I think we need to activate this article, detail how this term was coined, link to the conspiracy article that (for now) clears Trump, link to the actual proven meddling, hacking etc, link to the actual possible collusion or detail the meetings etc by his team and family and show how this article has propagated especially in the Russian media to try to discredit the election process and the USA itself, thought? 2404:4408:205A:4B00:8BD:C177:AACA:961A (talk) 07:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The main article on this is Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. The redirect target had been changed, I've reverted it now. – Þjarkur (talk) 13:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, there is not really enough here for a solo article, even the name is not that widely used.Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, legal scholars use the term [1]. It should probably be renamed to Russiagate conspiracy theory similar to Pizzagate conspiracy theory because it is ambiguous as Mabetex Case is commonly referred to as "Russiagate" e.g. [2]. wumbolo ^^^ 12:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, as Russiagate is pretty widely used, especially on more right-wing sites (see [3], https://www.b reitbart.com/politics/2018/08/27/democrats-poised-to-double-down-on-russiagate-if-they-take-the-house/, [4]). It seems to be much more commonly used to describe the "dubious origins of the Mueller investigations" as opposed to "Russian interference in the 2016 elections" itself. I like naming it Russiagate conspiracy theory, although I'm not sure whether it's premature to call it a "conspiracy theory" given that there are official investigations on it. It could start with the content from List_of_conspiracy_theories#Trump_and_Ukraine. Also, once this article is created, Russia-gate should also redirect here. Llightex (talk) 05:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Politrukki, let's discuss this so I understand you correctly. I'd like to know why you reverted my edit. In the process, maybe I'll learn something from you. Pinging those who have commented above: Þjarkur, Slatersteven, Wumbolo, Llightex. (I obviously can't ping the IP.)

My immediate concern is that the choice of the current target of this redirect means that Wikipedia appears to be pushing a conspiracy theory. That makes this a serious matter.

My (now deleted) sentence summary for why I made the edit

• "Russiagate" is a right-wing conspiracy theory largely described in the Russia investigation origins counter-narrative (conspiracy theory) article."

Your revert and edit summary

• "That is the opposite of reality. I would suggest reading Boyd-Barrett, O. (2019). Fake news and 'RussiaGate' discourses: Propaganda in the post-truth era. Journalism, 20(1), 87–91. Or Majin, Graham (2021). "A catastrophic media failure? Russiagate, Trump and the illusion of truth: The dangers of innuendo and narrative repetition". Journalism. 22 (10): 2548–2565.)"

Those sources

• Summary of speeches: Boyd-Barrett, O. (2019). Fake news and 'RussiaGate' discourses: Propaganda in the post-truth era. Journalism, 20(1), 87–91.^[1]
  • A quick glance through that speech shows a clearly anti-American, pro-Russian slant, especially by referring to proven events (like Russian interference and hacking) as "alleged" and "supposed". He also attacks mainstream media as fake news and makes Putin look like an undeserved and innocuous victim of Western paranoia. All that makes him a supremely unreliable source.
• Article: Majin, Graham (2021). "A catastrophic media failure? Russiagate, Trump and the illusion of truth: The dangers of innuendo and narrative repetition". Journalism. 22 (10): 2548–2565.^[2]
  • Only the abstract is available to me.

A few questions to be answered:

1. You write "That is the opposite of reality." Then what is the reality? (OR is fully allowed here.)
2. What are the points in those sources that you believe are significant to this issue?
3. How do the authors' views align with what RS and our articles that are based on those RS?
4. Would they agree with them, or would they accuse us of bias in how we wrote those articles?
5. How do RS treat the term "Russiagate"?
6. How do unreliable sources (like Breitbart, Fox, and TFG) treat it?
7. Who uses the term "Russiagate" the most?
8. Why do they do it?
9. Other questions?

The two competing targets are:

• Russia investigation origins counter-narrative. It describes a right-wing conspiracy theory, making it the logical target. "Russigate" is nearly always used as a synonym for that conspiracy theory, and we redirect synonyms and shorthand terms to the article they are referring to.
• Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. "Russiagate" is usually used to ridicule and minimize this interference.

Why I pointed the redirect to Russia investigation origins counter-narrative as the logical target:

I agree with Wumbolo and Llightex that this is really about a Russiagate conspiracy theory similar to Pizzagate conspiracy theory. Since we already have the "Russia investigation origins counter-narrative" article, then we should point it there (or rename that article to Russiagate conspiracy theory). That article already describes most of the aspects of the right-wing "Russiagate" conspiracy theory (and right-wing media do use it in that manner).

