who come around here complaining, we don't judge the facts on the ground; we report the judgments of RS. And so here's an RS saying something you don't like, so you have an opportunity to actually practice what we all preach. And I'm doing the same thing. Do you think I agree with all the "RS" which say that Trump was just trying to discredit the Mueller probe? I surely don't, and yet I added those sources because they're obviously news sources recognized here as RS and I recognize that my opinion is irrelevant here. So I put that content in even though I don't agree with it. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There’s a rather big difference between a huge number of RS stating that Trump has tried to discredit the Mueller Report (he says was created by 18 killers and some of the worst people on the planet), and one guy’s opinion of a conspiracy. O3000 (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * It might be of value to have a paragraph somewhere in the article summarizing the various prominent people who have called for an investigation into Spygate. R2 (bleep) 03:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Shinealittlelight, after taking a look at what Cohen has written for RT (Russian propaganda), I hope you revise your opinion of him. He's a complete disaster, about as unreliable as possible. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It can be hard to WP:AGF when people argue vehemently for/against things they have not even read. From your RT article: "This article was originally published by The Nation." It is literally a reprint of the article posted by Shinealittlelight. Cohen is a noted expert on the topic and has published his opinion in a reliable source (The Nation, not RT). Your opinion on who may be a disaster is irrelevant. I presume your reference to RT, and associated tarring of Cohen via association with "propaganda", was an honest oversight and won't happen again. There are a lot of entrenched editors here that feel they WP:OWN this article, and it might do some good for a few people to take a little vacation and come back refreshed. We are all on the same team, building an informative encyclopedia... let's add all worthwhile and relevant information, like the opinions of subject matter experts. There shouldn't be disagreement on this. Throwaway060519 (talk) 05:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You're very likely a sock of a banned editor, perhaps you are Hidden Tempo, but it doesn't matter who. I think our time is better spent elsewhere.  starship .paint  (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The very definition of WP:Bite. Maybe you need to take a break from this article.
 * Your emotions seem to have gotten the better of you and you are not being constructive here at the moment. Come back when you have calmed down and are ready to make useful contributions. Throwaway060519 (talk) 10:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ...take a break. Now where have I repeatedly heard that suggestion before. Ahh yes, he's baaaack. O3000 (talk) 10:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not angry. You are obviously a sock because you have knowledge of policies. Your name is even LOL. I can only laugh.  starship  .paint  (talk) 11:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * By the way, - you actually should have realized the Nation and RT articles are the same.  starship  .paint  (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Starship.paint, you're right. It's right there at the bottom of the article! I just didn't get that far. I started reading it and didn't recognize it was the same, just that it immediately started with counterfactual statements that could have been ripped directly from Limbaugh. It didn't seem to be written by a rational and informed person, but fit very well with RT's typical "Russia didn't do anything wrong" propaganda. I still think it's a totally unusable opinion. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * For the record, I have not stated my opinion of Prof. Cohen. What I have stated is the following facts: he is a recognized expert who works at two of the world's premiere universities, and he published his opinion in an RSN-recognized RS. My opinion of Cohen is really not relevant and never has been. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Article premise is a straw man
Narrowly defining the term "spygate" to the restrictive definition of "planting a spy in the campaign" is an obvious attempt to keep this labelled "conspircy theory". Spygate is properly defined as "unprecedented surveillance on a political campaign based on a fraudulently obtained FISA warrant using improperly sourced and unverified documents." The editors have instead opted to make an argument that is NOT what the controversy is, just to make it simple to discredit. Classic straw man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.163.147.152 (talk • contribs)
 * Classic WP:Original research, because no WP:Reliable sources were provided for your definition.  starship .paint  (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ironically, I don't believe that any news report has defined 'spygate' as we currently define it in the article. Rather, it's defined in myriad non-equivalent ways across news reports, and even across the several citations we have on the first sentence, and we've apparently cherry picked one definition from the cited NYT "news analysis" piece. If the definition of 'spygate' is a matter of controversy--and I don't see how it couldn't be--then this use of this source seems to be out of step with the outcome of the recent discussion of such sources at RSN, which determined that for matters of controversy such pieces can only be used with attribution. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Either way, it's a conspiracy theory. There is no evidence that the FISA applications approved by multiple Republican judges were fraudulent. Which is to say, the argument that this is a strawman is a strawman. O3000 (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yet it would be more appropriate to note in the introduction that the term "Spygate" has been used in sources to describe many hypotheses about various forms of surveillance of the Trump campaign. The current definition is too restrictive, and indeed looks cherry-picked. — JFG talk 05:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more. Probably want to start by adding this point to the body of the article. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * JFG, if this article had been written much later, you might have a point, but when the term Spygate was first used, it was specifically about Halpern's actions, so it could not have been cherrypicked. A complete impossibility. That was the only option mentioned by RS because it was the only option at the time. The fact that Trump later began to misuse the term and apply it more and more broadly doesn't mean it was cherrypicked later, because the historical events had already been described by RS and this article was written by Starship.paint on June 1, 2018, about that set of events using the sources at that time. No investigations, reports, or evidence reported in later RS have changed the fact that Trump's original false allegations are still false and still a conspiracy theory.
