Rebranding

Current text:

The current text seems fine, but is lacking a wikilink that would be helpful to readers. While we must avoid OR and SYNTH, this seems to be a clear example of rebranding, and I'd like to find a way to use it. Here's a suggested way to do that:

How's that? It's not OR, and it doesn't violate SYNTH because it doesn't conclude anything not found in the source. In fact, it makes it more clear to readers. Note that we have included Trump's exact quote in the reference. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources
  1. ^ Jalonick, Mary Clare; Lemire, Jonathan (May 24, 2018). "Seething over Russia probe, Trump tears into 'spygate'". Associated Press. Retrieved April 18, 2019. Trump told one ally this week that he wanted "to brand" the informant a "spy," believing the more nefarious term would resonate more in the media and with the public.
  2. ^ Jalonick, Mary Clare; Lemire, Jonathan (May 24, 2018). "Seething over Russia probe, Trump tears into 'spygate'". Associated Press. Retrieved April 18, 2019. Trump told one ally this week that he wanted "to brand" the informant a "spy," believing the more nefarious term would resonate more in the media and with the public.
"Rebranding" involves a revision to an established brand. What was the established brand in this case? I think this was branding, not rebranding. You could include a hyperlink to the wiki article on branding, abut I guess that seems kind of weird to me. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"[T]he established brand in this case" was "informant". While rebranding is normally used for products, it also happens in this way, and his use of the term "brand" is obviously not the normal usage for "brand", but with the intent to "rebrand". He replaces the existing "informant" brand with the more nefarious "spy" brand, and that replacement is exactly what rebranding does. This is something Trump is truly an expert at doing, and he does it all the time. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, who "branded" informants as informants? The FBI? "Brand" connotes that a sales or marketing effort is underway, and perhaps we can understand 'sales' and 'market' here sort of broadly. Certainly you're right that Trump was up to such a thing with 'Spygate', and that's what the RS says. But I don't think that you can say (without RS support, anyway) that the FBI "brands" their informants as "informants". That doesn't make sense. They're not selling or marketing anything to anyone, that's just what they call them. So I retain my view that Trump's introduction of 'spygate' was, as AP says, an attempt to brand the situation in a certain way. But I don't see a pre-existing brand, so I oppose using 'rebrand'. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, agreed with Shinealittlelight, it's not apparent that "informant" is a brand for "informant". starship.paint (talk) 00:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Yes, I appreciate the sarcasm (so I'll discount that "agreed"): "It's not apparent that 'thing' is a brand for 'thing' (sarcasm), but, oddly enough, if a thing is called something, then that is what it's called, ergo its brand, so to speak.
We are, after all, talking about figurative "rebranding", not a product for sale for money. An actor and their reputation are "products" which they are figuratively "selling", and it's common to rebrand them with a pseudonym. This is often done by creating a stage name early in their careers, before they become well-known.
Products are usually rebranded to increase their market value, often because the old brand has been damaged. In this case, Trump did the opposite in a successful attempt to devalue the legitimate occupation of "informant" to the nefarious sounding "spy". This isn't rocket science, is not against our policies, and adds value for the reader.
In this case, wikilinking brand would be easy, but misleading, as what is being described is clearly a rebranding.
