Jump to content

Talk:Allegations of Barack Obama spying on Donald Trump

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Obamagate - A hashtag in search of a scandal - A Fake scandal. Looks like Trump is trying to create the "birther movement" II Conspiracy Theory

[edit]

I was surprised when I was unable to find a Wikipedia article concerning "Obamagate". Maybe it isn't history yet.

Obamagate is the Orange Donald's latest wackadoodle conspiracy theory concerning how President Obama has/is undermining the Orange Donald's presidency. Somehow he has included the Democrat Presidental Candidate Joe Biden as one of the conspirators.

The Orange Donald is trying to make Obamagate a "thing". President Obama, according to the Orange Donald, has "done some bad things"; however, the Orange Donald Trump has not actually explained what those illegal acts are. When asked what crimes Obama had committed, Trump told reporters: “Uh, Obamagate. It’s been going on for a long time. It’s been going on from before I even got elected, and it’s a disgrace that it happened.” Trump has called the alleged scandal “worse than Watergate”.

Philip Rucker of the Washington Post called Trump’s bluff. He asked, “In one of your Mother’s Day tweets, you appeared to accuse President Obama of ‘the biggest political crime in American history, by far’ — those were your words. What crime exactly are you accusing President Obama of committing, and do you believe the Justice Department should prosecute him?” The Orange Donald's reply was "You know what the crime is. The crime is very obvious to everybody. All you have to do is read the newspapers, except yours.”

It seems that the Orange Donald is being pretty lazy in laying the foundation for this conspiracy. But we have a President and his conspiracy theory, and madness enthuses.

Ned Price, a former CIA analyst who served as a National Security Council spokesman under Obama, said, “No one knows what ‘Obamagate’ is, and that includes President Trump. It’s a hashtag in search of a scandal. The only people it will galvanize are those already 1,000 percent behind Trump".

The Orange Donald is trying to recreate a new birther movement-type conspiracy theory to deflect attention from his failures to lead and botching, actually failed to respond rationally, his response to the COVID19 pandemic.

There is plenty of grist for the mill here. It seems that a Wikipedia article is needed to document this next chapter in Trump Conspiracy Theory Politics.

Osomite (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't need it's own article. The only notable coverage of it from reliable sources is donnie and his cronies bumbling as they try to explain what it even is. All "obamagate" is, is an insignificant sidenote. It needs to be acknowledged on the list of conspiracy theories promoted by the orange traitor, but dedicating anything more to it than a single sentence and maybe two citations, is giving undue attention to right wing bullshit, which is not what Wikipedia is for. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 07:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This seems more a puerile anti-Trump tirade than a genuine suggestion for editing changes. Can you provide citations that "Obamagate" is worthy of a standalone article? Zaathras (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have anything legitimate to say, or are you just going to troll people here? 46.97.170.78 (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you need help comprehending my English-language statement, I'm sure there are resources out there for you to reference. Zaathras (talk) 18:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is not going to go away anytime soon especially in a US election year. Some of my colleagues are already saying Wikipedia is pure left wing propaganda. Now I know that is total nonsense but if you do not have an article or a redirect Wikipedia is in effect making a political statement and that is not good. Even the comments on this talk page are a little nasty and not balanced and not worthy of an encyclopedia in my humble opinion GRALISTAIR (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone with a brain knows wikipedia is not left wing propaganda. It's not our fault that right wingers are so out of touch with reality that they whine about "left wing propaganda" any time they see something that doesn't try to push for false balance between verified facts and their crackpot conspiracy theories, pseudoscience and religious idiocy. Reality itself has a left wing bias. That says more about the right and the trump cult than us. Also, it doesn't matter how much we will hear about this conspiracy theory for the next few months, all wikipedia cares about is what the reliable sources say. Ajd mark my word, this is ALL we will hear from reliable sources on this subject: unsubstantiated conspiracy theory, pushed by trump cronies, that even they themselves don't know what it's about. End of story. The WalkAway campaign was supposedly a big deal during the midterms if you got your news from the right wing ideolical bubble on YouTube. Wikipedia only had a redirect to Russian web brigades, and I'm still not sure why it wasn't kept that way. The closest thing that "movement" has to coverage by a reliable source is a skit where Stephen Colbert exposes it as fake. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
well it is propaganda. In the article it mentions how the Inspector Generals report found no abuse of the FISA process. Not true the IG found that the FBI has actually forged documents to continue to spy on Carter Page. The FBI contacted the CIA and asked if Carter Page was working for them. The CIA replied that he was. Knowing that would end the FISA warrants a lawyer for the FBI Kevin Kleinsmith forged a document saying the FBI had said Carter Page was NOT an asset. The IG recomended Kleinsmith be prosecuted for breaking the law. Nowhere in this posting is this mentioned. Not that the required 302 for the investigation was ever produced. Or that Kathleen Kavalec from the State Dept warned the FBI & CIA that Steele was pushing a false political document. 47.137.22.245 (talk) 05:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And you have just made the point for me and not signed in so kept yourself anonymous. That does not bode well for a good encyclopedic entry in my humble opinion GRALISTAIR (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I presented actual points and you respond with an ad hominem. Is THAT your idea of what an encyclopedic entry shiuld be? 46.97.170.78 (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You first sentence - "anyone with a brain" - you tell me who is engaging in ad hominems - I gave a point of view and actual talking points too and there is no ad hominem because you are anonymous GRALISTAIR (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore the troll, they soon move on to shiner things in a moment. Zaathras (talk) 18:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe everyone can refrain from bickering and focus on the topic at hand. I don't believe that Obamagate warrants a standalone article status. Although it seems similar to SpyGate, the SpyGate scandal appeared to have specific allegations. Granted, those specific allegations were revealed to be false, but they were specific, unlike the allegations made about Obamagate, which appear to be incredibly vague.DreamShuffler (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It doesn't matter how much media coverage this will get, we can't just make up a new article for every separate conspiracy theory trump make up. That would just help validate him in the mind of his cultists and it's not what wikipedia is meant for. Just add it to the long list of other lies he made up. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 05:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me.DreamShuffler (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody gives a damn about your opinions we want a real objective and neutral article so if you can't stop being a partisan biased hack and if you can't stop spewing your "Orange Man Bad" narrative then step aside and let the real editors do their jobs. --177.230.47.65 (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but neutrality means presenting facts in an unbiased way. Neutrality does NOT mean skewing facts to make trump appear less bad than he is. You want a real objective and neutral take on obamagate? Here it is: "A baseless conspiracy theory made up by trump that even he himself doesn't know what it's about". THAT is objective and neutral, because it's the plain, undiluted black amd white truth. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 05:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a page about Obamagate

