Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russia investigation origins conspiracy theory


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Based on my reading of this discussion, it seems like the key concern of the "get rid of this article" camp is that some of the sources are questionable, that the topic of this article is already covered in other articles and that combining the several topics that make it up makes this original research (the cite to WP:INDISCRIMINATE when read in context is also a NOR issue. Some people have cited WP:SYNTH which also points to the same direction) or a WP:POVFORK or perhaps promoting a fringe position. The key counterargumens are that the topic is too broad to be covered elsewhere without overwhelming these articles with undue weight, that the concerns about the sourcing are not actually problems and that there is actually an unifying topic - a criminal inquiry - behind these which is notable. There has also been a more broad question about the scope of Wikipedia and about whether some of the edits here constitute POV pushing, with an ancillary discussion about whether the article topic can be called a conspiracy theory when it's backed by an official government investigation. Going by headcount there are 11+1 keeps (I take that JzG advocates "keep") and 10+1 deletes (the +1 being the nominator). I note that the AFD is titled "Russia investigation origins conspiracy theory" but the article is at "Russia investigation origins counter-narrative", which is a little mysterious and has triggered some complaints about the article rename, plus there is a somewhat unclear reference to Durham inquiry.

On balance, it seems like the key question here is whether the topic is one unified thing or a synthesis of several unrelated ones. From my reading of the discussion it seems like some people are seeing an unified topic and others a combination of unrelated things, perhaps the most recent arguments in favour of keep (the existence of a well-reported criminal inquiry) are convincing seeing as nobody has risen to rebut their claims of notability. Perhaps part of the problem is that the article is only partially finished; I can certainly see why an incomplete article on a non-original research topic might look like original research, and the name changes might also create confusion. The NPOV/POVFORK concerns are a little less clear; the arguments are not terribly clear (or more precisely, too much focused on editors rather than content) and the NPOV question appears to be split. Suh considerations often require detailed source/due weight analysis; a spinoff article is not in and of itself a WP:POVFORK going by the text of that guideline.

This is pretty close to a keep consensus in light of the unrebutted late keep arguments, but there is enough uncertainty (mainly due to the title/article topic question) about the WP:OR question that I'll play it safe and deem it a "no consensus". The page title should probably be discussed in a move discussion but that can happen outside of the AFD process. As a sidenote, posting political tirades in an AFD doesn't help anyone and finishing off with "though their ranting makes my point" isn't a good idea either; if concerns about someone being a POV pusher exist WP:AE or WP:ANI would be the places to go to. Also, blank keep arguments are not really helpful. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Russia investigation origins counter-narrative

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The Vanity Fair article, one of the only cited sources that call this a conspiracy theory, is filled with loaded language and honestly shouldn't have been cited in the first place. Not only that, the CrowdStrike section is redundant to Trump-Ukraine scandal, and the next two sections are redundant to Trump-Ukraine scandal (they actually provide less information than the section in the Ukraine article). As a whole, this article seems like a redundant content fork, and thus, I'm nominating it for deletion. Jdcomix (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Jdcomix (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The only argument presented for deletion is an argument for renaming, not deletion. The "oranges" investigation is a scandal of its own and there is more detail available on this than can be covered in any of the current articles (e.g. list of conspiracy theories, William Barr without undue weight. It is very possible that the abuse of the DoJ to undermine the facts of Russia's involvement in the 2016 election could form one of the upcoming articles of impeachment, and in any case the topic is clearly notable as per its coverage in numerous reliable independent sources. The claim that the language is loaded is not due to any fault with the topic, it is due to the general outrage among the reality-based media over this abuse of Federal office (and is in any case a matter of WP:SOFIXIT. If you can find reliable (i.e. non-Fox) sources saying that this is a legitimate investigation launched in good faith, feel free to propose them. Guy (help!) 15:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The argument that I presented is that the article is substantially redundant to the Trump-Ukraine scandal article, which is an argument for deletion rather than renaming. The point you made about undue weight isn't applicable here because the information on the main article is more than sufficient. In response to your last point, I'm not arguing that we should include sources claiming the investigation was in good faith (because there aren't any), I just said that the Vanity Fair article was too loaded. Jdcomix (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * But it's not redundant - they have quite a limited overlap. The Ukraine shakedown is based on two conspiracy theories (that Ukraine interfered with, the 2016 election, rather than Russia, and "but her emails"), whereas this is based on the Spygate, deep state and "dodgy dossier" conspiracy theories, and has spawned a separate and distinct politically-motivated DoJ investigation. Guy (help!) 11:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm just not sure there is a clearly defined particular "thing" that the article is about. It seems to meander hither and yon among a number of topics. I mean, the Barr investigation may be independently notable. The IG investigation might be too. Those might be founded originally on theories that there was some conspiracy, but it's not clear that there is really "a theory" other than the accusation that there is "some conspiracy". It looks like fully half or more of the article is about Ukrainian corruption conspiracy theory. All the stuff about CrowdStrike, Papadopoulos, Downer, Mifsud, Hillary Clinton's emails...all that stuff is over there in that other article about a different subject. If we remove all that stuff, well, I've read through the article repeatedly and I couldn't really tell you what this theory is supposed to be, all the details are about that other theory that apparently isn't this one.  