 * Those later uses apply to all investigations and surveillance of Trump and Co., which is a much larger topic dealing with his efforts to undermine (aka "obstruction of justice") legal and necessary investigations. Who wants to write that article? -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Our colleague has started a draft article that may be useful to pick from: User:BullRangifer/sandbox/Surveillance of Donald Trump and associates. — JFG talk 14:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well so why can't our article state that Spygate started as this specific claim, but has since then evolved into a broader term referring to the surveillance efforts on the campaign? I don't see any problem in that, and the many, many sources Shinealittlelight has posted here would support it. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It didn't start as a specific claim and then get broader. That's BullRangifer's oft-repeated view, but it is absolutely not accurate. News reports defined 'Spygate' in all sorts of ways, broader and narrower, from the very beginning in May 2018. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If we are to mention the broader use at all (a separate and very large article would be even better), then I'd support what Mr Ernie says as the proper way to do it. The article remains about the narrow and original use by Trump, and then has a section mentioning the broader use. Right now the new section (below) includes some other variations which are still about Halper's actions, which aren't really "other definitions". That seems to be the case with most of Shinealittlelight's sources from May 2018. They were all talking about Halper's actions in different ways, but still about the narrow definition of Spygate as Trump used it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm just reading what RS actually say, and not assuming I somehow know what they "really" meant but didn't say. Also, I don't see any definition of 'spygate' in Trump's original tweets. He just said a bunch of stuff, and then, in a seperate tweet on a different day he declared that SPYGATE is a scandal. Who knows exactly what he meant? I mean, why don't we include all the claims, including the claim that Sanders was duped, and the claim that the scandal is bigger than watergate, and the claim that there was "big money" involved, and on and on? So he did not define the term in any of the tweets. That's presumably why the most responsible news reports, like the AP report, didn't give a definition at all. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * From the AP: “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.” Here we have the AP stating that Trump created the “brand” spygate, and that it was a strategy to discredit the special counsel investigation. O3000 (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's exactly right. AP does not state whether 'spygate' should be defined to include "political motivation" or "member of the campaign" or "big money" or ... AP just leaves it exactly as unclear as it was in Trump's tweet. That's what a number of the best reports did at the time. Others were less careful, and ended up giving it a specific (sometimes broader, sometimes narrower) meaning. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The article goes on to say: “…Trump’s claim that the Obama administration was trying to spy on his 2016 campaign for political reasons.” And “Trump told one ally this week that he wanted ‘to brand’ the informant a ‘spy,’ believing the more nefarious term would resonate more in the media and with the public.” The AP makes it clear that spygate was Trump’s term and how it was defined. O3000 (talk) 16:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the AP source offers no definition. Nobody denies that Trump made the claim about "political reasons" and of course the AP reported that. But the AP source doesn't define 'spygate', as it shouldn't, because it isn't and never has been clear exactly what Trump meant by it. It was clear, as they report, that he was introducing a brand. Nobody is disputing that. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * AP article about spygate: "Trump now is zeroing in on — and at times embellishing — reports that a longtime U.S. government informant approached members of his 2016 campaign during the presidential election in a possible bid to glean intelligence on Russian efforts to sway the election. He tweeted Wednesday morning that the FBI has been caught in a 'major SPY scandal.'" O3000 (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Yep, no definition of 'Spygate'. Just like I said. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It defines it as a claim by Trump of a major "spy" scandal involving a U.S. government informant approaching members of Trump's 2016 campaign during the presidential election. You have to take the article as a whole. It discusses the origination of the term, the motivation of Trump in originating it (discredit the special counsel’s Russia investigation), the reason he chose the label, the purpose of spygate (Obama administration was trying to spy on his 2016 campaign for political reasons) -- basically everything you have been saying the AP didn't say. They did everything short of petitioning the OED to add the word with their definition. O3000 (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The AP says he introduced the term as a new brand to discredit the investigation, and that he chose that term in spite of its association with the previous NFL scandal. That's all it says about Spygate using the word 'Spygate'. We're obviously never going to agree about inferring something more than that from "the article as a whole". Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The entire, lengthy article is about spygate. Look at the title. Look at the first sentence in the article lede, which also talks to spygate. Spygate is mentioned three times and some variation of spy eight times in toto. They’re not going to repeat the word in every paragraph along with a note each time that Wikipedia can use this as a source for spygate. You are the one that brought up AP as a good, balanced source. Well, this article on spygate was constructed by the AP with contributions from six Associated Press writers: Anne Flaherty, Chad Day, Desmond Butler, Jill Colvin, Eric Tucker and Darlene Superville. O3000 (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * - that's the exact same article as you posted before. I think you made a mistake in posting the link to the second article. I agree with Shine that the Seething over Russia probe article does not explicitly define Spygate beyond discredit.  starship .paint  (talk) 00:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I realize that and linked as a reminder. My point is that the article is about spygate as shown by the title (not sure why you left out the word spygate), lede, and text. Shinealittlelight says it does not define spygate. It does this in the first two paragraphs (the lede) by name. I am not asking for any inference as suggested by Shinealittlelight. I am suggesting we use what the AP article actually states. O3000 (talk) 00:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I've been wary of titles given the phenomenon of clickbait. Spygate is mentioned in the first paragraph, but not the second. It's not 100% clear how Spygate relates to the second paragraph. Is it "zeroing"? Is it "at times embellishing"? Is it a "major SPY scandal"? Is it two of these? Is it all of these? It's not explicitly stated.  starship .paint  (talk) 02:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I avoid the use of text in an article title if not repeated in the body, although I don’t believe there is any guideline on the subject. And, this is the AP, not the NY Post or other tabloid. And the word is used again in the first sentence, which makes it hard to argue that word was stuck in the title as clickbait. The first sentence states that Trump is the person who branded his attempt to discredit the special counsel’s Russia investigation as “spygate”. That is, he coined the term to be used repeatedly and in multiple ways – like a brand. The second sentence elaborates, again using the word SPY. The article later states: "Trump told one ally this week that he wanted 'to brand' the informant a 'spy,' believing the more nefarious term would resonate more in the media and with the public." And then "He went on to debut the term 'Spygate'". That is, spygate referred to one "spy" -- at least when it was initially coined.
