This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
Does anyone else find it weird that the article reports that Alex Jones (wut) claimed credit for the term 'spygate'? I myself could not care less what crazy thing that fellow says. Also, doesn't the material in that paragraph belong in the "reactions" section of the article? I mean, if we're going to include it--I'd be ok with dropping it; we don't usually report reactions from these quarters. Shinealittlelight ( talk) 02:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Here's what I get from that source which is worth including. Let's work on it:
This use of the term was coined by Trump as a marketing effort to rebrand the work of informant Stefan Halper, making it seem more nefarious, as well as to undermine investigations by Mueller and the FBI into any possible ties between Trump's campaign and Russian operatives. Unlike conservative sources, which embraced the term, mainstream media sources "banned the use of 'Spygate' as a generic reference in news accounts about the FBI's use of an informant to gather information on Trump's campaign in 2016" and would only use it when quoting someone who was using it. [1]
BullRangifer ( talk) 13:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
Trump made one true claim and several false claims about Halper's work as an FBI informant. The true claim was that there had been surveillance of his campaign. Now that this is nailed down firmly, we can ignore it, as it's not the part that makes this a conspiracy theory. Proving that there was surveillance is a red herring. It happened. We know it. Later investigations which proved there was surveillance have no bearing on the Spygate conspiracy theory. Trump made some false statements about Halper. That's it. It's not complicated. Nothing that comes later has any bearing on it.
Trump's rebranding of Halper was just one part of his conspiracy theory, as calling an informant a spy is just an attempt to make something legitimate sound wrong, illegal, unnecessary, etc. There was much more that was wrong and misleading about Trump's claims. The false claims were as follows:
Facts:
So far no evidence has been produced to support Trump's false claims. The Mueller Report hasn't changed anything about this historical event. Later sources don't change what happened. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 02:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Your source, Vox, all but matter of factly describes Halper as a spy. This does not convincingly support BRs points and Halpers history if known by Trump make his allegations reasonable. I neednt mention most of the mainstream media were eager to skewer him at the time and still are. Thats okay a lot of them did it to Clinton too. However encyclopedias are supposed to be above this and shouldnt be political rags merely repeating media sources, RS or not, interested in selling copy with controversial political articles. If surveillance against Trump was legitimate why did the FBI hire a spy from outside their agency to do it? Batvette ( talk) 09:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I am even more convinced that the FBI did exactly what my fellow citizens would want them to do when they got the information they got. Paul Ryan and Richard Burr backed Gowdy. Tom Rooney and Jeff Flake called Spygate a diversion. These are Republicans. Even Fox News' Andrew Napolitano says that
this other allegation with this professor, whose name we're not supposed to mention, that is standard operating procedure in intelligence gathering and criminal investigations ... such a stunningly unremarkable event, because law enforcement does this all the time. All of these are in the article, if you had read it, you could have known. starship .paint ( talk) 09:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I should delete your comment right there. Its a personal attack and its not your place to dish out condescending advice on life to other editors. Hes wrong, okay? I knew damn well a handful of republicans disagreed with Trump I guess you two are ignorant that Trumps nomination at the GOP convention saw near mutiny and a percentage of the party is never Trump. His point is that his claims are all the more outrageous because all republicans are duly obligated to be lock step with Trump. Thats HIS ignorance for arguing that not mine for not being a sucker and buying it. We know that neither of you are oblivious to Trumps unpopularity with some in his party so I can only take his persistence in pushing it as an argument of intellectual dishonesty and you both projecting it to my ignorance after stating the fallacious nature of the point to be trolling this discussion. You must have a lot of free time on your hands to want to fill these pages with such unconstructive actions. Batvette ( talk) 20:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
you are right because you or the article know something I do not- that's plausible. It's also possible that you are right because you know something I do not. This is how the world works. We're not omniscient, and that's fine.
The argument fails because Trump does not have unanimous GOP support.- that's hilarious. That unanimous GOP support is needed to prove anything.
So because Halper merely spied on the campaign instead of being planted in it, that is enough to make this a conspiracy theory- that's for the sources to decide. Some have said yes, Spygate is a conspiracy theory.
How about he was just wording it wrong or got a detail wrong?- then it's wrong. "Barack Obama was born in Hawaii" versus "Barack Obama was born in Kenya" - that's just getting a detail wrong too. Humans typically have ten fingers versus humans typically have eleven fingers. Another detail wrong. One is a fact, one is a falsehood.
While there is legitimacy to the investigation its also not been proven it WASNT for political purposes- how do you prove a negative? Perhaps we can use the law of non-contradiction?