G M G  talk  16:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's actually exactly what I was thinking when I nominated the article for deletion. It almost seems like the article is just a collection of bad things that Trump did which are vaguely related to Russia, and some of the material isn't really related at all. If the article is about the conspiracy theory about the origins of the Russia investigation (I assume we're discussing the Mueller investigation, correct?), then why is the article explaining that William Barr was contacting foreign governments related to the UKRAINE scandal? This sort of relates to the Ukraine conspiracy theory article that the creator of this article recently created, which was also nominated for deletion for many of the same issues I raised here. Do we really need two separate articles explaining what CrowdStrike is? If anything's UNDUE, the creation of two articles for something that has been thoroughly discredited seems to fit perfectly with the definition of undue weight. I also think that Bill Barr contacting foreign governments is thoroughly and sufficiently explained on Trump-Ukraine scandal, as I mentioned in the nomination. If there are a higher number of sources and more solid sources calling this a conspiracy theory, and there's more meat to the conspiracy itself, then I might reconsider this nomination. As it stands, though, I think that both articles are extremely redundant. Jdcomix (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's because it's half-finished. There were sections about the "oranges" conspiracy theory in numerous places, and this is very obviously a significant part of Trump's alternate reality - a large amount of time and money has been spent flying Bill Bar around the globe in pursuit of it. Guy (help!) 21:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean, I don't fill my life with any more Trump related news than is absolutely necessary. But with most conspiracy theories, we wind up with some intricately woven narrative about exactly who was conspiring how and to do what. I'm not sure there is a whole lot here that couldn't fit into an all-caps late-night tweet. While WITCH HUNT! might be, in fact, an allegation of a conspiracy, it's a bit more of a "conspiracy hypothesis" more than a theory. That requires...you know...sustained thought on a single subject for more that 280 characters at a time. I'm not totally sure that even Barr knows what it is he is looking for, other than literally anything the exonerates the president and implicates his political enemies.  G M G  talk  22:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete/TNT. This is a vague and rambling article that does not define the so-called theory or justify itself as a separate article, with everything covered elsewhere. Furthermore to call it a conspiracy theory is a fantasy - there are deliberately constructed lies by the administration designed to obscure and tear down the truth. Reywas92Talk 20:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - I just noticed that the article was renamed to Russia investigation origins counter-narrative. However, one of the new sources for the new name is completely unrelated to the article subject, although the CNN video is pretty solid. If the issues that I mentioned above are addressed and there are more sources that are as solid as this one, yet the article is still deleted, I'm completely in favor of blowing it up and starting from scratch to make the article more concise. Jdcomix (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete (see other editors comments above) Wiki is not a mouthpiece or spin-zone for "alternative narratives" or conspiracy theories. You can't just put a bunch of citations together and invent a subject - see WP:SYNTH. DN (talk) 22:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not Wikipedia that's doing this. The Attorney-General has appointed a group headed by Durham to pursue this. They have (unsuccessfully) pressed foreign governments to provide supporting data. They are interviewing past and rpesent FBI and CIA agents about it. There are currently around 40 sources, most of which are specifically and primarily about this subject. They include the Financial Times, New York Times and Washington Post. Guy (help!) 10:55, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * All of the content is used out of context from their citations to propagate WP:SYNTH. Alternative narrative is just a nice way of saying unsubstantiated Bullshit. DN (talk) 23:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I agree that it's unsubstantiated bullshit, but it's notable unsubstantiated bullshit, promoted by the president, Sean Hannity and other conservative talking heads, and the DoJ has been coerced into promoting it, leading to, among other things, specific repudiation in a public statement by the Italian premier. That's kind of hard to ignore. Guy (help!) 14:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Not sure this is anything other then a fork from the main article that really adds anything.Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's a lot of conspiratorial commentary on the subject in right-wing outlets, which merits coverage here along with critical secondary sources; and there are articles that cover related subjects, like Ukrainian corruption conspiracy theory and Spygate (conspiracy theory). The main problem of the article, and the reason it seems "unfocused" to some, is because it jumps Barr's 2019 investigation without giving enough of a background on Mueller's. If the article starts where Reactions to the Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019) left off then it'll all make sense. François Robere (talk) 12:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thanks, I am doing that now. Guy (help!) 11:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. We do have Category:Conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump. This page seem to address a subject more general than Spygate (conspiracy theory). I think it would be best to continue development of this page and see how it will be improved, instead of just deleting it at this stage. My very best wishes (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is raising any question about whether Trump has given voice to a bunch of baseless conspiracy theories. That's fairly well documented. But I also don't know that anyone has been able to really demarcate exactly what this one is supposed to be. I think the transition from conspiracy theory to "counter-narrative" is even less helpful. Good luck making a COMMONNAME argument that that is the most widely used title in reliable sources. That's just blanket license to dump a bunch of tangentially related stuff into a pile a call it an article.  