Template:Did you know nominations/Trump plant 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 BlueMoonset (talk) 07:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator per WT:DYK#Please withdraw following nominations

Trump plant theory

• ... that the "Trump plant" conspiracy theory first gained public attention with a blog post made by Justin Raimondo?

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Heron Road Workers Memorial Bridge & Template:Did you know nominations/Dan Bibby
• Comment: Promoters: Please ensure there are 2 reviews for this nomination (see my FAQ)

Created by LavaBaron (talk). Self-nominated at 09:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC).

• The article makes is sound like Jeb Bush and George Will have "supported" this theory with a straight face. That needs to be fixed. EEng 07:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Because that's what the sources in the article say. I can't fix what isn't there. If you have other sources, though, that indicates they were being jocular, feel free to add them. I provide the sources I can find but my brain isn't directly wired into EarthNet so I make no guarantee they represent 100% of all published views on any given subject. If you have other sources that say differently the onus is yours to provide, not just vaguely indicate they might exist somewhere maybe. LavaBaron (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

But that's not what the (your) sources say, when read as they're meant to be read. The reason there's a special rule to the effect that everything you do at DYK has to go through an extra layer of review, is that you often seem unable to read sources with understanding and insight.

• When George Will says, "If Donald Trump were a Democratic mole placed in the Republican Party to disrupt things, how would his behaviour be any different? I don't think it would be" [1], he's not saying he actually believes Trump is a mole.
• Here's the Washington Post re Bush:

It sounds like something from “House of Cards”: Politician A enters into a secret alliance with Politician B — a loose-tongued rival from another party with the chutzpah, the cash and the power to play the spoiler — to ensure Politician A’s election. Now, anyone living inside the Beltway can testify that Washington isn’t organized enough to work that way. But after GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump said he would deny Muslims entry to the United States — and, faced with the condemnation of Republicans in Congress, indicated he might be considering running as an independent, a move that could elect a Democrat — one of Trump’s rivals tweeted out the Grand Trump-Clinton Conspiracy Theory. “Maybe Donald negotiated a deal with his buddy @HillaryClinton,” Jeb Bush tweeted. “Continuing this path will put her in the White House.” ...

There’s no doubt that Trump is a hand grenade launched into the middle of a crowded Republican field... But is his refusal to flame out really the result of high-level machinations among Trump, a former president and the Democratic presidential front-runner — a former first lady, U.S. senator, and secretary of state? Probably not — but it sure is fun to speculate about it, as many have in recent months. Here’s a look at the “evidence”...

• Your source for Kaptur quotes her thus: "There are some theories on the Internet that this is Bill Clinton’s best political deal, that he and Donald are buddies, and they have a lot of similar friends in New York, and he has masterfully selected a friend who maybe by October will say, ‘You know, this is very boring. And I’m going to get out.’ Do I believe it 100 percent, do I believe it 2 percent? You know, you really wonder."

None of this is "publicly stated belief in the theory", not even "to varying degrees", any more than Swift was actually suggesting that Irish families should sell their children to be eaten by aristocrats. Your fourth example, Curbelo, might really be asserting it, but it's hard to tell in the context of the BBC story, which reports all of this with a touch of whimsy. And I remind you this is a BLP matter.

On top of that, the article's statement that, "The theory first gained public attention in a July 2015 blog post by Justin Raimondo" is not supported by the source, which says that "Last August, this 'false flag' theory was explored in depth by Gawker, which pointed to AntiWar.com proprietor Justin Raimondo as the originator of the idea" in July 2015. All this says is that Raimonda apparently originated the idea, not that it came to public attention in any significant way at that time. If anything, based on what the source says, the real public attention came with Gawker's coverage in August (but even that's not clear).

EEng 01:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and that's why the article says "persons who have publicly stated belief in the theory to varying degrees include" not "people who have declared absolute belief in the theory include ..." Believe it or not, every word has a meaning behind it and is carefully selected to construct an accurate sentence, I'm not just having a Scrabble lottery. To your second point, I consider 400 tweets, including by the editor of the Wall Street Journal, to constitute "wide public attention" within the general meaning of the sources. Does the source exactly use the words "wide public attention?" No. We don't copyvio text from sources, articles are a combination of synthetic compression and paraphrasing. We strive toward concise accuracy in a summarized fashion, not exact reproductions of text. WP entries are the art of the journalistic précis, they are not scholarly articles. There is a difference in construction between the two, but one is not better than the other.

All that said, I don't want to use DYK review space to carry-on conversations so I'm afraid I won't be able to respond to your posts here unless you're offering a review. If you're providing a review, let me know by posting a Pass, Hold, or Fail tick, and present your DYK-criteria based suggestions for improvement succinctly and logically and I will respond with appropriate edits to the article to bring it up to DYK standards. But this is an active working space, not a cigar club and, unfortunately, my time is finite and I have to allocate it to responding to concerns raised by reviewers, not just passers-by. I'm sorry, this is not a personal slight, just a resource-management issue. LavaBaron (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• That you still can't see that you're misreading the sources and misrepresenting what they say is, again, why special restrictions have been placed on your activities at DYK.
• For each article I nominate I do a QPQ review as required, and once in a while I do a review just for the hell of it. Beyond that I don't have to do a review, or provide a tick, to point out a problem, nor must I spend more time than I want, doing something I'm not inclined to spend time doing, just to maximize the throughput of your questionable nominations.