the FBI acknowledged at the time the Steele dossier had political capital origins- even if this is true, how is this relevant to the article? Crossfire Hurricane didn't get the dossier until October 2016. starship .paint ( talk) 11:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Are you abandoning your argument (assumed to be) that there is significance on these lawmakers political party? Or are you shifting into confusion on purpose? Who argued unanimous support was required for anything? Ive explained the issue with your implied point if you havent gotten it now expect warranted personal insults if you persist with being obtuse. As for the larger remaining point I have read that the FBI knew the origins of the Steele dossier and went ahead with it noting it was questionable because it sought to help Clinton. I believe reliable sources published this. (BR again to display NPOV should scold you for shameful lack of research. (LOL at my cherub faced innocence as I feign willingness to work with other editors) Given that Turk and Halpers approaches to George P can be portrayed as a setup he didnt bite on, Halper was a spy previously accused of spying on a campaign for political reasons, RS reports an IG report with Halpers handler (partner?) Peter Strzok quoted (possibly under oath) that his activities reported straight to obama/white house/the supreme poobah and the IG stating Strzok showing willingness to take OFFICIAL action to hurt Trumps chances... and the FBI knowing Clinton paid for Steeles work.... you really dont know why all this is relevant? It proves that in may 2019 we and RS know what nobody knew a year ago. Trump wasnt promoting conspiracy theory. A cabal of wiki editors are. Wikis founders must be apalled at how this kind of thing destroys credibility here. Batvette ( talk) 21:42, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
"If they had spies in my campaign, that would be a disgrace to this country ... we want to make sure that there weren't. I hope there weren't, frankly."Either he knows that there are spies or he doesn't know. From his remarks, it seems that he doesn't. starship .paint ( talk) 12:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Now youre just plain lying as a source was provided proving your claims were wrong. You are becoming a problem editor here. Dont give me this islamophobia nonsense when YOU raised the issue with a claim I just proved as another false allegation against Trump. Batvette ( talk) 01:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC) Absolutely false huh. https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/261805-trump-campaign-footage-supports-9-11-claims Here we have the previously mentioned footage of broadcast from 9/11 reporting "swarms of muslims" on a NJ rooftop celebrating the attacks. The claim you made above is just wrong. Will you man up and admit this? Dozens of purportedly RS media outlets, many of which are used in this article, still refuse to back away from their slanted coverage (which summarizes every aspect of Trumps claim as a lie) even after their own colleague's footage was produced revealing it amounts to semantics differentiating "swarms" from "thousands". Since the coverage Trump saw also included thousands of Palestinians doing the same to continue this narrative Trump made it up is irresponsible. The relevance toward the article is that every RS that is used in this article that has refused to update their claims about Trump lying he saw TV news reporting muslims celebrating, should not be considered RS for their reporting a year ago on Trumps claims in the article. I'm not declaring all of them fake news but we have clear precedent of their contempt for facts. This starts with 03000s willingness to show his integrity. The story as you knew it was false wasnt it? Batvette ( talk) 00:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
And I take throwing down victim cards or false SJW whining to deflect every time you get proven wrong here seriously. One would think if I actually did what you just claimed you could bring it to the attention of the lowest level of admin here and rid me from this page immediately. Why havent you? Because like your claims about personal insults you are deflecting rather than give an inch about your numerous errors. Subjecting my person to your false allegations is in violation of wiki policy. Batvette ( talk) 01:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
a counter-intelligence operation- which cannot be concluded to be a spy. starship .paint ( talk) 13:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
It has been reported that he was basing that tweet on a claim about a spy back in 2015. Does he take that spy to be Halper? Seems unclear at best.- Nobody in June 2018 mentioned Halper, the reference was really on "ocunus lures". At least, our article doesn't say anything about Halper in the June 2018 allegations. If you have reliable sources on Halper regarding the June 2018 allegations, then they should be added. Otherwise this is a dead end. starship .paint ( talk) 01:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Starship.paint: Yes, I can relate it to my original point. What I'm arguing for is that BullRangifer and you are mistaken to say that Spygate (in the sense of our article) is only about a single spy, Halper. If Spygate includes the June allegations, then it includes Trump's endorsement of a theory according to which there were spies (plural) involved in the whole affair that he calls Spygate in 2015. So the view that spygate is only about Halper would be mistaken. Do we agree about that now? Shinealittlelight ( talk) 01:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't think I agree. First, you say that the original tweet was about one person. What are the RS which say this? I've seen the Vox article, but Vox, and certainly Vox alone, is plainly not a very strong source. Are there others? It's not plain in Trump's language that he meant a single spy. "A spy" does not necessarily mean one spy. "There is a doctor on board" means that there is one or more doctors on board, not that there is exactly one. So we need RS to support your contention, and I don't think Vox alone is good enough. Second, I really don't agree with you that 'spygate' originally had a very narrow meaning that broadened over time. RS from 5/2018, at the very beginning, all vary substantively in their definitions of exactly what 'spygate' refers to--some define it narrowly, some very broadly. So I really think you should stop saying that it started narrow and expanded later. That's just not what RS say. Finally, if I'm wrong and in fact there are lots of RS who say that spygate originally referred to the one spy Halper, then we would definitely want to change the article. So I recommend assembling all the sources you think support that view, and list them out. That has seemed to be a helpful way to make progress. Shinealittlelight ( talk) 18:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Here's Hugh Hewitt writing for the Washington Post
[4]: “Spygate” — the ongoing investigation into the possible abuses of power by a handful of senior FBI officials and possibly others in the intelligence community and the Obama administration.
.
This is one notable and carefully phrased journalistic opinion on what the term Spygate means. Obviously Spygate gets defined various ways by various people. Some define the term narrowly and seize on one or two early (potentially) false implications by Trump so as to render Spygate false by definition and get license to ignore it. ("The spy had to be employed by the campaign." "He/she had to be officially called a 'spy' by the FBI.") Those sorts of weaseling maneuvers are unencyclopedic and the article shouldn't follow that example. A much better approach is to look to the notable people who are making the "Spygate" accusation and see what they mean by it. I've been drawing attention to John Solomon, but Hewitt is also a great specimen.
Also (and I keep harping on this) he wrote this after the release of the Mueller report, which as he correctly notes, has changed this picture drastically due to the total collapse of the "Trump colluded with Russia" narrative. Wookian ( talk) 15:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
"It means the media is assembling its best and brightest to focus exclusively on what would be the scandal of the century. Oh, wait: That last part doesn’t appear to be the case. There are stories about what Barr has said and done, but not yet reports from any crack teams of wildly ambitious journalists of the sort that helped crack open Watergate and other scandals. There just doesn’t seem to be much enthusiasm for “Spygate.”"
I don't "know" anything about what the AG may be investigating.. I would suggest you read articles on this subject so you can acquaint yourself with the subject matter. Here's a start [5].
Wookian, opinion writers do all kinds of things with the word "Spygate", but the "mainstream news media has a few problems" with that term which started in the darkest reaches of the most unreliable sources, without any evidence. That's where Trump found it and then used it, also without any evidence, even to this day:
This use of the term was coined by Trump as a marketing effort to rebrand the work of informant Stefan Halper, making it seem more nefarious, as well as to undermine investigations by Mueller and the FBI into any possible ties between Trump's campaign and Russian operatives. Unlike conservative sources, which embraced the term, mainstream media sources "banned the use of 'Spygate' as a generic reference in news accounts about the FBI's use of an informant to gather information on Trump's campaign in 2016" and would only use it when quoting someone who was using it. [1]
Sources
|
---|
|
BullRangifer ( talk) 18:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I totally recognize that the word "Spygate" is used in various ways. There is the original use by Trump, and then a quickly expanding use to label all investigations of Trump and associates as Spygate. So what? Until we change the scope of this article, it deals with the original Spygate allegation by Trump. The other article would be very large. You're welcome to create it. Go for it. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 02:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
I reverted BullRangifer's edit, as it quoted a CNN title, and I thought that titles are not RS. Also, it should be clear it was CNN not ABC that the quote was from. I'm open to a rewording, but I don't see how to do it. Shinealittlelight ( talk) 17:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
CNN and ABC News described the sequence of events, stating that Trump had "latched onto a conspiracy theory" that had evolved after starting on Reddit. [1] [2]
When describing the sequence of events, ABC News described how the "conspiracy traversed" from a Reddit thread, to The Gateway Pundit, and finally to Lou Dobbs at Fox News, where Trump found it and then tweeted it. [2] CNN described how "Trump tends to seize on conspiracy theories to further his arguments, blasting out unsubstantiated charges on Twitter to try to torpedo special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia." [1]
Sources
|
---|
|
There are several problems with the Vox piece cited in the Lead. First, it only uses the word 'false' in its title; the body of the Vox article always uses terms like 'baseless' or 'no evidence'. Second, Vox is a partisan source. Third, it does not get cited anywhere but the Lead. Does anyone have a better source for "false" than this? And can we please not add stuff to the Lead that isn't in the article? Shinealittlelight ( talk) 11:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Without mentioning Spygate explicitly, here's what' amounts to Comey's rebuttal. R2 ( bleep) 04:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Starship.paint: I'm staying on task here! Here's my report of the sources that frame the story as I've suggested. I will label, but remember that the labels here differ from those in our previous discussion of sources. Also note that, because the presentation here is pretty lengthy, I'm not going to present quotes of every place where they say "unsubstantiated" or the like. But have a look for yourself: these pieces almost always tend to call Spygate unsubstantiated or without evidence instead of false. Moreover, the term 'conspiracy theory' is nearly absent from these sources, and is never directly applied to Spygate.