G M G  talk  21:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the best way to address this situation would be to create an "umbrella page" Conspiracy theories by Donald Trump. My very best wishes (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete As an obvious WP:POV WP:FORK - Strip it down to reliable due sources and incorporate it back into the key article. Simonm223 (talk) 12:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: While I agree with users, , and , the article needs work as a new article would. So in that regard I also agree with elements of .  It may be a difficult article to write, to which  and  allude, due to Trump's tendency for nonsensical rambling thus this topic usually part of a greater topic in RSs.  X1\ (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose mid-discussion name change So absurd. They're digging up a constant stream of lies and you just call that a "counter-narrative"? An "alternative narrative"??? The bothsidesism is strong with this one, even worse than using "conspiracy theory". Just move it back to Ukrainian corruption conspiracy theory if you have to but not this fork. Reywas92Talk 22:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete I guess. No one has really even attempted to address my initial concerns and try to explain exactly what the subject of the article is supposed to be. The move to "counter-narrative" does exactly the opposite, and just makes it fairly blatantly just a dumping ground for anything too FRINGE or POV to have any place is the main articles. If the "counter-narrative" is too far outside the mainstream to be covered in the main articles (and I'm not even entirely sure how many main articles we're talking about in total), then it's probably more news reporting than it is encyclopedic. To egregiously link to the same thing twice in a row, we don't have any obligation to cover things just because sources which are not an encyclopedia do so and definitely not when we can't even figure out what it is we're trying to cover. If we're moving content here specifically because it's too POV and in too much intricate detail to be appropriate for the main article, well, then that's just the definition of a POVFORK isn't it? No prejudice at all against recreating some type of article if we figure out what the subject is, but draft space is the place to collect miscellaneous content in case it eventually coalesces into a definite topic that is definitely notable.  G M G  talk  22:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The subject is pretty clear: the "oranges" counter-narrative, that Bill Barr is spinning and John Durham is investigating. The real-world version is that multiple foreign intelligence communities reported attempts by Russie to influence the US election and collaborate with the Trump campaign in doing so, as documented by Mueller and presumably also subject to the counter-intelligence investigations Mueller ruled out of scope. The alternate narrative is the deep-state conspiracy where Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Ohr, Brennan and the rest colluded to gin up an investigation into the most innocent and transparent candidate in US history in order to stop him draining the swamp. Guy (help!) 08:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * But where is "the counter narrative" treated as a single coherent thing other than here? In the first sentence, we're supposed to be talking about " a conspiracy theory", but the sources don't seem to be talking about a single overarching theory; they talk about conspiracy theories, conspiracy theories including that about Misfud (covered elsewhere), a conspiracy theory about Clinton's emails and Ukraine (covered elsewhere), and conspiracy theories. In comparison, there are as many conspiracy theories about George Soros as you have time for. But we don't lump them under The George Soros counter narrative and treat them as a single coherent thing because they're not; they're a smattering of independent theories, mixed with "something someone said one day", some isolated news, and some online trolls.Now that the article has been completely rewritten and moved, if we fork off the content about the Durham inquiry, which is probably an independently notable (coherent) thing as I said above, what we're left with is the first section, which is mostly a smattering of independent conspiracy theories and a little this or that, which in isolation, don't rise to the level of fully fledged theories. If we want an article about "the counter narrative", then we need sources about "the counter narrative", and not pieces of "it" in isolation, only compiled on Wikipedia. If we want to compile of list of more or less related but independent things, then we should be making a list and not an article.  G M G  talk  10:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * A valid point, which I think I have addressed in the article now. There are several reports of Barr's attempts to coerce Australia, the UK and Italy over Mifsud and other related matters, which discuss the counter narrative. The existence of a counter-narrative is also explicitly addressed by several sources linked in the article (e.g. https://edition.cnn.com/videos/tv/2019/10/12/why-is-barr-investigating-origins-of-russia-probe.cnn). The article was somewhat disjointed at the outset as it was taken from numerous somewhat inconsistent sections in different articles, as per the original edit summary. It is clear fomr the sources that the right has congealed around a certain view of the "oranges" that allows them to rationalise away the very damning findings of the Mueller report, after the Barr letter was shown to be bogus. Its importance seems incontrovertible, given Barr's high profile personal involvement in trying to establish the bizarre Mifsud conspiracy theory and the existence of the Durham inquiry which is identified by sources as being predicated on the counter-narrative being valid.