[edit]

Please provide a clear redirect to a section discussing the topic Obamagate or describe it in this page. I saw a tweet by Trump with this text "OBAMAGATE!"[1], but I'm unable to find info about this on Wikipedia. This page redirects to a generic page that does not help. Jan Vlug (talk) 06:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia only documents what reliable sources say. In this case, it's trump just dropping the hashtag out there, then bubling like an idiot because even he doesn't know what it's about. There's an ongoing discussion, and it will hopefully settle with a redirect to a longer list of bullshit claims trump made, pr a list of alt right conspiracy theories, which is the only coverage it deserves. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 10:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody gives a damn about your opinions we want a real objective and neutral article so if you can't stop being a partisan biased hack and if you can't stop spewing your "Orange Man Bad" narrative then step aside and let the real editors do their jobs. --177.230.47.65 (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to break it to you buddy, but the real editors are with me on this. This is NOT conservapedia. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 04:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Veracity of statements by Donald Trump#Obamagate is where there is a current discussion about that article being a landing point for the Obamagate to redirect to. But IMO the proposed text of what would be included leans way too heavily towards legitimizing this non-factual accusation of the president. Weigh in over there of you have opinions one way or the other. Zaathras (talk) 13:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I love how this Liberally-biased Left-leaning Wikipedia follows the "Orange Man Bad" narrative

[edit]

I love how when Comey was fired the Liberally-biased Left-leaning Wikipedia immediately opened a new article titled "Dismissal of James Comey" filling it with biased sources such as The New York Times (when I edited the article and tried to add a source from The Daily Mail it wouldn't allow me calling it "a dubious source") so they made it look like everyone was opposed to Comey's firing and even quoted a biased source calling it "Trump's Saturday night massacre" and claimed that the entire FBI service was very "demoralized" for Comey's firing; but of course they haven't opened an article titled "Obamagate" and I bet all FBI agents will be even more "demoralized" now when Comey is sent to jail for being a partisan incompetent hack and for being the worst FBI director since Edgar Hoover; now the discussion page for the Obamagate article is filled of other biased partisan users making idiotic statements such as that this is a "conspiracy theory" and calling President Trump the "orange man"; stop this tiresome and old Orange Man Bad narrative and do your jobs and be professional and create a real objective and neutral article, nobody cares about your opinions, if you can't do that then step aside. --177.230.47.65 (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, FTLOG. 177.230.47.65, you thinking that the Daily Mail is a "source" is laughable. Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. In an analysis of world news organizations, the Daily Mail falls into an area near the twilight zone described as "Skews Right to Hyper-Partisan Right" with "Extreme/Unfair Interpretations of the News".
If the Daily Mail is your news source (and other new organizations nearby in that twilight zone), I can understand why you have very strange views about the Orange Donald's current conspiracy theory about Obama.
How is it possible to create "a real objective and neutral article" about a loony toons batshit idea that was created by the Orange Donald for the sole purpose of misdirection from his massive failures as the Not Leader of the United States and feeding raw meat to his "base". He is showing how desperate he is. After all, what is another lie when he has lied over 18,000 times during his term of office (as of April 3) and counting.
177.230.47.65, you have had your say, you have not offered anything constructive. Nobody cares about your opinions, please step aside.
But if you won't step aside, please come out from hiding behind an IP address. Quit lurking about and trolling.
Osomite (talk) 02:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Stop threatening me I'll do whatever I want, I am a contributor of this Wikipedia, financially and editorially and I'll say what I want, especially since I have pro-Trump bias: I am a Mexican living Mexico. Oh and what's with that stupid childish comment about me "hiding"? Are you one of those keyboard warriors? Do you want my physical address? I live in Obregon, Sonora, send me a message and I'll send you my home address and the times of the day at which you'll find Mr. tough guy --177.230.47.65 (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I have to agree. I love Wikipedia and contribute - also financially. I like balanced articles. If this gets glossed over its says that Wikipedia is not neutral and that everything POTUS Trump does or says is bad. That is clearly not true. Everyone, Please take your hate out of the equation. An objective neutral article is what is needed. GRALISTAIR (talk) 00:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I disagree with subtitle above I hate ( not love) how the everything Trump does is bad narrative. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. GRALISTAIR (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty dishonest. Wikipedia is neutral. Presenting trump in an uncritical light is NOT. Much like civil rights, evolution, the shape of the earth and climate change, there are no "two sides" here. If you want a false balance between facts and hyperpartisan right wing propaganda, then wikipedia is not the place for you. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 04:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read carefully. I did not say present Trump in an uncritical light - the opposite. Objective and neutral. I said Balance balance balance and keep hate out. Keep the article neutral GRALISTAIR (talk) 10:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have zero idea what neutrality is. Spoiler: it's not false balance. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 05:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