Trump has been referring to the FBI's use of an informant as "spygate" in what critics contend is an effort to discredit the initial investigation into the president's campaign and undermine special counsel Robert Mueller's ongoing probe.
In recent days the president, in tandem with his allies in conservative media, has launched a full frontal attack on special counsel Robert Mueller's probe into Russian election meddling and possible collusion with the Trump campaign. Earlier this week, he called for an investigation of Mueller's investigation and alleged the FBI spied on his campaign, a story he described as “bigger than Watergate.” But the president has provided no evidence to support his allegations.
President Trump calls it "Spygate" and a Deep State conspiracy against him. His critics warn it's a distraction tactic and an effort to undermine trust in the investigation into whether his campaign colluded with Russia.
President Donald Trump escalated his efforts to discredit the Russia investigation Wednesday, saying the FBI has been caught in a "MAJOR spy scandal" over their use of a secret informant to determine whether some of Mr. Trump's campaign aides were working with Russia ahead of the 2016 election.
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.
WILLIAMS: President Trump has seized on this new branding effort to discredit the Russia investigation. He declared on Twitter today, quote, “Spygate could be one of the biggest political scandals in history.”
Republican U.S. Senator Jeff Flake, who has not ruled out running against Donald Trump for the White House, on Sunday criticized as a “diversion tactic” the president’s unsubstantiated allegation last week of an FBI “spy” being planted in his election campaign.
President Trump’s use of the term “spygate” to describe his latest attempt to discredit Robert Mueller’s investigation is part of “a newly invigorated strategy embraced by his Republican colleagues to raise suspicions about the probe that has dogged his presidency since the start.”
...amid a concerted effort by Trump and conservative supporters to discredit that investigation. The president has accused the investigation of being a partisan "witch hunt" and the investigators of being "conflicted." There is a hashtag devoted to what the president and his allies are calling "SPYGATE" that the president himself is using. Trump boasted that it "could be one of the biggest political scandals in history!"
President Trump, in a continuing effort to discredit the criminal investigation into his campaign's possible links with Russia entities, has now seized on "spygate."
Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani confirmed on Sunday that the president and his allies’ attempts to discredit the Mueller investigation — including the most recent so-called Spygate controversy — are part of a public relations campaign aimed at staving off impeachment.
Trump alleged the FBI treated him unfairly in 2016 by not tipping him off that his campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, was under investigation ... Such complaints are part of Trump’s overall strategy to discredit the Russia investigation by portraying special counsel Robert S. Mueller III and his team of prosecutors as partisan operatives determined to destroy his presidency ... Lately, Trump has been using a sinister catchphrase, “Spygate,” to refer to the FBI’s intelligence-gathering efforts...
He demanded a Justice Department inquiry of the matter and named the matter “SPYGATE” in repeated posts on Twitter. Mr. Ryan became the highest-ranking Republican to throw cold water on that interpretation, which Democrats and former high-level law enforcement officials have claimed is part of an unrelenting effort to discredit the open investigation into Mr. Trump and his campaign.
Then he coined a term to try to discredit the Mueller investigation: "SPYGATE."
Overall, then, I'd say this is a pretty impressive list of central RS, and it shows that the dominant framing of this story in the media has been that Trump made unusbstantiated claims about spying and pushed the idea of a scandal that he branded "Spygate," in order to discredit the Mueller investigation. Shinealittlelight ( talk) 14:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Lately, Trump has been using a sinister catchphrase, 'Spygate,' to refer to the FBI’s intelligence-gathering efforts at the outset of its Russia interference investigation." And from the same article: "
He accuses the FBI of infiltrating his campaign with spies." If you use that more general definition of Spygate, recognizing as AG Barr does that investigating an opponent's political campaign requires solid predication which is not clear that they had -- then you have the basis for a scandal, as is currently being investigated. Post-Mueller report there is no "conspiracy theory" to it. Prior to the Mueller report there shouldn't have been either, however there was sort of a feeding frenzy on the political left. Charitably, we would suppose many journalists really believed there was illegal conspiracy with Russia to influence the election, but in any case, they were obviously wrong about that. Wookian ( talk) 15:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
feeding frenzy on the political left. O3000 ( talk) 15:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
there is no evidence of anything odd about the FISA requests. The FISA applications included material from the Christopher Steele Dossier, claiming it to be trusted and verified. That is precisely some of what is being investigated now, so let's not pretend there's nothing odd there. The great thing is that ignorance is curable, so if you read some of Solomon's investigative journalism on the subject - documented directly from original sources, you can start to understand this. [6] [7] Wookian ( talk) 16:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
ignorance. O3000 ( talk) 16:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
It is important to note that the FBI swore on Oct. 21, 2016, to the FISA judges that Steele’s “reporting has been corroborated and used in criminal proceedings” and the FBI has determined him to be “reliable” and was “unaware of any derogatory information pertaining” to their informant, [...] That’s a pretty remarkable declaration in Footnote 5 on Page 15 of the FISA applicationWookian ( talk) 02:41, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
@
Shinealittlelight: - thanks for the great effort. I'm going offline right now, but in my quick look over I did see several sources backing up in order to discredit the Mueller investigation
. Won't comment on the rest yet, this is just a preliminary analysis.