 * We all know that Trump’s claims become more inflated over time. He went from Mueller’s team of 13 Democrats (not true),to 13 angry Democrats, to 15, to 17, to 18, to 18 killers, to 18 of some of the worst people on the planet. Then on to accusing multiple people in the FBI of treason, and suggesting some leaders above Comey are guilty of a death penalty offense. That would have to be Sessions, Rosenstein, and/or Barr. My point is that you can’t nail him down to exact definitions as his tweets morph over time. So, we (like the press) do the best we can. O3000 (talk) 10:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Good points. Trump engaged in rebranding. That is one thing he's actually good at. He's a master at manipulating public opinion by rebranding, deflection, etc. He has a knack for using words and catchphrases to change the focus of the conversation and thinking of people. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Other uses
Spygate (conspiracy theory) - proceed, fellow editors. I have started the ball rolling.  starship .paint  (talk) 09:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agreed with your move to put things more clearly in Trump's mouth. However, I do not find that the reports stated the "clarification" you attributed to them about "not spying but only part of the investigation," so I took that out. I also felt that the reader would be confused if the broader and more specific uses were not contrasted in some way, so I included that. If you're not happy with what I wrote, I think we should probably collaborate here on the talk page. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll have to show you the words in the sources which do provide the clarification. I did remove the OR wording about what wasn't said. We can't include our speculations, although we can discuss them here.-- BullRangifer (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm all ears on the "clarification" point. I honestly don't see it, but maybe I'm missing something. I understand your concern about the wording you removed. I would like to include some way of clarifying how this less specific usage differs from the more specific usage in NYT. Is it your view that any such specification of the difference is OR? Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Epoch Times Cited in Lead
We currently cite the Epoch Times in the lead. Are we considering the Epoch Times to be RS on this topic? Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's gone now. Why isn't it blacklisted yet? There should be RS in the body which can be used there. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I looked around and couldn't find anything with that exact claim, although I do believe the claim is true. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Endorse removal of Epoch Times. I've seen their position, seems fringe.  starship .paint  (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Source doesn't say Long Time Informant
the WaPo source that's used for that sentence literally says that Halper began to serve as an informant for the FBI, but he had been a longtime source. Please review the source to confirm what I'm saying, and then can someone please restore what I wrote, since it is currently inaccurate. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * A number of RS say "informant", and that was there until you removed it. I just restored it, with a wikilink. In this case, "source" and "informant" are synonymous, but informant is more specific and that source does say informant. I'll fix this in a moment. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. Now the FBI mention is restored, plus that he's a professor who worked as a longtime intelligence source who began working for the FBI as a secret informant. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Deletion/extensive revision
This article is incredibly biased against the sitting United States President. It does not at all represent the neutral viewpoint that we desire on Wikipedia. I propose that it either be extensively revised, or deleted and rewritten to a neutral viewpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr305worldwide (talk • contribs)
 * Welcome! Deletion is very unlikely, but what revision would you propose? Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Only WP:Reliable sources please. WP:RSP lists reliable and unreliable sources, otherwise search WP:RSN.  starship .paint  (talk) 23:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Someone needs to realize that NPOV doesn't mean "neutral", as in "no bias". It means that editors should not add their own flavor to content. It is the editors who must be neutral when they edit, as NPOV makes it clear that neither sources nor content must be neutral. We document what RS say, and that is rarely neutral. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The whole thing should be merged into the Crossfire Hurricane page. It's unclear why Donald Trump's personal interpretation of a counterintelligence investigation is worthy of its own encyclopedia article, as opposed to being a section in the page about the investigation itself. All we learn from this article is that Trump and a few of his allies described the investigation inaccurately and asserted it started earlier than it did. So what? It's nothing so important that it couldn't be compressed and merged into the other article. Compare the article on Birtherism, which has a section about Trump. There isn't (to my knowledge) a separate page about Trump's birther tweets. Why should this be any different?2601:445:380:5D00:807B:167D:835D:7B96 (talk) 07:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is an idea that has been mentioned before here, and I think it is a good idea. I think the first step would be to go over to the Crossfire Hurricane article and add content about Spygate there. Start with that, and then come back here and make your case. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Even were there to be a compressed version at Crossfire Hurricane, this article and subject is already notable on its own ... like the Trump Tower wiretapping allegations.  starship .paint  (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, it remains to be seen how compressed it would need to be; it might not need to be compressed at all. And, if all the notable content from this article was found in that article, an argument for deletion could be made. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * - Were we not to compress this article, then there would be too much focus on Spygate within Crossfire Hurricane. I'm counting 3,000 words in this article, ignoring the Origins subsection and the lede. The body of Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation) itself is 2,700+ words, less than this.  starship .paint  (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that all the information in the background section belongs in the CH article. The notable material that's specific to "spygate" is the stuff in the allegations and reactions section. That's more like 2200 words by my count. And it seems to me that there may be a path to shortening this. For example, I think that some of what we have in the reactions section is repetitive. That is, I think we could for example say that x, y, and z have said that Trump's allegations are absurd instead of giving seperate paragraphs providing extensive quotes from each of x, y, and z to the effect that Trump's allegations were absurd. If we tried to consolidate and be more concise, I think we could get this material down to 1500 words without leaving anything out, and much of that would belong in the CH article anyway as we detail reactions and reactions to reactions to that investigation. I'm not saying that this definitely can be done; maybe it can't be. But it doesn't seem obvious to me that it can't be done. Possibly it would require being more concise, though maybe not compressing in the sense of leaving stuff out. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is one of Trump's notable conspiracy theories and as a subject that's notable in its own right it should be kept.