sounds like you are employed by T Roll Price GRALISTAIR (talk) 07:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bias has no place on wikipedia. Any distortion of the facts with the intention of making trump look better than he is, is the definition of bias. If you cannot comprehend that much, you have no business making edits to the site. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 10:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bias has no place on Wikipedia. Any distortion of the facts with the intention of making Donald Trump look bad, is the definition of bias. If you cannot comprehend that you have no business making edits to this site GRALISTAIR (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No need to distort facts to make trump look bad. He's just like that by default. You're pulling a fox news style false balance bullshit here and it's unacceptable. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 04:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No need to distort facts to make trump look bad. You're pulling a CNN Fake style false balance bullshit here and it's unacceptable. GRALISTAIR (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CNN does not push for false balance narratives. Fox news on the other hand is infamous for treating right wing propaganda and factual information like they're two sides of the argument and the truth is in the middle. No, the truth is what's supported by verifiable facts. And facts are NOT on trump's side. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CNN does push for false balance narratives. It spent 3 years on the false Russian hoax not supported by verifiable facts. Fox news on the other hand is famous for being balanced like there are two sides of the argument and the truth is in the middle. No, the truth is not what CNN does. GRALISTAIR (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"False russian hoax". Yeah right. Tell me, have you ACTUALLY read the Mueller report, or are you just mindlessly parroting whatever mindless propaganda Faux Entertainment is spewing on a regular basis. CNN is a reliable source which reports on verified facts that have been confirmed by independent fact checkers. Faux Entertainment on the other hand is a right wing propaganda channel. I understand if that's a difficult idea for you to digest. Independent press is a concept that right wingers have trouble comprehending. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct black is white GRALISTAIR (talk) 15:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GRAILSTAIR. Another discussion where you did nothing but call me a troll has already been locked, and this will soon be as well. You're not helping yourself with your persistent antagonism. You're only making yourself look bad. You said it yourself that you're going to leave wikipedia so take your own advice and leave. Nobody here liles your trolling, or your disruptive behavior. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 04:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obamagate confusion - what is it?

[edit]

Wikipedia really need something on this. Yesterday Barr said: “Whatever their (Obama, Biden) level of involvement, based on the information I have today, I don’t expect Mr. Durham’s work will lead to a criminal investigation of either man. Our concern over potential criminality is focused on others.” If "the crime is very obvious to everybody" why do Barr fail to see it? If Obamagate is, Obama being responsible for an administration that was leaking confidential information to the press, that is an accusation I can understand, but is that all? Wikipedia really need some kind of timeline showing who said what when. Obamagate seems (to me) to be an election-campaign strategy more than an accusation of a crime commited. Being neutral about Trump is practically impossible (even here in Europe), but getting the timeline right should be possible regardless of any bias. Spygate is, in my opinion, not the same as Obamagate. Markuswestermoen (talk) 10:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but in case it isn't painfully obvious, there is nothing to Obamagate besides trump making stuff up. Wikipedia will report on what the reliable sources say and what reliable sources say is that neither trump, nor his cronies have the faintest clue what Obamagate is supposed to be about. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unproductive.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I'm sorry, but its painfully obvious that the last contributors only motivation in posting on this talk page is to attack any contributor who doesn't immediately agree with his ridiculously partisan trolling. Obamagate should have its own article, and it should be far more fair than most of the articles dealing with Trump. The opening Paragraph to this talk page is an embarrassment to wikipedia. Anyone supporting it, or acting in kind is openly demonstrating the exact behavior that Wikipedia is accused of by the right. Far Left Wikipedia editors should not be able to scrub any subject they don't like.Doniboy71 (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? I'm doing partisan trolling and not the morons whining about "liberal bias"? I'm being called out for partisan trolling by a user who's talk page is made up entirely of block notifications and evidences of other rule breaking behavior? This is a joke. Wikipedia cares about facts presented by reliable sources. Obamagate is nothing but an empty slogan with no substance behind it. The latest one of orange trump's lies. If you can't handle the truth, and if you can't handle wikipedia's official policies, go edit conservapedia instead. Or encyclopedia dramatica. I heard it has become a neonazi site as of late. If it wasn't that to begin with. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Troll troll troll your boat GRALISTAIR (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just admit that you have zero arguments here.46.97.170.78 (talk) 05:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just admit you are a troll and have zero arguments here GRALISTAIR (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I have zero arguments EXCEPT FOR WIKIPEDIA'S OFFICIAL POLICIES THAT I EXPLAINED A DOZEN TIMES ON THIS PAGE. You are the one trolling here. At least i know how to properly format paragraphs 46.97.170.78 (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK Whatever you say. Black is white. BTW you really are a clever little troll aren't you? GRALISTAIR (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is fake, the voluminous sources bear that out, but it's still ok to have a redirect or maybe even an article about it. Birtherism was fake, and its article is not at all presenting the matter as truth, but rather (and factually), that it was a racism-tinged conspiracy theory. Zaathras (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Birtherism was a theory launched by a TV-host, while Obamagate was launched by a president. When the president of the USA makes a public statement it is never "fake", but it has consequences far beyond the local political setting. I think all of Trumps statements should be taken seriously and documented, as they often seem to change over time. [2] If the president of the USA can make false accusations and spread misinformation and get away with it, because questioning his statements are always of a political nature, truth is suffering. If he has any evidence (new papers) that can not be released to the public, history may restore his reputation. Still, now we need to document what is going on so that the facts can not be manipulated later to better fit another narrative. Trump's tweets now indicate that Spygate=Obamagate (I was wrong above).[3][4] In a healthy democracy leaders are to be taken seriously an held accountable. Conspiracy theories (assumed) like Obamagate do not exactly promote the idea (fact) that liberal democracies are more transparent and less corrupted than other forms of government - but "the biggest crime in history" should still be documented. Markuswestermoen (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Markuswestermoen: - "Trump's tweets now indicate that Spygate=Obamagate" - that's original research. He didn't say that. starship.paint (talk) 09:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Starship.paint:Trump tweeted them 6 min apart. I do not know Trump, and he may shift from one topic to another easily, but my impression is that once he sets his mind om something he stays with it for more than 6 min. Still, point taken, this is original "research" based only on correlation in time, and based on normal psychology, which may not at all apply to special people like presidents. But what then is Obamagate? Markuswestermoen (talk) 09:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Markuswestermoen: - how would I know what Obamagate is, if the person who came up with it refuses to explain? starship.paint (talk) 09:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obamagate is here to stay according to the Washington Post