starship
.paint (
talk)
15:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
how RS presentit's more like
how RS presentedsince many of these articles are old and out of date, not reflecting the dramatically turned tables after Mueller's release. Wookian ( talk) 16:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
...dramatically turned tables after Mueller's releaseSorry, but it now appears that you are pushing this conspiracy theory. The Mueller report has turned no tables. There is no evidence that Obama and the FBI spied on Trump's campaign to harm his electoral chances. It's a conspiracy theory. The report details massive interference in the campaign by the Russians, and shows justification for the investigations. It also details efforts to obstruct justice. O3000 ( talk) 16:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Shinealittlelight, are we back to arguing that we shouldn't describe Spygate as a conspiracy theory? Because if we are then I ask you again to drop that stick. R2 ( bleep) 19:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
If you're right, then let's follow RS and use that language instead of 'conspiracy theory'.R2 ( bleep) 20:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
New Proposal:
In late July 2016, the FBI began a counterintelligence investigation that was later taken over by the Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019). Spygate is an unsubstantiated theory that was put forward by Donald Trump in May 2018 to discredit this investigation as illegal or otherwise improper.[sources]
I would then suggest adding to the fourth paragraph in the lead the claim that "some sources have described Spygate as a conspiracy theory" with the LA Times report and the Haaretz report as sources. Here are a few things to like about this proposal.
@ Starship.paint:, @ Ahrtoodeetoo: Got any thoughts? Shinealittlelight ( talk) 19:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
On the contrary. The release of the Mueller report has changed the tone and context in which all these sources framed their coverage. It is relevant to a number of their claims in this article such as Trump creating a conspiracy theory to discredit an investigation into... something we now know he didnt do. Every one of those sources was working under the assumption he was guilty and they were wrong. So unless you support witch hunt and trial by media and mobs culture, ANY of these sources from pre release are lesser than sources post release. Your view that the only change was revealing the need for the investigation suggests a willingness to ignore the results of due process and persist in publishing mere allegations. Look around, your RS are no longer filling the airwaves with stories claiming Trump colluded with Russia. Batvette ( talk) 22:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
You have been arguing to, essentially, undue it at enormous length without gaining consensus.If so, I apologize. Shinealittlelight ( talk) 22:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
In late July 2016, the FBI began a counterintelligence investigation that was later taken over by the Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019). To discredit this investigation as illegal or otherwise improper, [sources provided above] Donald Trump put forward Spygate, an unsubstantiated claim [please provide sources] and a conspiracy theory. [sources provided above]
starship .paint ( talk) 00:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
In late July 2016, the FBI began a counterintelligence investigation that was later taken over by the Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019). To discredit this investigation as illegal or otherwise improper, [sources provided above] Donald Trump put forward Spygate, an unsubstantiated theory [please provide sources] about a conspiracy in the FBI to undermine his election. [sources provided above]
I think its problematic to say the purpose of him presenting (what some call)a conspiracy theory was solely to discredit the investigation, particularly in light of its results. Even if RS say this isnt it purely speculatory (opinion injected) to state what his intentions were? At the very least it does not reflect NPOV, because it only approaches it from a POV that he WAS in collusion with Russia so the only rationale could be that. Im assuming most Presidential candidates do not appreciate having their campaign spied on by an incumbants agencies and their belief it happened would be motivation enough to voice such allegations. Batvette ( talk) 02:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.starship .paint ( talk) 02:38, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
In late July 2016, the FBI began a counterintelligence investigation that was later taken over by the Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019). To discredit this investigation as illegal or otherwise improper, [sources by Shine above] Donald Trump put forward Spygate, an unsubstantiated claim [sources by Shine below] alleging a conspiracy in the FBI to undermine his election. [sources by O3000 above] Spygate has also been described as a conspiracy theory. [sources by starship above].
starship .paint ( talk) 07:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Shinealittlelight, you write the following:
" The problem I have raised is that very few--exactly three so far as I can tell--of the non-partisan, high quality news outlets describe Spygate as a conspiracy theory, while all of the major news outlets nevertheless reported on the story and framed it differently than that. Given this, the "conspiracy theory" aspect of these three reports does deserve to be in the article, but should be appropriately weighted given its relative paucity of sourcing. The article should not be framed, front and center, in terms of "conspiracy theory" precisely because the vast majority of the high quality RS do not frame it this way."
I explained this awhile back, so I'm surprised to see you still hold that view. Maybe I didn't explain it well enough, so I'll give it another try.
First of all, counting sources is not how we determine weight. 20 sources describing one aspect of a story does not nullify or make smaller one good RS describing another aspect of the story. Both can easily carry the same weight, or even give the content from the single source more weight. In this case both should get equal weight, so just word it so there is a nice flow.
Secondly, you are, no doubt inadvertently, using a straw man (or red herring?) argument/reasoning by expecting straight news sources to mention "conspiracy theory". That's not what they do, so the "lack" there is not a lack, and it's a bit surprising when they do it. We turn to opinion and analysis sources for that, but will welcome it when a news source also does it.
So I hope you stop counting sources to determine weight and just give equal weight to both matters. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 00:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
In late July 2016, the FBI began a counterintelligence investigation that was later taken over by the Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019). To discredit this investigation as illegal or otherwise improper, [sources by Shine above] Donald Trump put forward Spygate, an unsubstantiated claim [sources by Shine below] alleging a conspiracy in the FBI to undermine his election. [sources by O3000 above] Spygate is a theory about a conspiracy. [sources by starship above].
The last sentence is weirdly redundant in my opinion. But O3K says that this wording is equivalent to directly calling it a conspiracy theory, which R2 has said solves all the problems he raised. Since I do agree that the claim that Spygate is a theory about a conspiracy is very widely supported by all RS, maybe this proposal has potential. Shinealittlelight ( talk) 00:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Again, in no way is this final proposal awkwardly worded:
Spygate is a theory put forward by President Donald Trump in May 2018 according to which there was a conspiracy in the Obama administration to implant a spy in Trump's 2016 presidential campaign for political purposes.