 * This is where the principles at WP:SPINOFF can be applied. (Which article is created first is irrelevant.) At most this would get a section there, with a "main" hatnote pointing to this article. The easiest way to create that section is to use the lead from here, with the needed refs. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I support the idea of the IP from Minneapolis. The relevant guideline is WP:PAGEDECIDE. Everyone agrees that Spygate is notable on its own. The question is whether Spygate would be more readily understood by readers if it were placed within the context of Crossfire Hurricane, which contains factual information about the investigation free of the vague and confusing conspiracy theories. My feeling is yes. You really can't understand Spygate without understanding Crossfire Hurricane first. R2 (bleep) 18:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The solution would be to add more about OCH here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree with merging into Crossfire Hurricane, because Crossfire Hurricane was an FBI counterintelligence operation. It is thus a subset of what falls under the label of Spygate, which includes related activity at the CIA and at the White House. Wookian (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Rebranding
Current text: The current text seems fine, but is lacking a wikilink that would be helpful to readers. While we must avoid OR and SYNTH, this seems to be a clear example of rebranding, and I'd like to find a way to use it. Here's a suggested way to do that: How's that? It's not OR, and it doesn't violate SYNTH because it doesn't conclude anything not found in the source. In fact, it makes it more clear to readers. Note that we have included Trump's exact quote in the reference. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The Associated Press added that Trump had said he wanted "to brand" the informant as a "spy," as using a more nefarious term than "informant" would supposedly resonate more with the public.
 * The Associated Press added that Trump had said he wanted to rebrand the informant as a "spy," as using the more nefarious term would resonate more with the public.


 * "Rebranding" involves a revision to an established brand. What was the established brand in this case? I think this was branding, not rebranding. You could include a hyperlink to the wiki article on branding, abut I guess that seems kind of weird to me. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "[T]he established brand in this case" was "informant". While rebranding is normally used for products, it also happens in this way, and his use of the term "brand" is obviously not the normal usage for "brand", but with the intent to "rebrand". He replaces the existing "informant" brand with the more nefarious "spy" brand, and that replacement is exactly what rebranding does. This is something Trump is truly an expert at doing, and he does it all the time. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait, who "branded" informants as informants? The FBI? "Brand" connotes that a sales or marketing effort is underway, and perhaps we can understand 'sales' and 'market' here sort of broadly. Certainly you're right that Trump was up to such a thing with 'Spygate', and that's what the RS says. But I don't think that you can say (without RS support, anyway) that the FBI "brands" their informants as "informants". That doesn't make sense. They're not selling or marketing anything to anyone, that's just what they call them. So I retain my view that Trump's introduction of 'spygate' was, as AP says, an attempt to brand the situation in a certain way. But I don't see a pre-existing brand, so I oppose using 'rebrand'. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, agreed with Shinealittlelight, it's not apparent that "informant" is a brand for "informant".  starship .paint  (talk) 00:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * LOL! Yes, I appreciate the sarcasm (so I'll discount that "agreed"): "It's not apparent that 'thing' is a brand for 'thing' (sarcasm), but, oddly enough, if a thing is called something, then that is what it's called, ergo its brand, so to speak.
 * We are, after all, talking about figurative "rebranding", not a product for sale for money. An actor and their reputation are "products" which they are figuratively "selling", and it's common to rebrand them with a pseudonym. This is often done by creating a stage name early in their careers, before they become well-known.
 * Products are usually rebranded to increase their market value, often because the old brand has been damaged. In this case, Trump did the opposite in a successful attempt to devalue the legitimate occupation of "informant" to the nefarious sounding "spy". This isn't rocket science, is not against our policies, and adds value for the reader.
 * In this case, wikilinking brand would be easy, but misleading, as what is being described is clearly a rebranding.
 * What I'm suggesting is no different than when we paraphrase and use a synonym. Rebranding is an exact synonym for what Trump did. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Your view appears to be that nothing that has a name can be branded, but only rebranded. This is not a credible view. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Not at all, but in this case it's more accurate to say "rebranding" than "branding". Even you recognize above that this is exactly what Trump did. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No, you're mischaracterizing me. I said that he definitely branded, not that he rebranded. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * - I wasn't being sarcastic. I'm really not sure if we can automatically assume something is a brand of itself. The source says "brand" not "rebrand". If we have a "rebrand" source that would be good for your argument.  starship .paint  (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Okaaaay...! I am truly dumbfounded. I really thought you were being sarcastic, as the issue is very simple and straightforward. I think you're focusing on the word too much. Step back, read what was happening, and see why Trump used the word "brand". See "what" he was doing. Then "rebranding" becomes the most logical synonym to describe the entire situation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Rebranding talks about a marketing strategy. So first there's an old brand, then there's a new brand. Yes, Trump came up with a new brand. But what is the old brand? It's not clear. Is "informant", the purported old brand, really a brand?  starship .paint  (talk) 04:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It’s metaphorical. Trump is a marketing person and appears to see everything in marketing terms. (Well, most politicians think that way, but he more so.) So, in his eyes, “investigator” is a brand used by the FBI, a way of marketing their actions, and spy is a rebrand that better fits his narrative. O3000 (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly. "Informant" is the proper term used by RS, and Trump wanted to rebrand it to "spy". Just because our rebranding article doesn't mention the metaphorical use of the term doesn't mean it isn't used that way in real life. This use is just as metaphorical as Trump's use of "brand". He wasn't proposing to actually burn the informant with a branding iron. He was speaking metaphorically, and so we must do the same. He gave the cue as to which word fits best. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between branding and re-branding, and this was branding, not re-branding. When someone came up with the brand "Coke" they weren't re-branding the cola that they had produced. When someone came up with the brand "pet rock" they were not re-branding rocks. "Cola" and "rocks" are not brands, they're just the terms we use to refer to "Cola" and "rocks" respectively. "Coke" and "pet rock" are brands, because they were terms that someone came up with to market something. Not every term is a brand. I agree with you that this is not rocket science. I too think that it is obvious. What I can't figure out is why you guys want to characterize this as rebranding so badly. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, do you guys have any RS that says 'rebrand'? Several sources explicitly use 'brand'. Follow the RS, right? Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * He rebranded a person known as an "informant" by calling him a "spy". He did it for its marketing effect. He essentially took "Coke" and rebranded it "Hog Swill". You really need to get away from the literal meanings and realize that this is metaphorical. The situation in which he said "brand" was a rebranding situation, when you step back and look at what was actually happening. I'm guessing that it's too much to expect that you will do that, and that's why we keep going in circles. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm following RS and common sense here. "Informant" is not a brand. RS uses the word 'brand' and not the word 'rebrand'. That settles it for me. Sorry if that's frustrating, but these points seem painfully obvious to me. Shinealittlelight (talk) 04:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree (minus the common sense comment). We follow RS. Not apparent that "informant" is a brand. Waiting for RS to that state "informant" is a brand. Waiting for RS that state "rebrand".  starship .paint  (talk) 05:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You're both stuck in the literal use, when we're talking about a figurative/metaphorical use. Then there is no solution to this. I am prevented from using the Wikipedia term for doing that, but doing it is forbidden. BTW, anybody else is allowed to call a spade a spade for doing that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, did RS use the term 'rebrand' metaphorically somewhere? When you find RS to support that view, let us know. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The Guardian uses the term rebrand in its synopsis here, Slate uses it here, a CNN legal analyst uses it here. O3000 (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The CNN and Slate articles are opinion pieces, and so not typically reliable for unattributed statements of fact. The Guardian piece is a news piece, but it does not use the term in the body of the article; I've been a little unclear on the RS status of such things. So this is something, but it isn't great, and it doesn't seem to me that it outweighs the clear uses of 'brand' in several other news sources., what do you think? Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Opinion pieces can be cited with attribution. I added them in (the Reactions section).  starship .paint  (talk) 04:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with this change; the point is now being given way more weight than is due. I find this whole dispute really weird. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The FBI investigated evidence of Russian interference in a presidential campaign. The POTUS has framed this as the FBI attempting a “coup” (first in the history of the US) and accused people at the top of the FBI of death-penalty offenses. I’d say that’s DUE. O3000 (talk) 12:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? That's not what Starship.paint just put in the article. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * We could reduce the weight by shortening it to CNN's Josh Campbell and Slate's Dahlia Lithwick felt that Trump was carrying out the act of rebranding by using the labels of "spy" and "spying".. Or, we could find more sources to justify more weight. - isn't WP:DUE based on reliable sources...?  starship  .paint  (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be shorter; it shouldn't be in the article at all. Since "brand" was already in the article, sourced to the AP, it makes sense to add this material only if there's something due about the distinction between brand and rebrand. I don't see that there's any interest, either in these pieces or in any other, about the difference between branding and rebranding. These pieces do use the word 'rebrand'. But this doesn't mean that their point is that it was rebranding as opposed to branding. The inserted text strikes me as confusing and weird, as it will be hard for the reader to tell what is being added to what was already reported by the AP before in the text. I think that the reader will not understand the point being made. But I'm sick of arguing about it, and I just can't tell why it even matters, aside from the fact that including it makes wikipedia look dumb. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * We have a lot of different wording from various sources. Branding refers to investigator/counter-intelligence becomes spy/spying, and special counsel investigation becomes spygate/deep state/witch hunt, and Mueller team/FBI become all manner of nasty language. I like the word rebrand because it indicates a change in how something is presented. Trump is attempting, successfully to many, to change the narrative of an investigation into Russian interference (which we know happened) into an attempted coup d'état (for which there is no evidence). Using names to change meanings is nothing new. No one remembers the acronym behind PATRIOT Act, just that it sounds like if you’re agin it, you’re not a patriot. (For a recent example of Trump rebranding in this manner, Forbes just reported: “Trump Administration Rebrands Fossil Fuels As ‘Molecules Of U.S. Freedom’.”) The prefix “re” indicates change. He is renaming, not naming.  It’s a bit awkward, but I suppose we could say “branded or rebranded” as the pair of words includes a large number of RS, possibly enough to remove attribution. The point behind all of this is Trump is a branding expert (claiming the Trump brand is worth billions), and that he is using this expertise to change the view that an investigation is instead a scandal. O3000 (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * - you're going off-topic. I don't know why you're bringing other examples in. It's not pertinent to this particular edit. WP:DUE is based on reliable sources, not on other examples of rebranding.  starship .paint  (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That’s why it was a parenthetical. I’m trying to express the rationale for including the terminology used by additional sources, which frankly fits the situation better, and I'm trying to find wording that includes the largest number of sources. We could use the quotes about brand, and use the verb renaming, which is obviously correct by all the RS mentioned. O3000 (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The more sources you find and present, the better.  starship .paint  (talk) 00:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Beauchamp's remarks about Fox News
