User talk:PackMecEng: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:39, 18 May 2022

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 }}
 {{archive box|auto=yes}}
-== Spygate ==
-You [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Spygate_(conspiracy_theory)&diff=prev&oldid=1082015525 deleted] my exact copying of some text which has been long-standing content in the article (you may not have realized that) to another part of the article where it could serve as a "lead" for the section. Your edit summary: "contains original research sourced to a tweet. Also the article is under DS BRD "If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit. "Which you are violating reinstating your edit."
-First, I want to thank you for catching and reverting my 1rr error there. I was careless and was (impulsively and mistakenly) treating the situation as I would a case of vandalism (where 3rr does not apply) where the editor didn't seem to perform due diligence when they removed my addition. In this case, Tachypaedia seemed to prefer a barefaced and false conspiracy theory from the primary source (a tweet from Trump) from the most notorious liar in recent American political history, instead of an opinion/analysis from a secondary RS, which is what we prefer to use. We should always frame our presentaton of errors/lies/conspiracy theories found in primary sources in the light of how RS analyze and interpret them. Tachypaedia's deletion was so out of whack with our policies that I just reacted from the gut without remembering the 1rr restriction, so thanks.
-Second, I have [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Spygate_(conspiracy_theory)&diff=1082552786&oldid=1082541252 addressed your OR concerns] by eliminating the "first accusation" language (even though factual) and simply stating what myriad RS have said about the May 17 tweet, IOW how it immediately followed McCarthy's appearance on Fox & Friends, and how Trump quoted him in that tweet.<ref name="Trump_5/17/2018">{{cite web | title=Donald J. Trump on Twitter | via=[[Twitter]] | date=May 17, 2018 | url=https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/997095653875617792 | access-date=May 1, 2019 | quote=Wow, word seems to be coming out that the Obama FBI "SPIED ON THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WITH AN EMBEDDED INFORMANT." Andrew McCarthy says, "There’s probably no doubt that they had at least one confidential informant in the campaign." If so, this is bigger than Watergate!}} [https://web.archive.org/web/20180517124635/https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/997095653875617792 Archived]</ref> I have used only one of those RS, the WaPo source.
-Mind you, I am not saying that McCarthy was the originator of the whole "spy within the campaign" idea. It started with an innocent WaPo article on May 8, 2018, about a "top-secret intelligence source" (nothing about within the campaign or political spying). That story then got twisted by the right-wing-media ecosystem and some of its prime conspiracy theorists into a full-blown conspiracy theory about a "spy inside the Trump campaign". The guilty parties were: [[Kimberley Strassel]] at [[The Wall Street Journal]], [[Sara Carter]], [[Sean Hannity]], [[Fox News]], [[The Gateway Pundit]], [[Pete Hegseth]] and [[Ainsley Earhardt]] at [[Fox & Friends]], [[Rush Limbaugh]], [[Andrew McCarthy]] at [[National Review]], [[Zero Hedge]], [[Tucker Carlson]], and [[Dan Bongino]]. There may be others, but these are confirmed by RS as involved in the development of the conspiracy theory. We should tell that story. They are ALL red flags.
-Then McCarthy appeared on Fox & Friends, and Trump really loves that show! (While in the WH, he watched TV [https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/364094-trump-watches-at-least-four-hours-of-tv-per-day-report/ up to eight hours every day] and got his "information" from right-wing sources there.) Trump immediately tweeted what he saw, quoting from the show. He often did that. It all ended up being about Halper, who was trying to get information from three campaign staffers as part of the FBI's investigation into Russian election interference and attempts to infiltrate and influence the Trump campaign. There was never any political spying or attempt to get "into" or "infiltrate the campaign. It was always about national security.
-I hope my [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Spygate_(conspiracy_theory)&diff=1082552786&oldid=1082541252 edit addressed your OR concerns] and resolved the problem. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 21:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
-{{reflist-talk}}