[edit]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/18/obamagate-is-all-about-your-definition-freedom/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by GRALISTAIR (talk • contribs)

Assume you meant "here to stay" ? Zaathras (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted- thank you GRALISTAIR (talk) 02:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

“Meanwhile, as you can imagine, the idea that the Donald Trump article is neutral is a joke. Just for example, there are 5,224 none-too-flattering words in the ‘Presidency’ section. By contrast, the following ‘Public Profile’ (which the Obama article entirely lacks), ‘Investigations,’ and ‘Impeachment’ sections are unrelentingly negative, and together add up to some 4,545 words—in other words, the controversy sections are almost as long as the sections about his presidency,” Sanger explains. “Common words in the article are ‘false’ and ‘falsely’ (46 instances): Wikipedia frequently asserts, in its own voice, that many of Trump’s statements are ‘false.’ Well, perhaps they are. But even if they are, it is not exactly neutral for an encyclopedia article to say so, especially without attribution. You might approve of Wikipedia describing Trump’s incorrect statements as ‘false,’ very well; but then you must admit that you no longer support a policy of neutrality on Wikipedia.” [5]

Is this relevant to the arguably biased redirect of this (non-)article? Narssarssuaq (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say without hesitation, this Wikipedia page/lack of has really opened my eyes. I will no longer be donating financially to Wikipedia. Really sad about it as I still think on balance it is a valuable resource. Probably won’t write anymore articles either- very sad. GRALISTAIR (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So we've learned here that this Sanger guy is a Trumpkin, and that your contributions won't be missed. Oh well. Zaathras (talk) 23:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As you say no big loss. See you all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GRALISTAIR (talk • contribs)
Wonderful. A wikipedia co-founder of all people demanding false balance just to confirm his own political bias. The reason why there are so many "negative words" is because that is what reliable sources tell us. If trump lies, and reliable sources fact check him and expose him as a liar, then Wikipedia will convey that information. What is Larry Sanger expecting here? That the independent fact checking be counterbalanced by lies from pro trump propaganda outlets? This is absurd. I'm not even a regular user and I understand Wikipedia's policies better than it's own co-founder? Let's he real here. He's proposing the same bullshit that he claims ruined the site. He left the project over 10 years ago. He has no authority on this issue, or any other issue for that matter and his word carries no weight. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 04:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the weird cult of personality around him, Sanger is really as much a Wiki "founder" as Ronald Wayne was of Apple, he may have been present early, but soon left and contributions amounted to very little in the end. The invoking of this person's name is a naked appeal to authority and should really be ignored henceforth. Zaathras (talk) 12:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's more or less what I was thinking too. Glad we all agree, but it makes me wonder how many other trump cultists are hiding among the regular contributors. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 14:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They have to hide, Wikipedia has no Trump cult. Not even a Trump statue or Trump grove. If you build these, some will come. Heed my words, mortal, for I am a herald of the great unknown! Lead thy enemy not into the void, but into thy honeypot so that they may be held and countable. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to actually say something useful? 46.97.170.78 (talk) 03:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm...Larry Sanger's opinion is not relevant to the arguably biased redirect of this (non-)article. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect makes perfect sense. Trump lies every time he opens his mouth. If wikipedia has a separate article for every single one of his lies, we may as well create a separate wiki project just dedicated to exposing and debunking the orange buffoon. And I'm sure he and his worshippers would love that kind of attention because it would count as "owning the libs". Obamagate is yet another insignificant conspiracy theory among insignificant conspiracy theories pushed by trump and it needs to be treated as such. Any more credit to him and the right wing propaganda machine and we'd be enabling their lies. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 10:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying the redirect's crazy, I'm saying this Larry Sanger piece in question isn't relevant to its target. Earlier I implied a question I should have just asked, so I'll ask again: what the hell are Trump cultists or Trump worshippers? If you don't like the man, why talk about him like he's a god? I mean, that's off-topic, so you don't have to answer. But you make me wonder. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right. Sorry. You're absolutely right. Trumpkins. Trumpanzees. MAGAtards. MAGAts. Is that better? 46.97.170.78 (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Better insults to hurl at a hidden horde, anyway. Worse for "them". Does nothing to explain how I might know one if I saw one, but maybe that's best left unknown. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They're easy to spot. Usually hanging out around articles about contentious topics and asking for false balance, Faux Entertainment style. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, American cable subscribers. Not as many as there used to be, here on the Internet. Whole lotta Facebookin' going on, though, and holy shit do they let us know it! Good luck fighting the good fight, Lucky Seven! Anyway, do you mind if I call you just "Lucky" for short, on account of your three sevens? Lucky Seven sounds like a racehorse's name, you're better than that. Alternatively, I could shut up and scram. Mainly dropped by because "Obamagate" seemed more verb than noun. Not sure what it is, in the end, but no longer care. The important thing is Mother Comcast despises all her children equally. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on page creation

[edit]