What I'm suggesting is no different than when we paraphrase and use a synonym. Rebranding is an exact synonym for what Trump did. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your view appears to be that nothing that has a name can be branded, but only rebranded. This is not a credible view. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, but in this case it's more accurate to say "rebranding" than "branding". Even you recognize above that this is exactly what Trump did. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're mischaracterizing me. I said that he definitely branded, not that he rebranded. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BullRangifer: - I wasn't being sarcastic. I'm really not sure if we can automatically assume something is a brand of itself. The source says "brand" not "rebrand". If we have a "rebrand" source that would be good for your argument. starship.paint (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okaaaay...! I am truly dumbfounded. I really thought you were being sarcastic, as the issue is very simple and straightforward. I think you're focusing on the word too much. Step back, read what was happening, and see why Trump used the word "brand". See "what" he was doing. Then "rebranding" becomes the most logical synonym to describe the entire situation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rebranding talks about a marketing strategy. So first there's an old brand, then there's a new brand. Yes, Trump came up with a new brand. But what is the old brand? It's not clear. Is "informant", the purported old brand, really a brand? starship.paint (talk) 04:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It’s metaphorical. Trump is a marketing person and appears to see everything in marketing terms. (Well, most politicians think that way, but he more so.) So, in his eyes, “investigator” is a brand used by the FBI, a way of marketing their actions, and spy is a rebrand that better fits his narrative. O3000 (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. "Informant" is the proper term used by RS, and Trump wanted to rebrand it to "spy". Just because our rebranding article doesn't mention the metaphorical use of the term doesn't mean it isn't used that way in real life. This use is just as metaphorical as Trump's use of "brand". He wasn't proposing to actually burn the informant with a branding iron. He was speaking metaphorically, and so we must do the same. He gave the cue as to which word fits best. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between branding and re-branding, and this was branding, not re-branding. When someone came up with the brand "Coke" they weren't re-branding the cola that they had produced. When someone came up with the brand "pet rock" they were not re-branding rocks. "Cola" and "rocks" are not brands, they're just the terms we use to refer to "Cola" and "rocks" respectively. "Coke" and "pet rock" are brands, because they were terms that someone came up with to market something. Not every term is a brand. I agree with you that this is not rocket science. I too think that it is obvious. What I can't figure out is why you guys want to characterize this as rebranding so badly. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, do you guys have any RS that says 'rebrand'? Several sources explicitly use 'brand'. Follow the RS, right? Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He rebranded a person known as an "informant" by calling him a "spy". He did it for its marketing effect. He essentially took "Coke" and rebranded it "Hog Swill". You really need to get away from the literal meanings and realize that this is metaphorical. The situation in which he said "brand" was a rebranding situation, when you step back and look at what was actually happening. I'm guessing that it's too much to expect that you will do that, and that's why we keep going in circles. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm following RS and common sense here. "Informant" is not a brand. RS uses the word 'brand' and not the word 'rebrand'. That settles it for me. Sorry if that's frustrating, but these points seem painfully obvious to me. Shinealittlelight (talk) 04:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree (minus the common sense comment). We follow RS. Not apparent that "informant" is a brand. Waiting for RS to that state "informant" is a brand. Waiting for RS that state "rebrand". starship.paint (talk) 05:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're both stuck in the literal use, when we're talking about a figurative/metaphorical use. Then there is no solution to this. I am prevented from using the Wikipedia term for doing that, but doing it is forbidden. BTW, anybody else is allowed to call a spade a spade for doing that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, did RS use the term 'rebrand' metaphorically somewhere? When you find RS to support that view, let us know. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian uses the term rebrand in its synopsis here, Slate uses it here, a CNN legal analyst uses it here. O3000 (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The CNN and Slate articles are opinion pieces, and so not typically reliable for unattributed statements of fact. The Guardian piece is a news piece, but it does not use the term in the body of the article; I've been a little unclear on the RS status of such things. So this is something, but it isn't great, and it doesn't seem to me that it outweighs the clear uses of 'brand' in several other news sources. Starship.paint, what do you think? Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Shinealittlelight: Opinion pieces can be cited with attribution. I added them in (the Reactions section). starship.paint (talk) 04:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with this change; the point is now being given way more weight than is due. I find this whole dispute really weird. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The FBI investigated evidence of Russian interference in a presidential campaign. The POTUS has framed this as the FBI attempting a “coup” (first in the history of the US) and accused people at the top of the FBI of death-penalty offenses. I’d say that’s DUE. O3000 (talk) 12:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? That's not what Starship.paint just put in the article. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We could reduce the weight by shortening it to CNN's Josh Campbell and Slate's Dahlia Lithwick felt that Trump was carrying out the act of rebranding by using the labels of "spy" and "spying".. Or, we could find more sources to justify more weight. Objective3000 - isn't WP:DUE based on reliable sources...? starship.paint (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be shorter; it shouldn't be in the article at all. Since "brand" was already in the article, sourced to the AP, it makes sense to add this material only if there's something due about the distinction between brand and rebrand. I don't see that there's any interest, either in these pieces or in any other, about the difference between branding and rebranding. These pieces do use the word 'rebrand'. But this doesn't mean that their point is that it was rebranding as opposed to branding. The inserted text strikes me as confusing and weird, as it will be hard for the reader to tell what is being added to what was already reported by the AP before in the text. I think that the reader will not understand the point being made. But I'm sick of arguing about it, and I just can't tell why it even matters, aside from the fact that including it makes wikipedia look dumb. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have a lot of different wording from various sources. Branding refers to investigator/counter-intelligence becomes spy/spying, and special counsel investigation becomes spygate/deep state/witch hunt, and Mueller team/FBI become all manner of nasty language. I like the word rebrand because it indicates a change in how something is presented. Trump is attempting, successfully to many, to change the narrative of an investigation into Russian interference (which we know happened) into an attempted coup d'état (for which there is no evidence). Using names to change meanings is nothing new. No one remembers the acronym behind PATRIOT Act, just that it sounds like if you’re agin it, you’re not a patriot. (For a recent example of Trump rebranding in this manner, Forbes just reported: “Trump Administration Rebrands Fossil Fuels As ‘Molecules Of U.S. Freedom’.”) The prefix “re” indicates change. He is renaming, not naming. It’s a bit awkward, but I suppose we could say “branded or rebranded” as the pair of words includes a large number of RS, possibly enough to remove attribution. The point behind all of this is Trump is a branding expert (claiming the Trump brand is worth billions), and that he is using this expertise to change the view that an investigation is instead a scandal. O3000 (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Objective3000: - you're going off-topic. I don't know why you're bringing other examples in. It's not pertinent to this particular edit. WP:DUE is based on reliable sources, not on other examples of rebranding. starship.paint (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That’s why it was a parenthetical. I’m trying to express the rationale for including the terminology used by additional sources, which frankly fits the situation better, and I'm trying to find wording that includes the largest number of sources. We could use the quotes about brand, and use the verb renaming, which is obviously correct by all the RS mentioned. O3000 (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The more sources you find and present, the better. starship.paint (talk) 00:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deny recognition