 * Soros conspiracy theories can be covered in the Soros article, as far as I can see, but this is creeping into so many areas - the Ukraine shakedown, Joseph Mifsud, Bill Barr, the Mueller report itself, the impeachment discussion - that the detail will either be inconsistent or insufficient if it's not documented as a separate article, IMO. And yes the theory is somewhat incoherent, but that is a reflection of the people promoting it. The core elements seem clear: Spygate, deep state, Steele dossier, and now adding the second layer of detail where the deep state supposedly suborned Australia, the UK and Italy to set up Mifsud as a strawman to trigger surveillance of Carter Page (never mind the fact that he'd been surveilled before, for similar reasons). Guy (help!) 11:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, the CNN sources is as far as I can tell, the first source brought up here that deals with this as a whole, as "a counter narrative". The question then is whether there are sufficient sources that do so to write an article with.  G M G  talk  16:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , See above - per Talk:Russia investigation origins counter-narrative. Guy (help!) 21:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename to something else without the "counter-narrative". The article notablity is fine though, I am not an American but I assume the people of U.S. would really want to know why the Democrats wasted millions of dollars for a total hoax. As far as I know there is an investigation or a proposal for an investigation going on. Also we should not call it a conspiracy theory just because Democrats don't like it. We should maintain NPOV and common sense.-SharabSalam (talk) 14:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Several US sources call it a conspiracy theory, but counter-narrative is fine and also supported by sources. It's not a question of whether Democrats like it, the problem is that Trump does not like the reality based timeline of the investigation and is trying to use the power of the presidency and the loudness of his bully pulpit to replace reality with "alternative facts". Guy (help!) 15:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * But the point of Wikipedia is not to right great wrongs by saying something that none of the sources individually state, whether it's Trump's supposed bully pulpit or if Democrats like it. Hence the nomination. Jdcomix (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The point of Wikipedia is to document the sum total of human knowledge, and that includes what RS say about conspiracy theories/disinformation like this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's an oversimplification. There are lots of things that are within the sum total of human knowledge that are outside the scope of Wikipedia. The question is precisely whether reliable sources describe this as "a conspiracy theory", or as a disjointed selection of allegations, rants, theories and late-night tweets. Simply claiming that they do doesn't actually help us progress this discussion very much.  G M G  talk  16:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Very true. We don't cover things made up in school one day. But we do cover things made up by the President in order to deflect attention away from the damning Mueller report, and in support of which he has dispatched the United States Attorney General to badger US allies to support a conspiracy contradicted by huge numbers of reliable sources, when such things made up by the President re covered in detail in dozens of sources which are in the article. There are at least three conspiracy theories being pushed around the "oranges" ("deep state", "spygate", Steele), and a large ongoing investigation. Deleting this article just mandates that the same content has to go somewhere else, and it’s not clear where - this content comes from half a dozen articles where it's been covered in varying depth and with varying degrees of sourcing-from-Fox-News. Sufficient depth to cover the details of the alternatives promoted by Hannity et. al. would be seriously WP:UNDUE in the (already large) article on the Mueller investigation. It is much simpler to maintain this article than the many sections elsewhere, and much easier for people on both sides of the political spectrum to ensure that it is neutral, and therefore the multiple other articles don't see-saw competing POvs.