Does Obamagate meet WP:N and should editors create a standalone article? Casprings (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support A recent RFC closed on where to redirect the page. I think given the amount of news coverage, this clearly needs a page. We are here to be useful to the reader. When someone is seeking neutral information about what the President is talking about, there should be a page for that reader to review.Casprings (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If a page is created, it should be Obamagate (conspiracy theory). SPECIFICO talk 16:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The disambiguator is only needed if there's something to disambiguate from, like Spygate. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, SPECIFICO. We're not here to pass judgment by adding such superfluous disclaimers in an attempt to discredit. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 23:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Muboshgu has pointed out we do not need the disambiguation. The sourced article content would determine how we characterize the subject. My understanding is it was born discredited. SPECIFICO talk 00:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not been born at all. And when it is, if it is, it could be anything. Anything political, criminal and already known to everybody, anyway (allegedly). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying you were in on the caper? SPECIFICO talk 01:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just say your president and I may have "read" the same "newspaper" once or twice. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:FRINGE. How can it meet N if Trump can't even tell us what "it" is? Obamagate. It’s been going on for a long time. It’s been going on from before I even got elected, and it’s a disgrace that it happened, and if you look at what’s gone on, and if you look at now, all this information that’s being released—and from what I understand, that’s only the beginning—some terrible things happened, and it should never be allowed to happen in our country again. And you’ll be seeing what’s going on over the next, over the coming weeks, but I—and I wish you’d write honestly about it, but unfortunately you choose not to do so … You know what the crime is. The crime is very obvious to everybody. All you have to do is read the newspapers, except yours.[6] No. It's fine to have it redirect to a page on the veracity of Trump's statements. There's no "there" there to make a page out of. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted in WP:GHITS, "Note further that searches using Google's specialty tools, such as Google Books, Google Scholar, and Google News, are more likely to return reliable sources that can be useful in improving articles than the default Google web search." The 3.1M results are at least going through the a screen of being news sources. Qualitatively, these are WP:RS. These include:
We have GNG, which "presumes" notability, but then we have WP:NOT. We have sources that say that Trump is trying to make "Obamagate" a thing, but that doesn't make it "a thing". This proposed page could too easily violate WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:PROPAGANDA. I also think enough is said here to cover it completely. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A single politician labeling his obsession with a previous politician "-gate" doesn't make it into an actual thing. It is best covered in a lies and/or conspiracy-type of topic right now, and if it really does stand the test of time, then Obamagate conspiracy would be suitable. Zaathras (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:VOTE this is not a numbers game, but an attempt to establish consensus. If you clearly explain your reasons for supporting the creation of this page, then other members can engage with that, and it may well happen.Wikiditm (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Washington Post [7] "‘Obamagate’ is not a real thing." From New York Times [8], "Obamagate Is a Fake Scandal. Rick Bright Described a Real One." From CNN [9] "Trump has decided to devote much of his time fueling the "Obamagate" conspiracy. Trump went on a Twitter rampage this past week, sharing falsehoods and misleading claims that promote the conspiracy theory." When first asked about "Obamagate," Trump hadn't fully developed the conspiracy & CNN reports "Washington Post reporter pressed Trump earlier this week to explain what Obama did, the President failed to clarify and said, "You know what the crime is. The crime is obvious to everybody. All you have to do is read the newspapers, except yours." BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I make no claim it is "real". I make a claim that you have the President of the United States pushing a conspiracy theory and the powers of government to support the effort. That seems pretty significant to me, but I guess I am in the minority.Casprings (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)]][reply]
  • To Casprings - I agree with you. It is very significant when reliable sources report that Trump abuses his power, abuses federal agencies (including DOJ) and abuse taxpayer money to push conspiracy theories that appear to be geared only help him personally politically. And if that were a main WP:article then Trump's "Obamagate" conspiracy would fall into a subheading for that. I just don't think "Obamagate" should be the main article. As a side note, and ironically, Trump is Impeached for almost identical behavior, "paging Susan Collins." BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BetsyRMadison: - three opinion pieces. Please try to avoid those. starship.paint (talk) 15:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To starship - Thanks, will do BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging users who took part in the redirect discussion: @Rosguill, Bongwarrior, Koayf, JDDJS, Narky Blert, 173.85.194.197, Petter Ellis, Constantine-X, 69.157.252.96, Vanilla Wizard, JamesMLane, MrX, Volunteer Marek, Throwawayforcourtesydiscussion, Narky Blert, Pharos, KConWiki, Wikiditm, Afvalbak, JamesMLane, PCN02WPS, Ɱ, Bejnar, UnitedStatesian, Praxidicae, Pikamander2, Sam, Escape Orbit, XOR'easter, Vermont, MySixthSense, Drmies, K.e.coffman, Benjamin, Patken4, GRALISTAIR, Zaathras, Pharos, Atsme, The Land, Purplebackpack89, Koldcuts, StoryKai, Pikamander2, Markuswestermoen, and JDDJS: Casprings (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that even one person understands it? Narky Blert (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If an article is created, its title should be Obamagate. A qualifier should only be used if there is ambiguity; see WP:PRECISE. Narky Blert (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose still ɱ (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. There is only one question that needs answering: Does it or does it not pass WP:GNG? I'm not going to do the research needed to form an opinion. Write a fully-referenced draft, and see how it looks. Narky Blert (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. A redirect is enough. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Notability is not just number of news stories (WP:NOTNEWS), it is about content. Right now there is only metacontent which is adequately covered by the paragraph at Veracity of statements by Donald Trump#Obamagate, which could without harm be moved to List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump#Obamagate. It does not need to appear in both articles, and I think that the later is a more accurate description, but either is fine with me. But a whole article is not appropriate given Notability Guidelines and policy about What Wikipedia is Not. --Bejnar (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; I'm not even sure he knows exactly what he's talking about. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – The redirection is fine for now. No one has any definite conclusion as to what “Obamagate” even is, not even Trump. What we have in the other article is enough coverage for what’s available. Koldcuts (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Creating an article presumes that a well-defined topic exists. Since people search for it, we should have an appropriate redirect, but the purported "scandal" is so fundamentally amorphous that the best we can do is cover the random, shapeless accusations as part of the larger whole. XOR'easter (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Until there is some description of what "Obamagate" is, there is nothing for us to write about.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I supported having the redirect continue to exist, but I can't support having a standalone article when at this point all we can do with the existing reliable secondary sources is explain how Obamagate is a neologism with ambiguous meaning. Is Obamagate the same as Spygate or something new? I still don't really know. The term has been covered enough that I still support the redirection, but there's not enough information on what Obamagate actually is to make a standalone article. A paragraph in a related article is fine for now. I'm under the impression that Trump is getting bored of talking about Obamagate and so we're unlikely to hear much more about it in the near future.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 03:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now, unless further events develop that merit article creation: I very much support having a paragraph or two at the appropriate page (currently the Veracity page) to which this search term points, and at which we can explain the circumstances of this term's use. I think that is sufficient, unless new developments occur that prompt a significant expansion of our work on this. KConWiki (talk) 03:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose since Trump is just using vague innuendo; just another one of his misdirection nothingburgers. As of now I agree with the redirect to Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. X1\ (talk) 09:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Redirecting to a general page on Trump lies, which itself is poorly structured and arguably biased, gives the impression to readers that Wikipedia follows a POV on this particular subject. I strongly recommend a more careful approach to NPOV, particularly as American politics is a very contentious topic. I think it will be much easier to secure NPOV in an individual article rather than keeping the intrinsically accusatory redirect. Narssarssuaq (talk) 09:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Narssarssuaq, do you have some RSs that give any credibility to this one of Trump's wildly outrageous yet unsubstantiated claims? If you do, please post them here. When Trump was asked about this term he coined, he implied with a suggestive, but without evidence: "You know ...". Same old political tactic, it appears. X1\ (talk) 09:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I cannot find any RSs that explain the content of Obamagate beyond the tweets and their speculative interpretation. My point is that all of this can be better explained in an individual article. If we redirect to a page on veracity, readers will conclude that Wikipedia editors agree that "it's just a lie, and no foul play was involved". A conclusion which is premature as there is not much to back up the claim that Obamagate is a fabrication and a lie except conjecture and extrapolation. Wikipedia's redirect may come across as a strong and unencyclopedic claim to some readers. Narssarssuaq (talk) 10:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • This incompetent con-man lies at the drop-of-hat. It is inappropriate for wp to devote articles to the innumerable cornucopia bullshit, deception, and lies he says. It is a waste of resources; unless there is something significantly new. For example, see List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump for a small sample. If Trump were a wp editor, it would be Wikipedia:Don't take the bait on creating yet another article. X1\ (talk) 10:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I see your point. I'd like to point out, however, that politicians, like lawyers and to some extent media outlets, forward particular views. Most of the time they communicate rhetorically, not encyclopedically. Trump is also more of an idealist than an empiricist; this is not necessarily due to an intention to deceive. At other times he may or may not come up with intentional, calculated lies - but I think any evaluation of intention remains speculative as long as there are other factors that may explain why he deviates strongly from "Wikipedia-style communication". Narssarssuaq (talk) 10:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • While your defense/explanation of Trump's thinking/motivation is interesting/arguable, it is not specifically relevant to the appropriateness a standalone wp article. X1\ (talk) 10:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • I mentioned this appropriateness in the first comment. Anyway, you seem to be supported by most editors, who do not appear to understand how American politics is fundamentally a conflict of interests and worldviews, and how the question of politicians' true vs. false statements on factoids is subordinate to this conflict. In the current political climate, Wikipedia cannot equate "politically correct" with "encyclopedically correct", as the former is currently in dispute. This wasn't necessarily the case, at least not to the same extent, when Wikipedia started, and it seems that Wikipedia is having trouble adapting to this situation. Right now many people including its co-founder point out how Wikipedia appears politically biased. As this article is close to the core of this issue, and as this is a deep-rooted issue, I cannot solve it all here.. Narssarssuaq (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose stand-alone article at this point. Even favorite conservative sources like Fox News seem to be unsure what this is supposed to be about and the coverage seems to center far more on Trump's actions in pushing this idea than on the idea itself, whatever it may be. Regards SoWhy 10:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We have both an effort at selective declassification[1] and Barr appointing someone to "look" into this.[2] Is there something that is more historic then using the Federal government to support a conspiracy theory? It is clearly WP:N and is getting further support from right wing media (See: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/05/27/what_the_obamagate_scandals_mean_and_why_they_matter.html ). I guess my point is, most of the comments here focus on the fact that Trump "made this up." That is actually important. He made it up and he is supporting it with the tools of the government.Casprings (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sources