Starship.paint, Shinealittlelight, Objective3000, and others editing here: Please refrain from responding to obvious sockpuppets and banned editors. Serial disruptors should be immediately reverted, reported, and ignored. R2 (bleep) 19:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a recent increase in such. O3000 (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm not experienced at recognizing such behavior, but I'll try to follow the lead of those who are. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I feel sometimes it's good to keep them seen. starship.paint (talk) 04:29, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. One of your links (WP:DENY) is directed at "true vandals and trolls." Has this talk page encountered those in any significant way? I've seen some strong views (on both sides) and I've seen poorly substantiated claims and conspiracy theories (again, on both sides), however all of those can be A'd-GF-of, albeit redirected to proper encyclopedic norms. Being a sockpuppet or banned editor does not imply being a true vandal or troll. Just making a little clarification, thanks. And I am neither a sockpuppet nor a troll nor a banned editor, just for the record. :D Wookian (talk) 23:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, actually, looking back over the history, I see that R2 has applied strikethrough over the contributions of a user named Throwaway060519. Is that appropriate? Is the user "Throwaway060519" definitely known to be a banned editor or to be a sockpuppet? If not, then R2, may I suggest you revert your use of strikethrough? If I missed something here, no offense intended and do let me know.
The explanation given in R2's edit summary (as well as here in this section) is "WP:DENY". However that article pertains to "true vandals and trolls" whereas the comments stricken by R2 have no appearance of vandalism or trolling in my cursory reading. So R2, it seems you've made at least one mistake here, and possibly the entire strikethrough was a mistake. A few words of explanation, please? Wookian (talk) 23:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wookian: - it's really, really obvious that that editor is a banned editor or a sockpuppet. "Throwaway" is obviously a reference to a disposable account (because it would be banned sooner or later for sockpuppetry). The numbers refer to the date the account was created, another hint about it being a disposable account. The account's very first edit [1] quotes WP:AGF and WP:OWN, not possible for a new account, only possible for an editor with some experience (very likely, a banned editor). The first edit also mentions it might do some good for a few people to take a little vacation and come back refreshed. We are all on the same team, building an informative encyclopedia... This is really overwhelming evidence when the sockmaster is even flaunting it. WP:DUCK. starship.paint (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That quote is close to several previous edits by HT, with many socks blocked. Difficult to take to SPI as he has admitted to using multiple IPs. O3000 (talk) 00:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(I don't know what "HT" means in your post above. Can you educate me?) Maybe I am playing the devil's advocate here, maybe not, but I don't see a solid sockpuppet accusation here unless you can identify which editor on this Talk Page is the alter ego of "Throwaway." By itself, using the name "Throwaway" suggests that they are advertising that they don't want people to know who they are. If they have a "regular" account and it intersects with Talk:Spygate, then I agree that is sockpuppeting. If they have a "regular" account that does not intersect with Talk:Spygate, then maybe they have a different problem (Does that violate WP policies? Is this unscalable from a computer science perspective such that Jimmy Wales will have to ask for more money?), but it doesn't sound right in that instance to call it sockpuppeting. And it certainly isn't vandalism or trolling, contra R2's mixed up messages. Wookian (talk) 00:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wookian: - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Hidden Tempo/Archive. By the way, throwaway is a common term on Reddit which indicates creating a disposable new account, often to keep that account's posts on certain forums from being linked to the main account. starship.paint (talk) 00:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Anyway, I don't disagree that an account named "Throwaway" bears a resemblance to a sockpuppet and may in fact be one. What I'm suggesting is that either one go through the proper channels to deal with a sockpuppet or banned editor, or else find a more appropriate rule to justify ad hoc striking of suspected-but-not-proven socks. The rule cited of WP:DENY is clearly not applicable here since it deals with overt vandalism and trolling. Since nobody has given any justification of R2's use of WP:DENY, I am still by default most comfortable with R2 reverting his use of strikethrough unless he can justify it in a correct way. Wookian (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully decline to self-revert. WP:DENY is a general principle that is widely cited by experienced users for certain types of persistent disruption, including what happened here. Technically, my deletions and strikethroughs were permitted by WP:BE and WP:TPO. When socking is sufficiently obvious, waiting for a formal SPI to be completed is unnecessary and counterproductive. If you wish to discuss this further I suggest we do so on my user talk. R2 (bleep) 17:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully but firmly object to your editing another person's posts to add strikethrough. You wrote above When socking is sufficiently obvious, waiting for a formal SPI to be completed is unnecessary and counterproductive, however O3000 says Difficult to take to SPI as he has admitted to using multiple IPs. Which is it? Difficult to prove at SPI, or so obvious that it's easy to prove at SPI and not worth waiting for? The kicker for me, and my bottom line is that you are using strikethrough to repress a view that is[edit: "may be perceived as"] in contradiction to your own, while giving an erroneous reason for doing so (WP:DENY) [edit to add: not claiming intent here]. Because I AGF of you, I am sure you would want to err on the side of caution and open discussion on this Talk page. So kindly do revert your mistaken edit. Wookian (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asked and answered. If you're concerned about my conduct here, then take it to my user talk. R2 (bleep) 19:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Beauchamp's remarks about Fox News