This proposal is equivalent to the current wording if 'conspiracy theory' and 'theory alleging a conspiracy' are equivalent. Only O3K said those were equivalent, so maybe the other two of you disagree with that, and then I'd understand your not wanting this wording in that case. But, if you think the terms are equivalent, I don't see why you'd oppose it. Shinealittlelight ( talk) 13:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
Does anyone else find it weird that the article reports that Alex Jones (wut) claimed credit for the term 'spygate'? I myself could not care less what crazy thing that fellow says. Also, doesn't the material in that paragraph belong in the "reactions" section of the article? I mean, if we're going to include it--I'd be ok with dropping it; we don't usually report reactions from these quarters. Shinealittlelight ( talk) 02:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Here's what I get from that source which is worth including. Let's work on it:
This use of the term was coined by Trump as a marketing effort to rebrand the work of informant Stefan Halper, making it seem more nefarious, as well as to undermine investigations by Mueller and the FBI into any possible ties between Trump's campaign and Russian operatives. Unlike conservative sources, which embraced the term, mainstream media sources "banned the use of 'Spygate' as a generic reference in news accounts about the FBI's use of an informant to gather information on Trump's campaign in 2016" and would only use it when quoting someone who was using it. [1]
BullRangifer ( talk) 13:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
Trump made one true claim and several false claims about Halper's work as an FBI informant. The true claim was that there had been surveillance of his campaign. Now that this is nailed down firmly, we can ignore it, as it's not the part that makes this a conspiracy theory. Proving that there was surveillance is a red herring. It happened. We know it. Later investigations which proved there was surveillance have no bearing on the Spygate conspiracy theory. Trump made some false statements about Halper. That's it. It's not complicated. Nothing that comes later has any bearing on it.
Trump's rebranding of Halper was just one part of his conspiracy theory, as calling an informant a spy is just an attempt to make something legitimate sound wrong, illegal, unnecessary, etc. There was much more that was wrong and misleading about Trump's claims. The false claims were as follows:
Facts:
So far no evidence has been produced to support Trump's false claims. The Mueller Report hasn't changed anything about this historical event. Later sources don't change what happened. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 02:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Your source, Vox, all but matter of factly describes Halper as a spy. This does not convincingly support BRs points and Halpers history if known by Trump make his allegations reasonable. I neednt mention most of the mainstream media were eager to skewer him at the time and still are. Thats okay a lot of them did it to Clinton too. However encyclopedias are supposed to be above this and shouldnt be political rags merely repeating media sources, RS or not, interested in selling copy with controversial political articles. If surveillance against Trump was legitimate why did the FBI hire a spy from outside their agency to do it? Batvette ( talk) 09:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I am even more convinced that the FBI did exactly what my fellow citizens would want them to do when they got the information they got. Paul Ryan and Richard Burr backed Gowdy. Tom Rooney and Jeff Flake called Spygate a diversion. These are Republicans. Even Fox News' Andrew Napolitano says that
this other allegation with this professor, whose name we're not supposed to mention, that is standard operating procedure in intelligence gathering and criminal investigations ... such a stunningly unremarkable event, because law enforcement does this all the time. All of these are in the article, if you had read it, you could have known. starship .paint ( talk) 09:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I should delete your comment right there. Its a personal attack and its not your place to dish out condescending advice on life to other editors. Hes wrong, okay? I knew damn well a handful of republicans disagreed with Trump I guess you two are ignorant that Trumps nomination at the GOP convention saw near mutiny and a percentage of the party is never Trump. His point is that his claims are all the more outrageous because all republicans are duly obligated to be lock step with Trump. Thats HIS ignorance for arguing that not mine for not being a sucker and buying it. We know that neither of you are oblivious to Trumps unpopularity with some in his party so I can only take his persistence in pushing it as an argument of intellectual dishonesty and you both projecting it to my ignorance after stating the fallacious nature of the point to be trolling this discussion. You must have a lot of free time on your hands to want to fill these pages with such unconstructive actions. Batvette ( talk) 20:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
you are right because you or the article know something I do not- that's plausible. It's also possible that you are right because you know something I do not. This is how the world works. We're not omniscient, and that's fine.
The argument fails because Trump does not have unanimous GOP support.- that's hilarious. That unanimous GOP support is needed to prove anything.
So because Halper merely spied on the campaign instead of being planted in it, that is enough to make this a conspiracy theory- that's for the sources to decide. Some have said yes, Spygate is a conspiracy theory.
How about he was just wording it wrong or got a detail wrong?- then it's wrong. "Barack Obama was born in Hawaii" versus "Barack Obama was born in Kenya" - that's just getting a detail wrong too. Humans typically have ten fingers versus humans typically have eleven fingers. Another detail wrong. One is a fact, one is a falsehood.
While there is legitimacy to the investigation its also not been proven it WASNT for political purposes- how do you prove a negative? Perhaps we can use the law of non-contradiction?