  1. ^ CNN, Zachary Cohen, Alex Marquardt, Evan Perez and Chandelis Duster. "Acting intelligence chief has declassified names of Obama officials who 'unmasked' Flynn". CNN. Retrieved 2020-05-28. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ Gurman, Sadie (2020-05-28). "Barr Names Prosecutor to Investigate Unmasking". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2020-05-28.
  • Casprings, yeah, this thing is going to continue to grow into.... something. It's probably campaign strategy A#1 now that the economy is in the crapper, and they wasted their attempt to make Burisma the big thing. Maybe Narky Blert's suggestion above is the best one: we can start a draft and see what it looks like. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What's the conspiracy, in theory? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per the law of headlines, Obamagate is No here. Per the normal law, personally spying on another dude is voyeurism, maybe invasion of privacy if untittilating, but no solo conspiracy. Arguably legal in America, even (or especially) by secretive groups. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:InedibleHulk, the ersatz scandal pertains to its being done for allegedly political ends (which, for example, makes for much of the "scandalous" nature of the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal and the like, I suppose).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I get how it resembles a political scandal. Just not seeing how it's like a conspiracy theory. That scandal you linked doesn't contain "conspiracy" or "theory" either, so I miss the point. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - It's a propagandistic neologism that has no serious meaning. - MrX 🖋 23:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The term is mostly a neologism without a clearly-defiend focus, but to the extent that different commentators have tried to identify a focus it fails WP:NPOVTITLE in that each of the individual things lumped into it have their own, more widely-used and more neutral term. As a neologism, there isn't really any indication that there's sustained coverage with shares a common meaning and, therefore, no coherent article to write. --Aquillion (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest snow close I won't do it myself because I am involved editor who left a !vote and was pinged to participate because I also participated in a related RFC, so it would obviously be wrong of me to close it, but I would recommend that any wholly uninvolved editors who happen to stumble across this RFC close the thread per WP:SNOW. It's been nearly a week since anyone's commented and the consensus against a standalone article with this title is overwhelming.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 16:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose Obamagate is a made up thing used as a political pawn. Those who have "started it" have provided no basis for their claims. There's no way to make an article based on facts about this nor is there to make it without it sounding biased. Smith0124 (talk) 00:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose as it is baseless and unfounded. Idealigic (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated restoration