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

Journalist Shepard Smith has said that "Fox News knows of no evidence to support the president's claim. Lawmakers from both parties say using an informant to investigate is not spying. It's part of the normal investigative process."[1] Former judge and Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano concurred:[2][3]

The allegations from Mayor Giuliani over the weekend, which would lead us to believe that the Trump people think the FBI had an undercover agent who finagled his way into Trump's campaign and was there as a spy on the campaign seem to be baseless — there is no evidence for that whatsoever. But 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...I understand the president's frustration that he was not informed of the fact that his campaign was being investigated, not because they think the campaign did anything wrong, but some people may have unwittingly...welcomed the Russian involvement in the campaign, and Donald Trump didn't know about it.... [It] is such a stunningly unremarkable event, because law enforcement does this all the time.

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

Zack Beauchamp of Vox, which noted that "the FBI's investigation into Trump didn't open until July 2016", wrote about the situation which was "entirely unfounded in the actual evidence" occurred because "Fox picks up on some random internet rumor, the president picks it up from Fox, and then Fox and other right-wing outlets leap to defend what the president tweeted, which only reinforces Trump's sense that he's right." After reporting on both Trump's May 2018 and June 2018, Beauchamp wrote that the “best way to analyze 'Spygate' is ... a conspiracy theory ... a ginned-up controversy Trump has capitalized on to justify his argument that the FBI is hopelessly biased against him”.[4]

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

Sources
I don't know about Shepherd Smith at Fox News, however I would suggest that these former views of Andrew Napolitano presented in the article are stale to the point of not usable. In his more recent discussions of Spygate related materials, Napolitano no longer extends the Obama DOJ/FBI/CIA the benefit of the doubt[2]. Nowadays Napolitano makes it clear that he is not satisfied with a report from Durham's review - he wants a full criminal investigation and wants to see indictments. You would currently get the opposite impression from reading the article. Anybody object to me fixing that? Wookian (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection; I agree that the current article is misleading as to Napolitano's current views of these matters given the source you provided. However, the tension with the Vox piece is still going to be present, so I'd like to fix that too. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think removing the Beauchamp piece is fine. In addition to the mixed messages as you noted, the piece reflects an out of date narrative -- e.g. the President's views on Spygate may (or may not) have been informed by Fox News in the past, but currently he's looking to his own Attorney General to investigate "spying" on his campaign without legal basis or predicate. Wookian (talk) 13:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a seriously poor article. O3000 (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, which article, and maybe also why? Wookian (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's beside the point, Wookian. All you need is a transcript of his remarks, and that's obviously in the article that you linked. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I just wasn't 100% sure what O3000 was referring to. I'd characterize my link as more of an interview than an article, however it is an appropriate source to establish Napolitano's more recent attitude (aka opinion) toward Strzok, Comey, Brennan and the propriety of their actions in the Russian collusion investigation. Wookian (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wookian’s cite says that basically, off-the-cuff, he said: I haven’t seen something, but if it said something, people ought to look at it. That’s not something we can include in an encyclopedia as meaning anything. O3000 (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, the article currently quotes Napolitano in that really old article saying in so many words, "Trump is mistaken to think FBI counterintel maneuvers are unusual, this is nothing out of the ordinary and assumed to be fine." Whereas in the recent interview he is saying in effect, "I want to see not just a review, but a criminal investigation and indictments related to Strzok and the other Russia investigation players at DOJ/FBI/CIA." Do you see the difference in attitude there, O3000? Aren't you worried that readers will get a false impression from the old, outdated material? Wookian (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Afraid you'll