the FBI acknowledged at the time the Steele dossier had political capital origins- even if this is true, how is this relevant to the article? Crossfire Hurricane didn't get the dossier until October 2016. starship .paint ( talk) 11:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Are you abandoning your argument (assumed to be) that there is significance on these lawmakers political party? Or are you shifting into confusion on purpose? Who argued unanimous support was required for anything? Ive explained the issue with your implied point if you havent gotten it now expect warranted personal insults if you persist with being obtuse. As for the larger remaining point I have read that the FBI knew the origins of the Steele dossier and went ahead with it noting it was questionable because it sought to help Clinton. I believe reliable sources published this. (BR again to display NPOV should scold you for shameful lack of research. (LOL at my cherub faced innocence as I feign willingness to work with other editors) Given that Turk and Halpers approaches to George P can be portrayed as a setup he didnt bite on, Halper was a spy previously accused of spying on a campaign for political reasons, RS reports an IG report with Halpers handler (partner?) Peter Strzok quoted (possibly under oath) that his activities reported straight to obama/white house/the supreme poobah and the IG stating Strzok showing willingness to take OFFICIAL action to hurt Trumps chances... and the FBI knowing Clinton paid for Steeles work.... you really dont know why all this is relevant? It proves that in may 2019 we and RS know what nobody knew a year ago. Trump wasnt promoting conspiracy theory. A cabal of wiki editors are. Wikis founders must be apalled at how this kind of thing destroys credibility here. Batvette ( talk) 21:42, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
"If they had spies in my campaign, that would be a disgrace to this country ... we want to make sure that there weren't. I hope there weren't, frankly."Either he knows that there are spies or he doesn't know. From his remarks, it seems that he doesn't. starship .paint ( talk) 12:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Now youre just plain lying as a source was provided proving your claims were wrong. You are becoming a problem editor here. Dont give me this islamophobia nonsense when YOU raised the issue with a claim I just proved as another false allegation against Trump. Batvette ( talk) 01:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC) Absolutely false huh. https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/261805-trump-campaign-footage-supports-9-11-claims Here we have the previously mentioned footage of broadcast from 9/11 reporting "swarms of muslims" on a NJ rooftop celebrating the attacks. The claim you made above is just wrong. Will you man up and admit this? Dozens of purportedly RS media outlets, many of which are used in this article, still refuse to back away from their slanted coverage (which summarizes every aspect of Trumps claim as a lie) even after their own colleague's footage was produced revealing it amounts to semantics differentiating "swarms" from "thousands". Since the coverage Trump saw also included thousands of Palestinians doing the same to continue this narrative Trump made it up is irresponsible. The relevance toward the article is that every RS that is used in this article that has refused to update their claims about Trump lying he saw TV news reporting muslims celebrating, should not be considered RS for their reporting a year ago on Trumps claims in the article. I'm not declaring all of them fake news but we have clear precedent of their contempt for facts. This starts with 03000s willingness to show his integrity. The story as you knew it was false wasnt it? Batvette ( talk) 00:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
And I take throwing down victim cards or false SJW whining to deflect every time you get proven wrong here seriously. One would think if I actually did what you just claimed you could bring it to the attention of the lowest level of admin here and rid me from this page immediately. Why havent you? Because like your claims about personal insults you are deflecting rather than give an inch about your numerous errors. Subjecting my person to your false allegations is in violation of wiki policy. Batvette ( talk) 01:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
a counter-intelligence operation- which cannot be concluded to be a spy. starship .paint ( talk) 13:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
It has been reported that he was basing that tweet on a claim about a spy back in 2015. Does he take that spy to be Halper? Seems unclear at best.- Nobody in June 2018 mentioned Halper, the reference was really on "ocunus lures". At least, our article doesn't say anything about Halper in the June 2018 allegations. If you have reliable sources on Halper regarding the June 2018 allegations, then they should be added. Otherwise this is a dead end. starship .paint ( talk) 01:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Starship.paint: Yes, I can relate it to my original point. What I'm arguing for is that BullRangifer and you are mistaken to say that Spygate (in the sense of our article) is only about a single spy, Halper. If Spygate includes the June allegations, then it includes Trump's endorsement of a theory according to which there were spies (plural) involved in the whole affair that he calls Spygate in 2015. So the view that spygate is only about Halper would be mistaken. Do we agree about that now? Shinealittlelight ( talk) 01:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't think I agree. First, you say that the original tweet was about one person. What are the RS which say this? I've seen the Vox article, but Vox, and certainly Vox alone, is plainly not a very strong source. Are there others? It's not plain in Trump's language that he meant a single spy. "A spy" does not necessarily mean one spy. "There is a doctor on board" means that there is one or more doctors on board, not that there is exactly one. So we need RS to support your contention, and I don't think Vox alone is good enough. Second, I really don't agree with you that 'spygate' originally had a very narrow meaning that broadened over time. RS from 5/2018, at the very beginning, all vary substantively in their definitions of exactly what 'spygate' refers to--some define it narrowly, some very broadly. So I really think you should stop saying that it started narrow and expanded later. That's just not what RS say. Finally, if I'm wrong and in fact there are lots of RS who say that spygate originally referred to the one spy Halper, then we would definitely want to change the article. So I recommend assembling all the sources you think support that view, and list them out. That has seemed to be a helpful way to make progress. Shinealittlelight ( talk) 18:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Here's Hugh Hewitt writing for the Washington Post
[4]: “Spygate” — the ongoing investigation into the possible abuses of power by a handful of senior FBI officials and possibly others in the intelligence community and the Obama administration.
.
This is one notable and carefully phrased journalistic opinion on what the term Spygate means. Obviously Spygate gets defined various ways by various people. Some define the term narrowly and seize on one or two early (potentially) false implications by Trump so as to render Spygate false by definition and get license to ignore it. ("The spy had to be employed by the campaign." "He/she had to be officially called a 'spy' by the FBI.") Those sorts of weaseling maneuvers are unencyclopedic and the article shouldn't follow that example. A much better approach is to look to the notable people who are making the "Spygate" accusation and see what they mean by it. I've been drawing attention to John Solomon, but Hewitt is also a great specimen.
Also (and I keep harping on this) he wrote this after the release of the Mueller report, which as he correctly notes, has changed this picture drastically due to the total collapse of the "Trump colluded with Russia" narrative. Wookian ( talk) 15:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
"It means the media is assembling its best and brightest to focus exclusively on what would be the scandal of the century. Oh, wait: That last part doesn’t appear to be the case. There are stories about what Barr has said and done, but not yet reports from any crack teams of wildly ambitious journalists of the sort that helped crack open Watergate and other scandals. There just doesn’t seem to be much enthusiasm for “Spygate.”"
I don't "know" anything about what the AG may be investigating.. I would suggest you read articles on this subject so you can acquaint yourself with the subject matter. Here's a start [5].
Wookian, opinion writers do all kinds of things with the word "Spygate", but the "mainstream news media has a few problems" with that term which started in the darkest reaches of the most unreliable sources, without any evidence. That's where Trump found it and then used it, also without any evidence, even to this day:
This use of the term was coined by Trump as a marketing effort to rebrand the work of informant Stefan Halper, making it seem more nefarious, as well as to undermine investigations by Mueller and the FBI into any possible ties between Trump's campaign and Russian operatives. Unlike conservative sources, which embraced the term, mainstream media sources "banned the use of 'Spygate' as a generic reference in news accounts about the FBI's use of an informant to gather information on Trump's campaign in 2016" and would only use it when quoting someone who was using it. [1]
Sources
|
---|
|
BullRangifer ( talk) 18:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I totally recognize that the word "Spygate" is used in various ways. There is the original use by Trump, and then a quickly expanding use to label all investigations of Trump and associates as Spygate. So what? Until we change the scope of this article, it deals with the original Spygate allegation by Trump. The other article would be very large. You're welcome to create it. Go for it. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 02:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
I reverted BullRangifer's edit, as it quoted a CNN title, and I thought that titles are not RS. Also, it should be clear it was CNN not ABC that the quote was from. I'm open to a rewording, but I don't see how to do it. Shinealittlelight ( talk) 17:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
CNN and ABC News described the sequence of events, stating that Trump had "latched onto a conspiracy theory" that had evolved after starting on Reddit. [1] [2]
When describing the sequence of events, ABC News described how the "conspiracy traversed" from a Reddit thread, to The Gateway Pundit, and finally to Lou Dobbs at Fox News, where Trump found it and then tweeted it. [2] CNN described how "Trump tends to seize on conspiracy theories to further his arguments, blasting out unsubstantiated charges on Twitter to try to torpedo special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia." [1]
Sources
|
---|
|
There are several problems with the Vox piece cited in the Lead. First, it only uses the word 'false' in its title; the body of the Vox article always uses terms like 'baseless' or 'no evidence'. Second, Vox is a partisan source. Third, it does not get cited anywhere but the Lead. Does anyone have a better source for "false" than this? And can we please not add stuff to the Lead that isn't in the article? Shinealittlelight ( talk) 11:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Without mentioning Spygate explicitly, here's what' amounts to Comey's rebuttal. R2 ( bleep) 04:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Starship.paint: I'm staying on task here! Here's my report of the sources that frame the story as I've suggested. I will label, but remember that the labels here differ from those in our previous discussion of sources. Also note that, because the presentation here is pretty lengthy, I'm not going to present quotes of every place where they say "unsubstantiated" or the like. But have a look for yourself: these pieces almost always tend to call Spygate unsubstantiated or without evidence instead of false. Moreover, the term 'conspiracy theory' is nearly absent from these sources, and is never directly applied to Spygate.