 * I recognise that Wikipedia policy was never designed to cover a situation where the President of the United States promotes fantastical nonsense. But that's the world we live in. Guy (help!) 20:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Notability is not a measure of importance, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for righting great wrongs.  G M G  talk  20:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , At Talk:Russia investigation origins counter-narrative I have listed a dozen sources that explicitly call this a counter narrative, which is a tiny proportion of the sources that cover it. Guy (help!) 21:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , Counter-narrative is description we don't need it in the title, and this description is not a neutral point of view as it is disputed. I suggest  Durham inquiry (as Darouet said) or "Review into the origins of the Russia investigation"--SharabSalam (talk) 13:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , On the contrary. The origins of the Mueller inquiry are documented in the article on that. This is about the interwoven set of conspiracies around deep state / dodgy dossier / spygate and Mifsud - the conservative counter-narrative, and, as a secondary matter at this point, the politically motivated investigation being run by Barr. That might become more significant, especially if it becomes a focus of the impeachment inquiry as an abuse of power, but right now it's definitely secondary. Trump wants to undermine the findings of Mueller, Trump and his allies push an alternate narrative, documented for over two years in the sources cited, Trump then pushes Barr to set the DoJ on it. If the recent comments from the New York Bar lead to anything then that might become the major topic, but I don't think it is yet. Guy (help!) 14:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm afraid I will need additional time to review these. I've only had time to leave comments here or there on-wiki, and not for extended periods of uninterrupted reading.  G M G  talk  18:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , sure, but if the question is notability, there doesn't seem to be any doubt that there's a notable topic here. The assertion of POVfork seems baseless to me, as it came from numerous places where the same or similar material was represented inconsistently. I think anything else can be fixed by editing. Guy (help!) 19:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. This conspiracy theory deserves its own article to avoid undue coverage in the main article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Obvious POV fork with little extra value added. Rather disappointing over all. PackMecEng (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * POV fork of what, exactly? I mean, I know the "oranges" theory is a POV fork of reality, but of which Wikipedia article is this a POV fork? Guy (help!) 19:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I am starting to think perhaps you need a break for anything Trump related. Hell what is with you calling Trump "oranges" everywhere? You are quickly losing any credibility here and starting to look like your average POV pusher. PackMecEng (talk) 21:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ?? Hardly. Your personal attack on Guy is way off base. Anyone who disagrees with what Guy is saying on these topics is the one who loses credibility and looks more like a Trump supporter, RS be damned, and at Wikipedia one cannot support both RS and Trump at the same time. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but this is a place to discuss the article, not a place to post personal political tirades.  G M G  talk  22:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed, though their ranting makes my point. PackMecEng (talk) 02:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , Neutrality does not lie in the average between what the right wing media says and what the mainstream media says. There's a very clear counterfactual narrative being promoted. Media from the centre-right to the liberal fringes all discuss this. The right wing media instead promotes the counter-narrative (with a few honourable exceptions like Shep Smith, who, you will note, is suddenly no longer part of the right wing media). Of course I employ humour when referring to "I hope they now go and take a look at the oranges, the oranges of the investigation" - if one does not laugh then one must surely cry. That is irrelevant to the point at issue, which is that numerous sources are covering, in detail, the attempts by the Trump administration and right-wing media to create a counter-narrative in respect of the origins of the Mueller probe. Sue, Breitbart will tell you it's The Truth&trade;, but Wikippedia does not accept equivalence between Breitbart and the Washington Post, when it comes to factual commentary. Guy (help!) 11:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. PackMecEng (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , what wrongs? The only wrong I am righting is that the counter-narrative was not coherently documented on Wikipedia. Given its prominence, with large numbers of sources discussing it, that is a rather glaring omission. Guy (help!) 19:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * To quote the policy on it Explain the "truth" or "reality" of a current or historical political. It has become clear you are trying to spread your version of the Truth™ and see some weird threat to world freedom or some such nonsense that you need to expose. That is not what Wikipedia is for. PackMecEng (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , What? I am not documenting my "version of the truth", I am doing the precise opposite: documenting the alternative facts that are being pushed by the conservative media, because there was no one article where this was coherently discussed. It's clearly notable: it was the entire A segment of Maddow last night, and the Italian Prime Minister has had to make a public statement repudiating elements of the narrative. It's a POVFORK only in as much as the conservative media are trying to establish a POVFORK of reality. All this is established from multiple wholly reliable mainstream sources, including the dry-as-dust Financial Times. Quibbles about tone, or even title, are a matter for editing. The fact that this is a notable topic, possibly to the point it might form its own article of impeachment, is hardly disputable, given the weight of sources. Guy (help!) 13:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Seriously? You are basically saying I'm here to correct alternative facts and right wing