have to point out where he said this. Having intermittent Internet probs at the moment. O3000 (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yuck, good luck with the internet connection. Found a text transcript that may help[3]. Napolitano says a lot throughout it, and the money quote at the end summarizes: Yeah, but why waste time with the review? Just do the right thing. Wookian (talk) 16:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Careful, Icarus. Shtove 22:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Horribly biased article filled with speculation. O3000 (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "interview" rather than "article." And even if your characterization is true, this source is still reliable to establish Napolitano's opinion, which is all I'm suggesting we establish from it. Wookian (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The transcript of Napolitano that you provided is obviously not biased or speculative with respect to what Napolitano thinks, which is the point here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We still must get such opinions from RS. If they are not found in RS they have no weight here. Only in the person's biography here can we use unreliable sources to document a person's opinion. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In what sense is this not an RS to establish Napolitano's opinion? It is RS for this purpose. Wookian (talk) 15:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Our content must be based on RS. There is only one exception, and that is in the biography of the involved person.
Yes, that unreliable source does establish his opinion, but it's not a RS we would ever use. We can only use unreliable sources in the biography of the person. Then, and only then, can we use unreliable sources. We can even get permission to use blacklisted sources for one-time use for such purposes. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous. If Foxnews and Realclear are not RS for Napolitano's views, then we have to remove any reference to his views from the article, since Foxnews and Realclear are the current sources for his previous views that are included in the article. It is manifestly POV to say that FN/RC are RS for his previous Trump-critical views, but not for his current Trump-sympathetic views. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While I share Shine's view immediately above, I will express the question a different way - what is the difference between the (older) Fox News Napolitano discussion with Martha MacCallum as currently linked in the article, versus the newer Maria Bartiromo one? Is MacCallum's show on Fox deemed RS whereas Bartiromo's isn't? Not following your logic here. Wookian (talk) 16:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did not address the use of Fox News at all, although I believe it should be deprecated for U.S. politics. Until the community accepts that position, we are allowed to use it in some situations. The same cannot be said for Real Clear Politics. I have removed the only instance where we used it here. The same content is backed up by a Fox News ref, and that will suffice. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great, then Wookian may proceed with the FN source for Napolitano's more recent views. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea about that and have not commented on it. I usually try to use better sources than Fox News, but that's just me.
BTW, historical revisionism is not allowed here. We keep Napolitano's old views and then include his newer ones. He continues to express views that are quite contrary to Trump's views, but that's a different topic than the topic of this thread. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, keep both Wookian. The new source isn't non-RS just because it's more sympathetic to Trump. It's obviously RS if the old source is.Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you BR and Shine, I agree about not trying to hide the past, and my plan is to delete the extended quote, and collapse a summary of N's attitude toward the controversy down to possibly even one sentence or two. Right now real life calls, will think on this later and try to come up with something. Wookian (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Shinealittlelight: - different topics. Shepard Smith and Andrew Napo of Fox News were reporting on the May 2018 allegations. Zack Beauchamp of Vox was reporting on the June 2018 allegations, and Beauchamp stated at the start of his article that Ingraham and DeSantis defended Trump. I've made that apparent in the article. starship.paint (talk) 09:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint: I don't think so. He's claiming that the Dobbs-Trump-Ingraham connection is an instance of a general pattern that is very concerning to him; not just a one-time occurrence involving these individuals. What if we just shortened it to this:

Zack Beauchamp of Vox wrote that the “best way to analyze 'Spygate' is ... a conspiracy theory ... a ginned-up controversy Trump has capitalized on to justify his argument that the FBI is hopelessly biased against him”.

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

Sourcing for the first sentence

The first sentence of the article reads as follows:

Spygate is a conspiracy theory initiated by President Donald Trump in May 2018 that the Obama administration had implanted a spy in his 2016 presidential campaign for political purposes.[1][2][3][4]

The first source for this sentence is a NYT "news analysis" piece. This piece is currently used in the body of the article exactly one time as a source for the quote from Jon Meacham in the "Reactions and criticisms" section of the article. As I see it, there are two problems with this source.

Citing the second of these points, I removed it. In response to this, BullRangifer reverted, and stated that the source merely documents Trump's statement, and is thus not being used as a source for anything contentious. But this is not the case. Trump did not state that Spygate is a conspiracy theory, and he never directly defined 'Spygate'. So BullRangifer's good-faith claim that this "news analysis" piece merely documents his statements is in fact false. Rather, the piece is used as a source for two contentious claims: the "conspiracy theory" claim and a particular definition of "spygate"--a definition, in fact, that differs from the other sources cited for this very sentence! Both the definition of 'Spygate' and the "CT" claim may be true, but they are plainly contentious claims and therefore, per RSN consensus, not appropriately sourced to a "news analysis" piece. Note that I'm not proposing a change to the language in the first sentence; I'm only suggesting that it needs to be sourced appropriately. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh! Sorry, I misunderstood you the first time, and now I see your point. The simplest solution is to not use any refs there at all since they are all in the body. Would that work? Otherwise, we would put each ref exactly after the relevant word or phrase, and not group them all at the end, which is often not proper. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They are not all in the body. In fact, of the four pieces cited for the first sentence, only the NYT piece is cited in the body, and the other three are not in the body at all. I would favor using sources in the body for this sentence, and I would favor using sources that are used in the body for the same claims that are made in the sentence. I would not favor using the NYT piece, which is not appropriate as a source for this claim per my argument above. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Using the same sources in both places is usually a good thing.
You seem to be dissing "news analysis" pieces and that's unfortunate. They rate right below boring straight news sources, and far above opinion sources. Check this chart.
If they are controversial, news analysis and opinion pieces should be attributed, and news analysis pieces should still be used as much as possible. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not dissing anything. I'm reporting the RSN consensus: "news analysis" pieces are not to be used, unattributed, as sources for contentious claims. This does not diss them. It just means that way the NYT piece is being used in the first sentence does not accord with the current consensus on how those sources are to be used. A different source therefore has to be used. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did we discuss this before? Where's the LA Times, Haaretz and I forgot what's the third source with that already.... starship.paint (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We talked about sources for "conspiracy theory". The third source was an article in The Independent. I believe you added them to the body at one point, and then R2 removed them, and then there was a sprawling discussion here, and they were never incorporated again. Meanwhile, the sourcing for the first sentence is inaccurate, not in the body, and out of step with RSN. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let's hope I remember this when I get back. Stupid article... (says the major author of it) starship.paint (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If we're keeping the first sentence as-is, then I think the LAT article should be the source. That's the only legit source I know of that supports the whole first sentence, with one minor change: instead of "political purposes" it should say "improper spying" or something like that. (I of course regard this as cherry-picking; oh well.) The Newsweek source seems to define 'Spygate' differently than our first sentence. The other two sources are "news analysis" and inappropriate as I've explained. The Independent and Haaretz pieces can support "conspiracy theory" but not the rest of the sentence. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"For political purposes" is Trump's exact wording and should be kept. The first sentence is okay. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Stephen Cohen is not a RS

CONTEXT: I just deleted an addition.

Cohen is a very unreliable source and pushes conspiracy theories which are contrary to fact. We do not give any weight to such sources. We only distribute weight among RS. Unreliable ones don't get any mention at all.

He barely admits that Russia interfered in the election, calling it "fictitious": "Did Russia “meddle” in the US election? Yes, but not significantly..."[4] He downplays the attack: "But it isn’t true. No Russian missiles, planes, bombs, paratroopers, submarines, or warships descended on the United States in 2016." He mentions all the weapons of conventional warfare, and ignores that modern MILITARY (the GRU is Russian military) attacks depend largely on cyber warfare. This was a very literal military attack on America, and Trump, by denying it and supporting Putin, is doing what is considered by definition textbook treason.[5][6]

He goes on to deny that the Russians hacked the DNC, but says it was an inside job:

"No forensic evidence has ever been produced to support the allegation that Putin’s Kremlin hacked the DNC in 2016 and gave the incriminating e-mails to Wikileaks....the e-mails stolen from the DNC were not a hack but an inside job, a leak."

His claims are counterfactual fringe nonsense. He is totally unreliable. He's pushing Roger Stone's debunked conspiracy theories. The fact is that the "U.S. caught Russian election hackers on its own....seven months before the DNC hired CrowdStrike."[7]

"Government investigators independently verified that Russian operatives hacked the Democratic National Committee in 2016 and did not rely on a private cyber firm’s findings..." "While the prosecutors did not go into detail, they noted that the investigators gathered evidence of the Russians’ involvement independently, which led to the indictment last year of 12 Russian military officials in connection with the DNC hack. The FBI knew as early as September 2015 — seven months before the DNC hired CrowdStrike — that a cyber group linked to Russia had breached the DNC, according to a New York Times report, and reportedly tried to warn the committee of the hack.
"Mueller’s indictment of the Russian digital spies, which charged the defendants with hacking into the computers and email systems of the DNC, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, included forensic evidence and recorded specific actions — down to searches run and files deleted — as well as the hackers’ internal communications with U.S. persons."