EEng 03:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Just came across this DYK. I have to wonder about whether the article is neutral - the article is listing proponents and arguments for the theory, but are there really no sceptics or conflicting arguments? The article reads a bit WP:PROFRINGE as it is, I'd oppose it to be run on the main page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that the article presents, as a genuine conspiracy theory, what apparently most people see as just a sardonic joke (though of course there's always someone who really believes something like this). EEng 07:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with EEng. This started as a joke and gets repeated tongue-in-cheek more often than it gets told with any credulity. That, unfortunately, explains why there's no critical or skeptical commentary; who wants to debunk a joke? IMHO, this article should be AfD'd, and be added as a section to a future article on conspiracy theories surrounding this election. Also, it should begin by noting that it was intended as (and often seen as) a joke, not a serious belief. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• The idea comes up in this recent article as part of a longer discussion of whether Trump is trying to lose. Maybe a focus on that, with the deliberate Clinton plant angle included as a sub-section, would work? Also, I haven't done a full review but if I did, it would include that work is needed including on EEng's point about the representation of proponents of the theory. EdChem (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that being a plant as part of a conspiracy is quite different from just plain trying to lose at this point (e.g. because he's an asshole dilettante who's just decided it's too much trouble and/or wants to raise his brand recognition or sell some books or has a megalomaniac plan to start a civil war when his crazed followers rise up after "voter fraud" causes him to lose in a landslide). EEng 15:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• The word "theory" is poorly chosen. If it is a conspiracy theory, call it that. If it is a cynical suggestion, call it that. But don't call it a "theory" unless there are sources using this term. jps (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
• I'm pretty sure the opening paragraph established to a reasonable person the entire concept is viewed, in mainstream historiograpahy, as exceptionally ludicrous. It seems like many of the people commenting here may not have actually read it ... LavaBaron (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Big word there, historiography, but there's no historiography on this, just things people say -- better look that word up. Since it's not a conspiracy theory, even a ludicrous one, the article shouldn't open "The Trump plant theory is a conspiracy theory...". EEng 00:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

"Big word there" - you seem to have an unnecessarily combative attitude, reinforced by evidence of your long and colorful block log. I've gone toe-to-toe to prevent vandalism of WP from Trump supporters and even COI editing by the Trump office itself; I've done more for longer than merely relaxing in a recliner and sniping at other editors. So I highly resent the implication underlying your tone. You have provided no constructive feedback, which is what this area is for, you've merely been yelling about the existence of the article and questioning my intelligence - AfD it if it needs to be, but don't use a DYK development area for general complaining. You have not provided a single actionable edit suggestion, which is what this area is for, merely occupied this section with long blocks of dialog. At this time I'm going to reserve further comment for reviewers. Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 03:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• If you thought you'd embarrass me by bringing up my various blocks, you must have missed the box at the top of my userpage reading, "This user has been blocked several times, and isn't embarrassed about it", not to mention such threads as "Hands-down the worst block I've seen in my time on Wikipedia, and I've seen some whoppers" and "Review_of_EEng's_indefinite_block" and "Unblocked" and so on.
• Contrary to what you say, this page is for is discussing whether the nom meets DYK criteria. Pointing out a problem doesn't require offering a solution. That's your job, if you want the nom to go through, though in your case way, way too many noms are presented that needed fixing in significant ways.
• What tons of editors have tried to help you see, in multiple discussions for a long time (this and this and this being only the most recent) your enthusiasm frequently outstrips your knowledge and self-awareness. Your dancing-as-fast-as-I-can non-response responses are classic WP:IDHT.
• Since you insist on bringing it up, if you honestly can't see the difference between your slipshod dillatantisms and comprehensive, scrupulously researched articles such as Phineas_Gage, Widener_Library, Sacred_Cod, Lionel_de_Jersey_Harvard, Andrew_M._Gleason, and John_Harvard_(statue) then, well... that explains a lot. I nominate for DYK when I think an article will be of interest, or a hook will lighten our readers' day; you seem to revel in racking up an article count without regard for quality.

I've removed the most obviously inappropriate material, including BLP violations, though no doubt much remains. EEng 07:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

EEng - would love to keep this civil. Please don't refer to my contributions as "slipshod dillatantisms". Let's agree to respect each other and start over from square one. Sound good? LavaBaron (talk) 09:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's just that I'm a counterpuncher, like my hero Donald Trump. EEng 09:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Ha, okay no problem. This is my first time viewing an American election so both sides are quite interesting to me. LavaBaron (talk) 09:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Two full reviews are still needed for this nomination, which should be cognizant of the above discussion. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)