propaganda because Rachel Maddow said so. Do you see the problem with that? PackMecEng (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , No, I am here to document a counter-narrative that is sufficiently significant that it formed the A segment of a national news commentary show. You'll note I do not cite Maddow in the article, for the same reason I don't cite Tucker Carlson. There are dozens of sources there, establishing that this is a false narrative being pressed by the right. Fact-based right wing voices like George Will, Max Boot, George Conway, also echo the mainstream press. Guy (help!) 17:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep article on the Durham inquiry, obviously — as regards the rest of the article, this should be reworked into sections of the "Durham inquiry" article or be removed. -Darouet (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a misunderstanding here. The "Durham inquiry" uses this conspiracy theory has part of a cover-up, so they are two different things, one falsely pretending to be a serious inquiry. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've made the Redirect more specific. X1\ (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete after I understood what this article is about, I think it should be removed. It is POVSPLIT. There is a serious review of the origins of the Russia investigation. This article seems to show that the whole inquiry is a counter-narrative conspiracy theory, therefore it is not a NPOV and things have changed since the media was promoting this as a conspiracy theory, this is now a formal inquiry into a real allegation. We can't call it a conspiracy theory!. See also Google hits for the article title 8 results while "review of the origins of the Russia investigation" is more than 8K results which indicates that the review is the main article while this article is a POVSPLIT and gives undue weight to a certain POV and certain period of time when the media called it a conspiracy theory or a counter-narrative. They are now calling it "review into the origins of the Russian investigation" and the narrative is now an allegation.--SharabSalam (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , that's not actually true. The origins of the Russia investigation are as documented in the relevant article: multiple reports to the CIA from foreign intelligence organisations, followed by FBI investigation of US individuals leading to the convictions we've seen - Manafort and the rest. The alternative narrative being promoted in the right wing media was documented incompletely, sporadically and inconsistently across several articles, so I gathered that here. While it is undoubtedly true that conservatives absolutely reject the idea that this narrative is false, we don't cover it in the main articles because it is false. So this is the only way we can cover it properly. Guy (help!) 19:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete This reads more like a conspiracy page support than anything. Way to POV based and biased fork. ContentEditman (talk) 17:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep soibangla (talk) 23:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * - votes without rationale count for nothing.  starship .paint  (talk) 07:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree. soibangla (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Delete due to most of the issues previously pointed out.Garp21 (talk) 06:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - it is not clear what POVFORK this article is of. It is definitely notable, just look at the sources cited. Perhaps the article needs a rename, but that's not worth a deletion.  starship .paint  (talk) 07:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It is a POV fork of a lot of articles on the subject. Take a look at the history to see where much of the content was copied from. PackMecEng (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what you call it, it's a notable topic which cannot be given its due weight in those other articles. Therefore it has a right to its own existence.
 * It's a proper summary-style spin-off article, also known as a WP:Content fork. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Some updates ; Durham's probe is now a criminal investigation. We cant characterize it as a counter-narrative or conspiracy theory --SharabSalam (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Why not? RS still describe it as a conspiracy theory and cover-up to protect Trump. That it's now a criminal investigation doesn't change that at all, and there are plenty of sources which are now having fun with the obvious implications of calling the Durham probe a "criminal investigation". They are obviously implying that it is being run by or for criminals, since cover-ups are indeed typically criminal acts. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , Not all reliable sources agree with that and things has changed since the liberal anti-Trump media like the CNN and others described what Trump was saying as a counter-narrative conspiracy theory. Now there is a formal official investigation and evidences about what Trump said. Wikipedia should remain neutral.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Careful reading of the NYT story and others today suggest a tiny leak of a criminal investigation being opened without any hint of a predicate could indicate motives that remain unclear and thus do not yet negate the purpose of this article. Having observed the modus operandi of both Trump and Barr, there are good reasons for skepticism about what is actually happening. It could be a cynical tactic to divert attention from Trump's troubles by turbocharging rampant speculation by him and his allies (like Hannity) to energize his demoralized base. soibangla (talk) 02:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And lookee here, the DOJ leak has enabled a member of the GOP Senate leadership to engage in wild speculation:
 * soibangla (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)


 * SharabSalam, the existence of an "investigation into the investigators", IOW the Justice Dept investigating itself, doesn't change a thing. The Democrats did not waste millions of dollars for a total hoax. The Special Counsel Investigation actually ended with a large profit. The investigation was justified and not a hoax.
 * Let's examine this:
 * The Facts:
 * The Russians interfered in the 2016 investigation to help Trump. This was confirmed by European intelligence communities, American intelligence communities, Special Counsel investigation, and Justice Department investigations. Only unreliable sources doubt that.