Trump has been referring to the FBI's use of an informant as "spygate" in what critics contend is an effort to discredit the initial investigation into the president's campaign and undermine special counsel Robert Mueller's ongoing probe.
In recent days the president, in tandem with his allies in conservative media, has launched a full frontal attack on special counsel Robert Mueller's probe into Russian election meddling and possible collusion with the Trump campaign. Earlier this week, he called for an investigation of Mueller's investigation and alleged the FBI spied on his campaign, a story he described as “bigger than Watergate.” But the president has provided no evidence to support his allegations.
President Trump calls it "Spygate" and a Deep State conspiracy against him. His critics warn it's a distraction tactic and an effort to undermine trust in the investigation into whether his campaign colluded with Russia.
President Donald Trump escalated his efforts to discredit the Russia investigation Wednesday, saying the FBI has been caught in a "MAJOR spy scandal" over their use of a secret informant to determine whether some of Mr. Trump's campaign aides were working with Russia ahead of the 2016 election.
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.
WILLIAMS: President Trump has seized on this new branding effort to discredit the Russia investigation. He declared on Twitter today, quote, “Spygate could be one of the biggest political scandals in history.”
Republican U.S. Senator Jeff Flake, who has not ruled out running against Donald Trump for the White House, on Sunday criticized as a “diversion tactic” the president’s unsubstantiated allegation last week of an FBI “spy” being planted in his election campaign.
President Trump’s use of the term “spygate” to describe his latest attempt to discredit Robert Mueller’s investigation is part of “a newly invigorated strategy embraced by his Republican colleagues to raise suspicions about the probe that has dogged his presidency since the start.”
...amid a concerted effort by Trump and conservative supporters to discredit that investigation. The president has accused the investigation of being a partisan "witch hunt" and the investigators of being "conflicted." There is a hashtag devoted to what the president and his allies are calling "SPYGATE" that the president himself is using. Trump boasted that it "could be one of the biggest political scandals in history!"
President Trump, in a continuing effort to discredit the criminal investigation into his campaign's possible links with Russia entities, has now seized on "spygate."
Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani confirmed on Sunday that the president and his allies’ attempts to discredit the Mueller investigation — including the most recent so-called Spygate controversy — are part of a public relations campaign aimed at staving off impeachment.
Trump alleged the FBI treated him unfairly in 2016 by not tipping him off that his campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, was under investigation ... Such complaints are part of Trump’s overall strategy to discredit the Russia investigation by portraying special counsel Robert S. Mueller III and his team of prosecutors as partisan operatives determined to destroy his presidency ... Lately, Trump has been using a sinister catchphrase, “Spygate,” to refer to the FBI’s intelligence-gathering efforts...
He demanded a Justice Department inquiry of the matter and named the matter “SPYGATE” in repeated posts on Twitter. Mr. Ryan became the highest-ranking Republican to throw cold water on that interpretation, which Democrats and former high-level law enforcement officials have claimed is part of an unrelenting effort to discredit the open investigation into Mr. Trump and his campaign.
Then he coined a term to try to discredit the Mueller investigation: "SPYGATE."
Overall, then, I'd say this is a pretty impressive list of central RS, and it shows that the dominant framing of this story in the media has been that Trump made unusbstantiated claims about spying and pushed the idea of a scandal that he branded "Spygate," in order to discredit the Mueller investigation. Shinealittlelight ( talk) 14:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Lately, Trump has been using a sinister catchphrase, 'Spygate,' to refer to the FBI’s intelligence-gathering efforts at the outset of its Russia interference investigation." And from the same article: "
He accuses the FBI of infiltrating his campaign with spies." If you use that more general definition of Spygate, recognizing as AG Barr does that investigating an opponent's political campaign requires solid predication which is not clear that they had -- then you have the basis for a scandal, as is currently being investigated. Post-Mueller report there is no "conspiracy theory" to it. Prior to the Mueller report there shouldn't have been either, however there was sort of a feeding frenzy on the political left. Charitably, we would suppose many journalists really believed there was illegal conspiracy with Russia to influence the election, but in any case, they were obviously wrong about that. Wookian ( talk) 15:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
feeding frenzy on the political left. O3000 ( talk) 15:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
there is no evidence of anything odd about the FISA requests. The FISA applications included material from the Christopher Steele Dossier, claiming it to be trusted and verified. That is precisely some of what is being investigated now, so let's not pretend there's nothing odd there. The great thing is that ignorance is curable, so if you read some of Solomon's investigative journalism on the subject - documented directly from original sources, you can start to understand this. [6] [7] Wookian ( talk) 16:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
ignorance. O3000 ( talk) 16:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
It is important to note that the FBI swore on Oct. 21, 2016, to the FISA judges that Steele’s “reporting has been corroborated and used in criminal proceedings” and the FBI has determined him to be “reliable” and was “unaware of any derogatory information pertaining” to their informant, [...] That’s a pretty remarkable declaration in Footnote 5 on Page 15 of the FISA applicationWookian ( talk) 02:41, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
@
Shinealittlelight: - thanks for the great effort. I'm going offline right now, but in my quick look over I did see several sources backing up in order to discredit the Mueller investigation
. Won't comment on the rest yet, this is just a preliminary analysis.