The article currently cites Smith and Napolitano--both from Fox News--as critical of Trump in this passage:

The section then goes on to quote Beuchamp from Vox here:

The problem is that Beauchamp is saying that Fox promotes the theory and defends the president, but we literally just cited two Fox News people criticizing Trump. This is not a coherent presentation, and I think we should remove the Beauchamp on the grounds that he is making an inaccurate generalization about Fox that conflicts with what we've just said. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't know about Shepherd Smith at Fox News, however I would suggest that these former views of Andrew Napolitano presented in the article are stale to the point of not usable. In his more recent discussions of Spygate related materials, Napolitano no longer extends the Obama DOJ/FBI/CIA the benefit of the doubt. Nowadays Napolitano makes it clear that he is not satisfied with a report from Durham's review - he wants a full criminal investigation and wants to see indictments. You would currently get the opposite impression from reading the article. Anybody object to me fixing that? Wookian (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no objection; I agree that the current article is misleading as to Napolitano's current views of these matters given the source you provided. However, the tension with the Vox piece is still going to be present, so I'd like to fix that too. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think removing the Beauchamp piece is fine. In addition to the mixed messages as you noted, the piece reflects an out of date narrative -- e.g. the President's views on Spygate may (or may not) have been informed by Fox News in the past, but currently he's looking to his own Attorney General to investigate "spying" on his campaign without legal basis or predicate. Wookian (talk) 13:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a seriously poor article. O3000 (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, which article, and maybe also why? Wookian (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's beside the point, Wookian. All you need is a transcript of his remarks, and that's obviously in the article that you linked. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I just wasn't 100% sure what O3000 was referring to. I'd characterize my link as more of an interview than an article, however it is an appropriate source to establish Napolitano's more recent attitude (aka opinion) toward Strzok, Comey, Brennan and the propriety of their actions in the Russian collusion investigation. Wookian (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Wookian’s cite says that basically, off-the-cuff, he said: I haven’t seen something, but if it said something, people ought to look at it. That’s not something we can include in an encyclopedia as meaning anything. O3000 (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the article currently quotes Napolitano in that really old article saying in so many words, "Trump is mistaken to think FBI counterintel maneuvers are unusual, this is nothing out of the ordinary and assumed to be fine." Whereas in the recent interview he is saying in effect, "I want to see not just a review, but a criminal investigation and indictments related to Strzok and the other Russia investigation players at DOJ/FBI/CIA." Do you see the difference in attitude there, O3000? Aren't you worried that readers will get a false impression from the old, outdated material? Wookian (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Afraid you'll have to point out where he said this. Having intermittent Internet probs at the moment. O3000 (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yuck, good luck with the internet connection. Found a text transcript that may help. Napolitano says a lot throughout it, and the money quote at the end summarizes: Yeah, but why waste time with the review? Just do the right thing. Wookian (talk) 16:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Careful, Icarus. Shtove 22:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Horribly biased article filled with speculation. O3000 (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe "interview" rather than "article." And even if your characterization is true, this source is still reliable to establish Napolitano's opinion, which is all I'm suggesting we establish from it. Wookian (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The transcript of Napolitano that you provided is obviously not biased or speculative with respect to what Napolitano thinks, which is the point here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * We still must get such opinions from RS. If they are not found in RS they have no weight here. Only in the person's biography here can we use unreliable sources to document a person's opinion. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * In what sense is this not an RS to establish Napolitano's opinion? It is RS for this purpose. Wookian (talk) 15:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Our content must be based on RS. There is only one exception, and that is in the biography of the involved person.
 * Yes, that unreliable source does establish his opinion, but it's not a RS we would ever use. We can only use unreliable sources in the biography of the person. Then, and only then, can we use unreliable sources. We can even get permission to use blacklisted sources for one-time use for such purposes. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous. If Foxnews and Realclear are not RS for Napolitano's views, then we have to remove any reference to his views from the article, since Foxnews and Realclear are the current sources for his previous views that are included in the article. It is manifestly POV to say that FN/RC are RS for his previous Trump-critical views, but not for his current Trump-sympathetic views. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * While I share Shine's view immediately above, I will express the question a different way - what is the difference between the (older) Fox News Napolitano discussion with Martha MacCallum as currently linked in the article, versus the newer Maria Bartiromo one? Is MacCallum's show on Fox deemed RS whereas Bartiromo's isn't? Not following your logic here. Wookian (talk) 16:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not address the use of Fox News at all, although I believe it should be deprecated for U.S. politics. Until the community accepts that position, we are allowed to use it in some situations. The same cannot be said for Real Clear Politics. I have removed the only instance where we used it here. The same content is backed up by a Fox News ref, and that will suffice. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Great, then Wookian may proceed with the FN source for Napolitano's more recent views. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no idea about that and have not commented on it. I usually try to use better sources than Fox News, but that's just me.