[edit]

NightShadeXR5 and 72.69.112.238 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) have made repeated attempts to restore a heavily WP:POV article sourced to the ever so dubious The Federalist (website) and despite my multiple attempts to explain this, it doesn't seem to have had any impact, even though there is clear consensus above to support my edits. Praxidicae (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae, I saw the edit warring and protected the redirect for a week. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, seems pretty clear that consensus is to leave it as is. Praxidicae (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And nothing has changed since June. It's funny to me that that edit talks about the Durham probe in the present tense, regarding supposed releases of information in September, using only one reference, from the Federalist, dated in May. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moved Talk From "Obamagate" non-article Talk Page to this "Allegations of Obama spying on Trump" Talk Page

[edit]

I brought this talk from an "Obamagate" talk page that for some reason never obtained an article with just the title of "Obamagate". Such are the ways of Wikipedia.

As you can see from the first section of Talk, way back on May 15, 2020, being somewhat prescient, I proposed the need for an "Obamagate" article. I cleverly posited it as "A hashtag in search of a scandal - A Fake scandal. Looks like Trump is trying to create the "birther movement" II Conspiracy Theory". Great minds cudgeled over this proposal, but it wasn't considered very important as many, many august editors voted "opposed".

But, somehow this article "Allegations of Obama spying on Trump" was deemed important enough. I guess you need to propose a catchy title rather than just a hashtag title. And it might be necessary to pole the voters to see how all the "opposed" match up to being orange man supporters. Just a thought.

Osomite hablemos 05:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the IP editor

[edit]

the opening sentence:

Allegations of Obama spying on Trump are part of a large, sprawling, baseless conspiracy theory posited by President Donald Trump, which he described as "the biggest political crime in American history, by far."

is a bit excessive and doesn't make clear what it's about.

how about:

Allegations of Obama spying on Trump is an elaborate but baseless conspiracy theory posited by President Donald Trump that former president Barack Obama spied on him and his campaign, which Trump has characterized as "the biggest political crime in American history, by far."

soibangla (talk) 05:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy Theory or is it?

[edit]

Allegations of Obama spying on Trump has turned out to be true according to the Durham Report. It's time to update your story with the truth. Rgazda60 (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see "Durham proved Trump was always right about everything" is making the rounds. Durham did not address spying. soibangla (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not true. "Trump Really Was Spied On
Durham says techies linked to the Clinton campaign had access to White House and Trump Tower internet data." [10] Red Slapper (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Durham

[edit]

I don't think he should be mentioned in this article. He was not tasked with investigating spying and does not mention it in his public report. In my travels I have not seen anything reported about him and spying. soibangla (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source used for this (AlJazeera) explicitly connects the Durham report to the spying allegations. But I am ok with taking that section out. Red Slapper (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. We just added what might become relevant, but it didn't, so nuke the whole section. It just creates confusion. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The spying allegations were proven to be true back in 2020: https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/509002-more-willful-blindness-by-the-media-on-spying-by-obama-administration/ 75.168.125.22 (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
False. You're citing an op-ed by Jonathan Turley. This is not a reliable source. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soibangla needs to be banned from any pages relating to Trump. This user has repeatedly admitted to being biased against any source that can be perceived to be supportive of Donald Trump. Wikipedia audiences deserve honest articles; I have screenshots and archived links of this user admitting that he or she will revert any changes to Trump-related articles that could help the former president even if true. How do we get this process started of banning said user from these articles? The user is violating Wiki conduct by even dismissing accepted sources like the AP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.154.125.230 (talk) 19:12, February 14, 2024 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH

[edit]