 * Trump and his campaign welcomed that help because they believed they could benefit from the help offered by the enemy of America. Therefore they cooperated with that offered help. They never reported it to the FBI as they should. They held secret meetings all over Europe which were surveilled in 2015 and 2016 by EIGHT foreign intelligence agencies, which became so alarmed by the conversations that they alerted the CIA and FBI that the Trump campaign was scheming with the Russians to rig the election in various ways. Only after the Papadopoulos revelations. It was this revelation which started the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into the Trump campaign on July 31, 2016. There was nothing improper about the start of the investigation. The Trump campaign has only itself to blame for what happened. They were caught with their pants down, hands in the cookie jar, and they lied about it. Those are the facts. THAT is the correct narrative.
 * The Cover-up:
 * The counter-narrative is an attempt to deny the above. It uses an improper investigation by the Justice Dept to support a conspiracy theory which falsely posits that the Justice Department, CIA, and FBI were misused by the Obama administration to harm Trump's chances. They deny that the Russians interfered. They deny that the Trump campaign cooperated with the Russians and accepted that help. They deny that they were caught doing improper things. They deny the evidence.
 * The current investigations are a cover-up that is contrary to the facts, and the Trump administration is trying to get their base to accept the counter-narrative as fact. By sowing doubt about the origins of the Special Counsel investigation, they hope to undermine the Mueller Report's findings that there was massive Russian interference in the election, and that the Trump campaign willingly accepted that help. The Report also found lots of obstruction of justice. Trump wants people to ignore the evidence already found.
 * Only Fox News talk show hosts and other unreliable sources doubt the findings of the European intelligence communities, American intelligence communities, Special Counsel investigation, and Justice Department investigations.
 * What should editors do?
 * At Wikipedia, we do not use unreliable sources or believe counterfactual narratives supported only by those unreliable sources. If an editor believes the counter-narrative and the sources which back it, and if they can't resist the urge to advocate those views, I suggest they find somewhere else to write about it and discuss it, because here that would be original research, forbidden advocacy of fringe positions, and dependence on unreliable sources. We don't allow that here. They should start their own blog.
 * Editors are welcome to hold any political views they wish, but if they are counterfactual and dependent on unreliable sources, then they must not advocate them here. If they don't engage in such forbidden advocacy, they are more than welcome to edit here, but it would be best that they stay away from the AP2 subject area. Then again, there are actually some Trump supporters here who can edit in this area without advocating Trump's views and conspiracy theories, and without insinuating that the narratives found in reliable sources might be wrong. They do not cast doubt on RS, so they are a benefit here. Their presence does not create disruption.
 * This is all about how we handle RS and have the competence to vet them, and the only reason politics is involved in this discussion is because Trump considers all RS to be fake news. Some editors adopt that attitude, and that makes them incompetent to edit in this area. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * SharabSalam, what RS dispute this narrative? That is ultimately how we decide such matters. Please provide the sources which you feel say we're wrong. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "Conspiracy theory" is obviously the democrats view of Trump allegations. Just one side of the conflict. Most of what we call reliable sources are supporters of democrats and anti-Trump. For example, do you honestly think the CNN, MSMBC is covering Trump fairly?  in a recent article in the Guardian it says "Democrats and some former law enforcement officials say Barr is using the justice department to chase unsubstantiated conspiracy theories" and at the top it says "critics say department is being used to chase conspiracy theories" that means the view that this is a conspiracy theory is the view of critics. Similar thing in Reuters, it says "Democrats and some former law enforcement officials have accused Barr, the top U.S. law enforcement official, of using the power of the Justice Department to chase unsubstantiated conspiracy theories"
 * The lede paragraph in the article: "The Russia investigation origins counter-narrative or Russia counter-narrative is a right-wing alternative narrative,[2](CNN video source for the word "alternative narrative")[3](unrelated source that says that right-wings view the Russian investigation as a witch hunt) sometimes identified as a conspiracy theory,[1](Reuters source which says Democrats and some former law enforcement officials describe it as such yet there is no mentioning of who describes it as a conspiracy theory) concerning the origins of the Special Counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections."
 * Notice that the article name was "Russia investigation origins conspiracy theory " although this is not the neutral point of view but the point of view of democrats. Also in the lede paragraph it was saying "concerning the 'oranges'" instead of origins, somehow making a joke of how Trump mispronounced the word "origins".
 * This is how this article should be. First of all, the subject of the article should be about the investigation that is going on and it might have a tag. Then we can have a section about the narrative and provide all different POVs either how the democrats see the allegations, how conservatives are promoted it etc etc. This is how it normally should be.  Right now we have a criticism of the allegations in the lead section and in the title!! and only one third of the article is about the investigation.