 * BTW, historical revisionism is not allowed here. We keep Napolitano's old views and then include his newer ones. He continues to express views that are quite contrary to Trump's views, but that's a different topic than the topic of this thread. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, keep both Wookian. The new source isn't non-RS just because it's more sympathetic to Trump. It's obviously RS if the old source is.Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you BR and Shine, I agree about not trying to hide the past, and my plan is to delete the extended quote, and collapse a summary of N's attitude toward the controversy down to possibly even one sentence or two. Right now real life calls, will think on this later and try to come up with something. Wookian (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

- - I've read what Napo said on RealClearPolitics. So he's saying, Brennan may have lied to Congress. Then he said, I wish the investigation will be serious. So what? I'm not seeing any conflict with his previous remarks. I think anyone would want a serious investigation unless they, or people they like/need, are guilty.  starship .paint  (talk) 09:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

- different topics. Shepard Smith and Andrew Napo of Fox News were reporting on the May 2018 allegations. Zack Beauchamp of Vox was reporting on the June 2018 allegations, and Beauchamp stated at the start of his article that Ingraham and DeSantis defended Trump. I've made that apparent in the article.  starship .paint  (talk) 09:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. He's claiming that the Dobbs-Trump-Ingraham connection is an instance of a general pattern that is very concerning to him; not just a one-time occurrence involving these individuals. What if we just shortened it to this:


 * The material we'd be removing about Trump's June tweet is too compressed here and is already covered more clearly and in more detail in the body of the article anyway. So this part of what we'd be removing would not really lose anything. And we'd also be removing the claim about "vicious cycle" which is in tension with the earlier reference to criticism from Fox news, so that would solve the problem I'm having without removing the Vox reference entirely. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * - even if he was talking about a general pattern, Ingraham and DeSantis were still the relevant post-comment defenders in the June 2018 allegations. But for your proposal, I'm neutral. You'll have to convince the rest.  starship .paint  (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Deny recognition
,, , and others editing here: Please refrain from responding to obvious sockpuppets and banned editors. Serial disruptors should be immediately reverted, reported, and ignored. R2 (bleep) 19:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There has been a recent increase in such. O3000 (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm not experienced at recognizing such behavior, but I'll try to follow the lead of those who are. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay. I feel sometimes it's good to keep them seen.  starship .paint  (talk) 04:29, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. One of your links (WP:DENY) is directed at "true vandals and trolls." Has this talk page encountered those in any significant way? I've seen some strong views (on both sides) and I've seen poorly substantiated claims and conspiracy theories (again, on both sides), however all of those can be A'd-GF-of, albeit redirected to proper encyclopedic norms. Being a sockpuppet or banned editor does not imply being a true vandal or troll. Just making a little clarification, thanks. And I am neither a sockpuppet nor a troll nor a banned editor, just for the record. :D Wookian (talk) 23:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, actually, looking back over the history, I see that R2 has applied strikethrough over the contributions of a user named Throwaway060519. Is that appropriate? Is the user "Throwaway060519" definitely known to be a banned editor or to be a sockpuppet? If not, then R2, may I suggest you revert your use of strikethrough? If I missed something here, no offense intended and do let me know.
 * The explanation given in R2's edit summary (as well as here in this section) is "WP:DENY". However that article pertains to "true vandals and trolls" whereas the comments stricken by R2 have no appearance of vandalism or trolling in my cursory reading. So R2, it seems you've made at least one mistake here, and possibly the entire strikethrough was a mistake. A few words of explanation, please? Wookian (talk) 23:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * - it's really, really obvious that that editor is a banned editor or a sockpuppet. "Throwaway" is obviously a reference to a disposable account (because it would be banned sooner or later for sockpuppetry). The numbers refer to the date the account was created, another hint about it being a disposable account. The account's very first edit quotes WP:AGF and WP:OWN, not possible for a new account, only possible for an editor with some experience (very likely, a banned editor). The first edit also mentions it might do some good for a few people to take a little vacation and come back refreshed. We are all on the same team, building an informative encyclopedia... This is really overwhelming evidence when the sockmaster is even flaunting it. WP:DUCK.  starship  .paint  (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That quote is close to several previous edits by HT, with many socks blocked. Difficult to take to SPI as he has admitted to using multiple IPs. O3000 (talk) 00:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * (I don't know what "HT" means in your post above. Can you educate me?) Maybe I am playing the devil's advocate here, maybe not, but I don't see a solid sockpuppet accusation here unless you can identify which editor on this Talk Page is the alter ego of "Throwaway." By itself, using the name "Throwaway" suggests that they are advertising that they don't want people to know who they are. If they have a "regular" account and it intersects with Talk:Spygate, then I agree that is sockpuppeting. If they have a "regular" account that does not intersect with Talk:Spygate, then maybe they have a different problem (Does that violate WP policies? Is this unscalable from a computer science perspective such that Jimmy Wales will have to ask for more money?), but it doesn't sound right in that instance to call it sockpuppeting. And it certainly isn't vandalism or trolling, contra R2's mixed up messages. Wookian (talk) 00:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * - Sockpuppet_investigations/Hidden Tempo/Archive. By the way, throwaway is a common term on Reddit which indicates creating a disposable new account, often to keep that account's posts on certain forums from being linked to the main account.  starship .paint  (talk) 00:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Anyway, I don't disagree that an account named "Throwaway" bears a resemblance to a sockpuppet and may in fact be one. What I'm suggesting is that either one go through the proper channels to deal with a sockpuppet or banned editor, or else find a more appropriate rule to justify ad hoc striking of suspected-but-not-proven socks. The rule cited of WP:DENY is clearly not applicable here since it deals with overt vandalism and trolling. Since nobody has given any justification of R2's use of WP:DENY, I am still by default most comfortable with R2 reverting his use of strikethrough unless he can justify it in a correct way. Wookian (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I respectfully decline to self-revert. WP:DENY is a general principle that is widely cited by experienced users for certain types of persistent disruption, including what happened here. Technically, my deletions and strikethroughs were permitted by WP:BE and WP:TPO. When socking is sufficiently obvious, waiting for a formal SPI to be completed is unnecessary and counterproductive. If you wish to discuss this further I suggest we do so on my user talk. R2 (bleep) 17:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I respectfully but firmly object to your editing another person's posts to add strikethrough. You wrote above When socking is sufficiently obvious, waiting for a formal SPI to be completed is unnecessary and counterproductive, however