starship
.paint (
talk)
15:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
how RS presentit's more like
how RS presentedsince many of these articles are old and out of date, not reflecting the dramatically turned tables after Mueller's release. Wookian ( talk) 16:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
...dramatically turned tables after Mueller's releaseSorry, but it now appears that you are pushing this conspiracy theory. The Mueller report has turned no tables. There is no evidence that Obama and the FBI spied on Trump's campaign to harm his electoral chances. It's a conspiracy theory. The report details massive interference in the campaign by the Russians, and shows justification for the investigations. It also details efforts to obstruct justice. O3000 ( talk) 16:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Shinealittlelight, are we back to arguing that we shouldn't describe Spygate as a conspiracy theory? Because if we are then I ask you again to drop that stick. R2 ( bleep) 19:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
If you're right, then let's follow RS and use that language instead of 'conspiracy theory'.R2 ( bleep) 20:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
New Proposal:
In late July 2016, the FBI began a counterintelligence investigation that was later taken over by the Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019). Spygate is an unsubstantiated theory that was put forward by Donald Trump in May 2018 to discredit this investigation as illegal or otherwise improper.[sources]
I would then suggest adding to the fourth paragraph in the lead the claim that "some sources have described Spygate as a conspiracy theory" with the LA Times report and the Haaretz report as sources. Here are a few things to like about this proposal.
@ Starship.paint:, @ Ahrtoodeetoo: Got any thoughts? Shinealittlelight ( talk) 19:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
On the contrary. The release of the Mueller report has changed the tone and context in which all these sources framed their coverage. It is relevant to a number of their claims in this article such as Trump creating a conspiracy theory to discredit an investigation into... something we now know he didnt do. Every one of those sources was working under the assumption he was guilty and they were wrong. So unless you support witch hunt and trial by media and mobs culture, ANY of these sources from pre release are lesser than sources post release. Your view that the only change was revealing the need for the investigation suggests a willingness to ignore the results of due process and persist in publishing mere allegations. Look around, your RS are no longer filling the airwaves with stories claiming Trump colluded with Russia. Batvette ( talk) 22:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
You have been arguing to, essentially, undue it at enormous length without gaining consensus.If so, I apologize. Shinealittlelight ( talk) 22:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
In late July 2016, the FBI began a counterintelligence investigation that was later taken over by the Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019). To discredit this investigation as illegal or otherwise improper, [sources provided above] Donald Trump put forward Spygate, an unsubstantiated claim [please provide sources] and a conspiracy theory. [sources provided above]
starship .paint ( talk) 00:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
In late July 2016, the FBI began a counterintelligence investigation that was later taken over by the Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019). To discredit this investigation as illegal or otherwise improper, [sources provided above] Donald Trump put forward Spygate, an unsubstantiated theory [please provide sources] about a conspiracy in the FBI to undermine his election. [sources provided above]
I think its problematic to say the purpose of him presenting (what some call)a conspiracy theory was solely to discredit the investigation, particularly in light of its results. Even if RS say this isnt it purely speculatory (opinion injected) to state what his intentions were? At the very least it does not reflect NPOV, because it only approaches it from a POV that he WAS in collusion with Russia so the only rationale could be that. Im assuming most Presidential candidates do not appreciate having their campaign spied on by an incumbants agencies and their belief it happened would be motivation enough to voice such allegations. Batvette ( talk) 02:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.starship .paint ( talk) 02:38, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
In late July 2016, the FBI began a counterintelligence investigation that was later taken over by the Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019). To discredit this investigation as illegal or otherwise improper, [sources by Shine above] Donald Trump put forward Spygate, an unsubstantiated claim [sources by Shine below] alleging a conspiracy in the FBI to undermine his election. [sources by O3000 above] Spygate has also been described as a conspiracy theory. [sources by starship above].
starship .paint ( talk) 07:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Shinealittlelight, you write the following:
" The problem I have raised is that very few--exactly three so far as I can tell--of the non-partisan, high quality news outlets describe Spygate as a conspiracy theory, while all of the major news outlets nevertheless reported on the story and framed it differently than that. Given this, the "conspiracy theory" aspect of these three reports does deserve to be in the article, but should be appropriately weighted given its relative paucity of sourcing. The article should not be framed, front and center, in terms of "conspiracy theory" precisely because the vast majority of the high quality RS do not frame it this way."
I explained this awhile back, so I'm surprised to see you still hold that view. Maybe I didn't explain it well enough, so I'll give it another try.
First of all, counting sources is not how we determine weight. 20 sources describing one aspect of a story does not nullify or make smaller one good RS describing another aspect of the story. Both can easily carry the same weight, or even give the content from the single source more weight. In this case both should get equal weight, so just word it so there is a nice flow.
Secondly, you are, no doubt inadvertently, using a straw man (or red herring?) argument/reasoning by expecting straight news sources to mention "conspiracy theory". That's not what they do, so the "lack" there is not a lack, and it's a bit surprising when they do it. We turn to opinion and analysis sources for that, but will welcome it when a news source also does it.
So I hope you stop counting sources to determine weight and just give equal weight to both matters. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 00:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
In late July 2016, the FBI began a counterintelligence investigation that was later taken over by the Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019). To discredit this investigation as illegal or otherwise improper, [sources by Shine above] Donald Trump put forward Spygate, an unsubstantiated claim [sources by Shine below] alleging a conspiracy in the FBI to undermine his election. [sources by O3000 above] Spygate is a theory about a conspiracy. [sources by starship above].
The last sentence is weirdly redundant in my opinion. But O3K says that this wording is equivalent to directly calling it a conspiracy theory, which R2 has said solves all the problems he raised. Since I do agree that the claim that Spygate is a theory about a conspiracy is very widely supported by all RS, maybe this proposal has potential. Shinealittlelight ( talk) 00:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Again, in no way is this final proposal awkwardly worded:
Spygate is a theory put forward by President Donald Trump in May 2018 according to which there was a conspiracy in the Obama administration to implant a spy in Trump's 2016 presidential campaign for political purposes.
This proposal is equivalent to the current wording if 'conspiracy theory' and 'theory alleging a conspiracy' are equivalent. Only O3K said those were equivalent, so maybe the other two of you disagree with that, and then I'd understand your not wanting this wording in that case. But, if you think the terms are equivalent, I don't see why you'd oppose it. Shinealittlelight ( talk) 13:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)