 * The title is another story. There are only 9 results for the title in all of Google search engine all are in wikipedia! and 32 results for "Russia investigation origins conspiracy theory". We cant collect sources and create a subject for an article. I have talked about this in here. I propose that the article title and the subject change to "Review the origins of the Russia investigation" (9,960 results) or "Review into the origins of the Russia investigation" (4,900 results). See! this is what should the subject of the article be about.
 * --SharabSalam (talk) 19:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , The issue here is that every single mainstream source is critical of the counter-narrative and the political motives behind the Durham investigation. The only ones that accept it at face value are unreliable: Epoch Times, Fox News talking heads and the like. Guy (help!) 17:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

We are describing how RS describe this counterfactual narrative. We must not describe it the way that unreliable sources do, although we mention it. Wikipedia does not engage in false equivalence. When someone says the moon landings are a hoax, we do not present both POV as equal. We present how RS cover it, and they uniformly document that the moon landings happened and that the counter-narrative is counterfactual and false. The false narrative carries little weight and is given less coverage than the facts. That's how we are supposed to deal with this conspiracy theory. It is false and a cover-up.

"Remember this: Mueller uncovered a vast Russian conspiracy that pulled off something the Watergate burglars never could. Russians or their allies successfully stole information from Democratic Party officials that was used to bolster conspiracy theories that eventually cost the Democratic nominee the election. Mueller also discovered that Trump knew about this conspiracy, encouraged it publicly, and attempted to get involved but apparently failed —probably because the Russians concluded he was unreliable, and involving him was more trouble than it was worth. Mueller also discovered that Trump conducted a lengthy campaign to cover up the Russian conspiracy, resulting in a list of 10 incidents that, if Trump were not protected by his office, could result in federal charges of obstruction of justice.

"Just because the Mueller investigation is over doesn't mean Trump's efforts to cover up for Vladimir Putin's campaign against democracy have ended. On the contrary, the obstruction of justice campaign has expanded. Now, under the guidance of Barr, it's being run by the Department of Justice itself."

BullRangifer (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not for collecting indiscriminate information (wp:indiscriminate) or material that seems to support a topic, but doesn't. Many sources are needed that say this is a counternarrative and these are the elements that support it, of which there aren't. I'm concerned that this topic is based on wp:synthesis of sources to invent a topic that only has been explicitly mentioned in passing in a few of the sources. Not enough coverage of the topic in reliable sources. Fails GNG. I concede that the sources cover various theories and other actions that seem irrational. But this is not explicit significant coverage of the topic, per GNG and WP:N. And has been noted above, this article consists of material collected from other articles, where the topic is not "counter narrative." This shows even more so the wp:synthesis involved and the wp:or nature of this article. Additionally, Wikipedia is not in the business of righting great wrongs (per wp:rightgreatwrongs) nor is it a wp:soapbox---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - These events are now the subject of a major criminal inquiry at a national level. It's inconceivable that such events that are currently generating so much news coverage are not notable. As has already been said, people are just voting "delete" because they don't like the title of the article. The title could potentially be changed, but that isn’t a reason to delete the article.Worldlywise (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Worldlywise, "These events are now the subject of a major criminal inquiry at a national level." That's why there needs to be a wikipedia page covering the legitimate investigation. I'm of the impression that this counter narrative page is holding up opening a new topic, such as "Durham investigation into the Trump-Russia probe origins" or similar title. I have concerns that the counter narrative page may have actually been started for that purpose. --Garp21 (talk) 09:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Please AGF. You are welcome to start such an article if you can find RS on the subject which don't point out the dubious nature of the so-called "investigation". Unfortunately for such an endeavor is the fact that most sources which don't point out the deceptive nature of the inquiry are unreliable or blacklisted sources. They push the counterfactual/counter-narrative as legitimate. But hey, go for it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - I'm not a citizen or resident of any of the involved countries, and I don't have any particular interest in the issue, but this 'conspiracy theory' or 'counter-narrative' has arrived here via the mainstream media as a component of the Trump's impeachment process. Change whatever you think should be changed, but its international notability is far beyond doubt. --MaeseLeon (talk) 05:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep The subject is obviously notable, and I don't see any of the reasons for deletion substantive enough to delete the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * keep Highly notable. A large variety of reliable sources are presented. It may be that some discussion about naming and emphasis needs to occur in terms of keeping things NPOV, but that's almost always an issue about any politically charged issue. Difficulty of neutrality is not a reason for deletion. And the other reasons for deletion are uncompelling. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.