Taking a source from 2018 (5 years BEFORE the Durham report came out) and using a comment made there about Page, and adding it to a current article about the Durham report which does not mention that seems to be a perfect example of what WP:SYNTH diallowes: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source" Red Slapper (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has long been established he left the campaign in Sep 2016 and the warrant was in Oct 2016. It's a fact. The reader is not being led to a conclusion. soibangla (talk) 21:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That might be true, but it is still WP:SYNTH: ""Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source". If there is a single source that ties Durham's report's findings regarding spying to Page's having departed the campaign, provide it. Otherwize, it is synth, and it is out. Red Slapper (talk) 21:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"not explicitly stated by any source"
But Vox explicitly states it soibangla (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Vox does not explicitly say "Durham's report did not find any spying other than WRT to Page, who left the campaign a month earlier". It does not mention Durham at all for obvious reasons related to the nature of time. If there is a source that discusses Durham;s findings with regards to the spying on Page and mentions that he left in September, let's see it. Otherwise - it's SYNTH and not allowable. Red Slapper (talk) 21:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is simply two sources that verify two segments of the edit. It is not synth. soibangla (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is exactly what WP:SYNTH disallows. Find a single source that says it, explictly, or it is out. Red Slapper (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I advise you to not revert it again unless others have a chance to opine. soibangla (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree all you want, but it is on you to get consensus for an edit that has been objected to, not on me. As far as reverting, I suggest you take a long pause from this article, you are already at 3 reverts today. Red Slapper (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just solicited others for consensus. soibangla (talk) 22:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen you do that, yet. When you don, make sure to comply with WP:CANVASS Red Slapper (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting I might solicit people who might agree with me to join this discussion? soibangla (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am suggesting that if you only solicit people who might agree with you, that would be a violation of the policy against canvassing. Who did you solicit? Red Slapper (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted back to the last stable version. The additions are not improvements. We already cover the legal surveillance of the three campaign members, which was not "spying". Trump's charge was never proven. Now discuss without adding this change. Come to a consensus for a change of the status quo. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not legal surveillance is spying is a matter of opinion. What you have now done is misrepresent the source, which does not say "no spying" but rather "no widespread spying", and lists an exception which it does consider spying. Please undo that. Were you solicited to comment here by soibangla? Red Slapper (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Whether or not legal surveillance is spying is a matter of opinion." In a sense that is true, but it's the difference between a reliable opinion and an unreliable, partisan, opinion, as explained in the reliable sources which discussed the matter. Intelligence agencies denied spying and see the use of the term "spying" against domestic citizens as misleading, whereas Trump and his minions used the term to cast false aspersions and smear their opponents. Legal survellance is just that, not improper "spying". We side with RS, which have due weight here, not unreliable ones, which have zero due weight.
I have only reverted back to the last stable version. Now that you have specifically described your concerns, I will investigate the source(s), wording, and history of that content and will return later with my verdict. You may or may not have a point.
I have not been solicited in any manner. I get email notifications and also use my watchlist, which is rather large. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What you reverted to is something that was put into this article less than 3 days ago. It is not a "stable version: by any stretch of the imagination. But regardless, it misrepresents its source. I've made this clear when I first made my edit, see my edit summary "hew closer to what the source says". Red Slapper (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't edit your comments after someone responds to them.
Yes, the intelligence agencies that were found to have been acting improperly by multiple investigations don't like the fact that others see this as spying, so what? Their opinion is just that, an opinion, and others have a different opinion. Specifically, the source used in the article (Aljazeera) calls it spying, so it doesn't really matter what "Intelligence agencies" call it, or what you call it, or what I call it. We go by what the sources call it. Red Slapper (talk) 00:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many other sources explain the difference, so I don't depend on one source. You reworded it to imply that "spying" applied to the surveillance of Carter Page, but even the source didn't do that, so now it's fixed. The FBI only acted improperly with the FISA application. Otherwise, their investigations were proper. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what Durham found. His report found that the start of the investigation was improper, for starters. In English, when a source says there hasn't been any "widespread spying on the Trump election campaign, besides surveillance of Page", the meaning is that the surveillance of Page is spying.
Anyway, I am ok with the way you have worded it now, Red Slapper (talk) 00:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To make sure we're on the same page, what is the diff for the addition of that content "less than 3 days ago"? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allegations_of_Obama_spying_on_Trump&diff=1155599474&oldid=1155592775, from the 18th. Red Slapper (talk) 00:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I added content to my comment after you responded. I didn't see that. I have read the source and used an exact quote, which uses "surveillance", not spying, about Carter Page. I have "hewn closer to the source" by quoting it exactly. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the optimal solution is to remove the entire section. As I said yesterday, it can be hard to find sources that report what people didn't say, and in this case it's because the spying issue wasn't in Durham's scope, so he didn't say anything about it, and so nobody reported it. I've searched the report and find nothing about it. So it is irrelevant to this article. soibangla (talk) 00:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update Required

[edit]

New reporting by Matt Taibbi shows several sources confirm Obama used CIA and 5 Eyes to spy on Trump campaign. 164.83.62.164 (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I move to forbid Muboshgu from participating in this page. He has outright stated he will not fairly analyze any articles pertaining to Donald Trump. He has repeatedly ignored sources like the AP and WSJ despite the fact they're both accepted by Wikipedia as reliable sources. https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-really-was-spied-on-2016-clinton-campaign-john-durham-court-filing-11644878973 Wikipedia audiences demand factual articles, not the opinion of someone who is on a crusade against people he calls 'Nazis' because they don't agree with his worldview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.154.125.230 (talk) 02:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We moved on to ad hominem attacks quickly here. I never said any such thing or ignored any RS. I await sources that prove these allegations, which have actually been disproven. The WSJ op ed you linked is about a court filing by John Durham. Durham's investigations yielded charges against one person, who was acquitted. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of moves, motion denied, IP. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taibbi is far from a reliable source. He keeps pushing his conspiracy theories and pro-Russian narratives. He should move to Russia....but maybe not. Putin persecutes homosexuals. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the tells that gives him away is that he always refers to the proven Russian interference in American elections as "Russiagate". Then he pushes the Trump/Putin narrative that Russia and Trump are totally innocent and that there was no interference. They also claim the Steele dossier is fake and all disproven, when that is not true. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2024

[edit]

https://nypost.com/2024/02/13/news/cia-and-foreign-intelligence-agencies-illegally-targeted-26-trump-associates-before-2016-russia-collusion-claims-report/ These are NOT allegations anymore but truths about collusion and spying by BHO. Edit it correctly 2001:5B0:9930:C80:844:670C:5515:7825 (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NYPOST is not a reliable source. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your most recent addition was an empty ref, but based on the edit summary it seems to have been another attempt to add this; while it was on MSN's site, it was republishing the Post (not covering it), so it still isn't a reliable source. MSN, as a site, just hosts stuff from other news sources and isn't itself the source. --Aquillion (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Allegations_of_Barack_Obama_spying_on_Donald_Trump&oldid=1256177448"