I happen to use hundreds of Google Alerts to keep me informed about current events and other topics. I follow both RS and unreliable sources, so I know what's being said on all sides, and who is telling the truth and who isn't.

When TFG and right-wing media say "Russiagate", they are ridiculing the investigations^[3] into the proven Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and clearly implying: that they were all illegitimate; that they were based on left-wing conspiracy theories about TFG; and that TFG is the innocent victim of a witch hunt, IOW they are pushing conspiracy theories that are proven to be false. They are also denying that the proven myriad illicit and secretive Links between Trump associates and Russian officials were of any significance, even though those actions are seen as part of the large amount of evidence that TFG and his campaign did "collude" with Russia by cooperating, aiding, and welcoming (that describes "collusion", but not "conspiracy") the Russian interference.

Occasionally one sees mainstream media use the term to mean that the whole subject of "Russian interference and Trump's cooperation with it" is a big, and real, scandal, and in that sense they are right. That would be a legitimate use of the term, but it's rarely used in that sense by mainstream media, compared to the daily use by right-wing media. It is mostly (by far!) used by the right-wing media to defend and cover-up for TFG. It is the conspiracy theory they daily push on their base.

By supporting their use of the term as if it was true, Wikipedia is pushing their false conspiracy theory. At Wikipedia, we should edit in a manner that supports RS and our articles that are based on those RS. We should not edit in a manner that promotes conspiracy theories. The latter is what I see happening here. I'm certain that it's unintentional, but that is still the result.

Politrukki and others, please make your cases below in the area labeled "Discussion". (It is deliberately not made a section. That makes it easier to hop up and down when referring and quoting from this area in the discussion below.) If we can't resolve the matter with this discussion, then an RfC may be in order. I hope not. We all have better things to do with our time. -- Valjean (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Move Russia investigation origins counter-narrative(quite possibly the worst name for an article I've seen) to Russiagate. That's what that article is about. It's sometimes called a conspiracy theory, but not often,^[4] so it doesn't need to be at Russiagate conspiracy theory, but if it is then we redirect Russiagate to it there. If the article stays at the supremely uninformative, unused Russia investigation origins counter-narrative, then redirect Russiagate there. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd favor moving (and thus eliminating!) the awkward Russia investigation origins counter-narrative to Russiagate conspiracy theory. That's how we usually treat conspiracy theories. The title itself should say it. --Valjean (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From my highly scientific study referenced above, new sources, by a degree of magnitude, don't refer to it as a conspiracy theory, but I'm not terribly bothered either way. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I like your "study"! Others could be done. I suspect that many more uses are found in unreliable sources than in RS; sources like TFG, Hannity, Carlson, Ingraham, Steve Doocy, Shapiro, Fox News, New York Post, Breitbart News, The Federalist, OAN, Drudge Report, Newsmax, Newsbusters, RedState, InfoWars, The Daily Wire, The Daily Caller, Townhall, and such sources would account for 95-98% of them, and always in the way described above (as part of a fringe conspiracy theory to whitewash TFG). That's what my Google Alerts tell me. It's rare that I find a RS doing it, but on the rare occasions it happens, they mean it in a totally different and mainstream way. -- Valjean (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MAybe make it a disambig, and thus both possible target will be found.Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is also an option but we'd need to append some explanation for each entry as there is another Russiagate, a 1990s Russian money-laundering scandal, but we don't have an article about it. My reply immediately above shows how we can kill two birds with one stone by renaming the currently awkward "origins counter-narrative" article. -- Valjean (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven This is an interesting proposal. Which sources connect Russiagate to the "counter-narrative"? I remember seeing only one; Majin (see above) says that there's a "pro-Trump counternarrative that Russiagate was a Mccarthyesque witch-hunt based on a hoaxical dossier". However, within the same paragraph Majin mentions "BBC's own role in promoting the Russiagate narrative" and in this instance "Russiagate" refers to Trump–Russia collusion theory. The latter meaning is obviously the primary topic. Russiagate would still need to redirected to the primary topic.

I have a counter-proposal that should be pretty non-controversial: there's a Russiagate entry in List of "-gate" scandals and controversies. Why don't we target that article? The sourcing there is not stellar as the cited sources are op-eds that don't define Russiagate, but the definition is consistent with reliable sources that actually do. Details can be debate on that article. Politrukki (talk) 08:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]