O3000 says Difficult to take to SPI as he has admitted to using multiple IPs. Which is it? Difficult to prove at SPI, or so obvious that it's easy to prove at SPI and not worth waiting for? The kicker for me, and my bottom line is that you are using strikethrough to repress a view that is [edit: "may be perceived as"] in contradiction to your own, while giving an erroneous reason for doing so (WP:DENY) [edit to add: not claiming intent here]. Because I AGF of you, I am sure you would want to err on the side of caution and open discussion on this Talk page. So kindly do revert your mistaken edit. Wookian (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Asked and answered. If you're concerned about my conduct here, then take it to my user talk. R2 (bleep) 19:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * R2's strikethroughs were perfectly proper. This is what we do in these situations. The content is not hidden. It's available for those who wish to imbibe the thinking of editors who use socks. While that's not advisable, you're welcome to do it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I only struck through (strikethroughed?) the comments that had been responded to. I deleted a comment by Throwaway that hadn't been responded to (per WP:BE). R2 (bleep) 22:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have reached the limit of willingness to spend time advocating for a potential sockpuppet, and am letting this go. Hopefully we can avoid applying strikethrough to meaningful and useful comments in the Talk page going forward. In all fairness, I do appreciate that R2's advisory suggesting people not engage at all in back and forth with iffy looking editors does aim at achieving exactly that goal, so thanks for that. Wookian (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, according to Sockpuppet investigations/Hidden Tempo/Archive, Throwaway is unrelated to HT. They might be a sock but, in this case, the association was disputed by the Checkusers. Liz Read! Talk! 03:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing for the first sentence
The first sentence of the article reads as follows:

The first source for this sentence is a NYT "news analysis" piece. This piece is currently used in the body of the article exactly one time as a source for the quote from Jon Meacham in the "Reactions and criticisms" section of the article. As I see it, there are two problems with this source. Citing the second of these points, I removed it. In response to this, reverted, and stated that the source merely documents Trump's statement, and is thus not being used as a source for anything contentious. But this is not the case. Trump did not state that Spygate is a conspiracy theory, and he never directly defined 'Spygate'. So BullRangifer's good-faith claim that this "news analysis" piece merely documents his statements is in fact false. Rather, the piece is used as a source for two contentious claims: the "conspiracy theory" claim and a particular definition of "spygate"--a definition, in fact, that differs from the other sources cited for this very sentence! Both the definition of 'Spygate' and the "CT" claim may be true, but they are plainly contentious claims and therefore, per RSN consensus, not appropriately sourced to a "news analysis" piece. Note that I'm not proposing a change to the language in the first sentence; I'm only suggesting that it needs to be sourced appropriately. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * First, it plays no substantial role in the body of the article, but only serves as a source for a minor quote, as just stated.
 * Second, because it is a "news analysis" piece, per RSN consensus, it is not appropriate as a source for unattributed statements of contentious fact.
 * Oh! Sorry, I misunderstood you the first time, and now I see your point. The simplest solution is to not use any refs there at all since they are all in the body. Would that work? Otherwise, we would put each ref exactly after the relevant word or phrase, and not group them all at the end, which is often not proper. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * They are not all in the body. In fact, of the four pieces cited for the first sentence, only the NYT piece is cited in the body, and the other three are not in the body at all. I would favor using sources in the body for this sentence, and I would favor using sources that are used in the body for the same claims that are made in the sentence. I would not favor using the NYT piece, which is not appropriate as a source for this claim per my argument above. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Using the same sources in both places is usually a good thing.
 * You seem to be dissing "news analysis" pieces and that's unfortunate. They rate right below boring straight news sources, and far above opinion sources. Check this chart.
 * If they are controversial, news analysis and opinion pieces should be attributed, and news analysis pieces should still be used as much as possible. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not dissing anything. I'm reporting the RSN consensus: "news analysis" pieces are not to be used, unattributed, as sources for contentious claims. This does not diss them. It just means that way the NYT piece is being used in the first sentence does not accord with the current consensus on how those sources are to be used. A different source therefore has to be used. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Did we discuss this before? Where's the LA Times, Haaretz and I forgot what's the third source with that already....  starship .paint  (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * We talked about sources for "conspiracy theory". The third source was an article in The Independent. I believe you added them to the body at one point, and then R2 removed them, and then there was a sprawling discussion here, and they were never incorporated again. Meanwhile, the sourcing for the first sentence is inaccurate, not in the body, and out of step with RSN. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's hope I remember this when I get back. Stupid article... (says the major author of it)  starship .paint  (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If we're keeping the first sentence as-is, then I think the LAT article should be the source. That's the only legit source I know of that supports the whole first sentence, with one minor change: instead of "political purposes" it should say "improper spying" or something like that. (I of course regard this as cherry-picking; oh well.) The Newsweek source seems to define 'Spygate' differently than our first sentence. The other two sources are "news analysis" and inappropriate as I've explained. The Independent and Haaretz pieces can support "conspiracy theory" but not the rest of the sentence. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "For political purposes" is Trump's exact wording and should be kept. The first sentence is okay. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The claim was not that Trump didn't say "political purposes". Of course he did. Rather, the claim was that the LAT article defines Spygate as the unfounded claim that the Obama administration improperly spied on his 2016 campaign. The first sentence of our article, if it is sourced in the LAT article, should define the term the same way that the source does. Trump himself never defined 'Spygate'. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm unclear on where we are here. I favor the LAT article as the only source cited at the end of the first sentence, with Haaretz and Independent directly on the word "conspiracy theory". (Of course, by 'favor' I mean that I virulently oppose this, but it's better than what we currently have lol.) What did you decide you wanted to do? Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Why do we even use the Newsweek story? (1) It adds nothing of value; (2) It is based on speculations without evidence by Gohmert; and (3) it's based on an unreliable source (Washington Examiner).Three strikes and it's out. Let's get rid of it because it really serves no purpose, and it muddies the water by giving weight to an unreliable story from an unreliable source. Newsweek is just regurgitating it. It's even worth so little that it's not used in the body to document more in depth coverage. That's a fourth strike. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Done.Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)