Talk:Melania Trump replacement conspiracy theory

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Melania Trump replacement conspiracy theory article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative views Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Presidents Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Low-importance).

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

amazing

this is one of the dumbest conspiracy theories I've seen get cites to CNN level - David Gerard (talk) 16:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cites based on actual widespread discussion by proponents. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

oh, totally, totally! You've now got me thinking about it and working on it ;-) - David Gerard (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe rename to "body double" theory. Started with supposed body double on certain occasions. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@David Gerard: Think it's getting there. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is :-) More shoring up wouldn't hurt of course. Keep title at "replacement" I think, title is fine - I mean, it can be changed later - David Gerard (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

more sources: BBC, Snopes, Yahoo! Style

probably not an RS: Hollywood life

this is Tracey Ullman doing a sketch: [1] [2] was this ever noted in an RS anywhere? - David Gerard (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added BBC. Hyperbolick (talk) 13:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Ullman sketches predate the conspiracy theory, so probably shouldn't go here - David Gerard (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clone

"Clone" reported in unreliable sources [3],[4] but not RS. Remove? Hyperbolick (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yeah ... I'd only put in what we can from RSes, even if the RSes are basically making fun of it - David Gerard (talk) 17:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Think it's ready. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

gi's a moment, just gonna review it and all sources - David Gerard (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I don't think it's quiiite ready - the second and third paragraphs of the "Origins" section, their references don't refer to this conspiracy theory at all, only to odd behaviour on Donald Trump's part. I think we'd need a ref linking this incident to the conspiracy theory, and we don't appear to have one.

I cut the James Gunn quote because it was pretty much fluff, cited to a trivial media site - David Gerard (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Categories?

Possible categories to add to this page? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tried some. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 September 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Melania Trump replacement theory → Melania Trump replacement conspiracy theory – This is obviously a conspiracy theory that has no credibility; therefore, its not just a theory it's a conspiracy. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does the current title really suggest that it has credibility? In my view it does not, and the introduction is quite clear about the validity of it. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support BLPs require more sensitive titling than most Category:Conspiracy_theories_in_the_United_States In ictu oculi (talk) 13:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:CONCISE. Nobody reading this can conclude that it is non-Conspiratorial. BLP is no concern. No question this is a theory about what the title indicates. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy support. "BLP is no concern" is one of the funniest things I've ever read. Red Slash 21:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- BLP is no concern because the title is no BLPvio. Already contains "theory," which is what it is. What do sources use? Hyperbolick (talk) 03:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support' - Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. The overwhelming consensus of reliable sources refer to this as a conspiracy theory. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the comment right above me, and just the fact that the word "theory" without any warning signs is way too credible to give to an article about the fiction of some dude on Twitter. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 08:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.