Template:Did you know nominations/Spygate (conspiracy theory)
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by Yoninah (talk) 01:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- (Do we have to say, "rejected"? That makes it sound like I was on a date and got turned down for a g'night kiss! Could we say, "The result was: inadequate consensus to move forward" or something like that? "Rejected" reeks of "REE-ject", and what a great way to make a person feel like they should never have started. I understand that this may be the result of some template or other. Could you maybe change it so that in the future the blow is made less personal? Please maybe think about it, thanks!) A loose noose (talk) 23:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Spygate (conspiracy theory) edit
- ... that Spygate, a conspiracy theory developed and popularized by the United States president Donald Trump, appears to have no basis in fact? Source: [1][2][3]
Created/expanded by Starship.paint (talk) [4] and A loose noose (talk) [5]. Self-nominated at 02:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC).
A full review may follow, but at the moment, I think the hook is too sensitive due to the political claims in it (this is both due to WP:BLP as well as the discretionary sanctions on US politics-related articles). Alternate hooks may need to be proposed here. @Starship.paint and A loose noose: Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
How about maybe this one? (a bit more neutral in its wording):
...that the Spygate conspiracy theory holds that the Barrack Obama administration planted a spy inside Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign in order to assist Trump's political rival Hillary Clinton win the 2016 US presidential election?
(Anyone who clicks on the article link can read for themselves about how true or false the theory is.) A loose noose (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- That's way above the 200 character limit. Please try to make it shorter. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- ALT2 ...that at least seven members of Congress have dismissed the Spygate conspiracy theory as lacking evidence or untrue?
- @Narutolovehinata5: starship.paint ~ KO 01:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I like it! (@Narutolovehinata5: Are there any steps that need to be taken to "re-initiate" this process, or is it still considered to be active at this point?) A loose noose (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Just wait, reviewers can get busy. It's considered active unless weeks have passed without replies from either the nominator or the reviewer (the previous reply here was just two days ago). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
With that said, conspiracy theories by their nature are usually publicly denied, so I'm not sure about ALT2. As this is a hook about a sensitive topic (US politics), I'm requesting a second review for hook appropriateness. As for the article itself, it meets all the technical requirements (newness, length, sourcing, hook verification, QPQ), but the topic itself needs more eyes here, and I admit that it might be tricky to formulate an appropriate hook here: suggestions from other editors are appreciated as well. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- ALT3 ...that at least seven members of the United States Congress have dismissed President Donald Trump's "Spygate" allegations as lacking evidence or untrue? starship.paint ~ KO 02:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- New reviewer welcome :) starship.paint ~ KO 13:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- Meh. Looks like this has died in committee. A loose noose (talk) 06:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- New reviewer still needed, with an ALT3 having been proposed. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
This has been sitting for a while now and there have been no other reviews, so I'll review ALT3 (the hook only). I have to say it is uninteresting and not quirky, as it is very common in politics for politicians to deny allegations made by their opposition. I'm not sure if a better hook can be proposed here, and considering the content, as well as a discussion on a related Trump-hook on DYK, I don't think the article should run. Right now, the article is mostly allegations from both pro and anti-Trump camps, and none really are appropriate for a hook, so I'm now marking this as an unsuccessful nomination. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- Well, fair enough, then. It did seem like a good idea at the time! But as Trump scandals go, it cant really be seen as more than just the next in a very long and not all that interesting list of Fake News "-gates". But thank you for following up and keeping tabs on this! Much appreciated. A loose noose (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2018 (UTC)