BTW, do we even have this information in any of our articles?

Cohen and Stone are conspiracy nuts. We are forbidden to use such sources. We must stick to RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Starship.paint, Soibangla, Ahrtoodeetoo , MrX, do we even have the above information in any of our articles? -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen that information in any other articles. - MrX 🖋 16:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose the inclusion of this source, but not for the reasons expressed by BullRangifer. There's a whole contingent of people who have expressed fringe views that Spygate has some merit; these views merit description in our article. However, the way Shinealittlelight used this source misrepresents Cohen's views, draws from a section of the source that isn't even about Spygate, and gives inappropriate credence to a fringe theory. The most salient point here is that Cohen's article isn't really about Spygate and only mentions Spygate itself in passing. Spygate is about allegations of the FBI spying on the Trump campaign and is not about broader questions of the origin of the Russia investigation, or all of the other nefarious things some people believe the Obama administration might have done. The only part of Cohen's piece that's really about Spygate is the bit where he says that the interactions with Papadopoulos were "akin to entrapment." That is really not central to the piece. It also reflects a common misunderstanding of what entrapment actually is--one that we must not perpetuate. In sum, I don't see any way to use this source in this article. It would fit better in Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation). R2 (bleep) 17:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BullRangifer appears not to understand how Wikipedia is supposed to work. We don't care what you think, BullRangifer, or what views you think are "nuts". (We shouldn't anyway!) We should only care what experts in RS say. And Cohen is an expert on Russia, who was at NYU/Princeton because of his expertise, and he was writing in an RSN-certified publication The Nation. I'd have thought you'd understand that given these facts, your personal opinion is totally irrelevant.
R2, we also don't (I mean shouldn't!) care if you think that Cohen's views are fringe, since he's the expert and you are not the expert. See how that works? Your political opinions don't matter here, except insofar as you can make a general case that NYU/Princeton professors are unreliable, that Cohen is not an expert on Russia, or that RSN is wrong about The Nation being RS. But of course you can't make that case.
We should care about the content of the piece, and whether and how it fits into our article. And of course it does. We have here a Russia expert from Princton/NYU writing in RS that Trump is correct to think that US Intel was trying to destroy his campaign and presidency, which is exactly what Spygate alleges. I don't see how you can even pretend that this is irrelevant to the article. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BullRangifer - that Politico piece is from three days ago. We can't use that to justify excluding a prior piece by Cohen. But, I am very troubled by the Cohen April 2019 piece. It assumes a lot, before the release of the redacted Mueller Report. Then we have a line that who is really shocked that a political campaign might seek “dirt” on its opponent? - which essentially came out of Trump's mouth this month. Note that Federal Election Commission chairwoman Ellen Weintraub reacted: "It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election". Cohen seems to have put many bullets into his credibility here. starship.paint (talk) 01:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Shinealittlelight: - if Cohen is not credible, he can be considered not RS. Likewise, if his views are WP:FRINGE, then they can be excluded on that point. starship.paint (talk) 01:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most the editors here--and certainly every party to this discussion so far other than me--are obviously on the left. If we approach issues like this, assessing plausibility according to the collective wisdom of a group of almost all left-wing volunteer editors, then any view that isn't left will obviously be excluded as non-credible and fringe. That's what we're seeing here. I don't see why you aren't concerned about this if you care about NPOV. Again, Cohen is an expert on Russia, recognized by NYU, Princeton, and The Nation as qualified to weigh in on these issue, and he is stating that Trump is substantially right. You guys want to exclude him because you find his views implausible. And of course you do. You're on the left, and you're invested in making out Trump as a dolt who does not have any Princeton professors agreeing with him. But I didn't think that's how we were supposed to do things here. I guess that we only apply these rules when we are criticizing right-wing POV pushers. What an embarrassment. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Categories