Template:Did you know nominations/Disclosure movement

: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The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Narutolovehinata5 talk 22:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

{{DYK tools|nominator=Chetsford}}

{{DYK header|Disclosure movement}}

{{DYK nompage links|nompage=Disclosure movement|Disclosure movement}}

• ... that the TV show Ancient Aliens speculated the CIA caused Hillary Clinton to lose the 2016 U.S. presidential election in order to foil UFO disclosure?

{{smalldiv|1=

• Source: https://insidesources.com/john-podesta-pushes-conspiracy-theories-on-season-premiere-of-ancient-aliens/}}
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/2001 Hutchinson gas explosions, Template:Did you know nominations/Broadway Jones (performer)
• Comment: Please hold for July 2 (World UFO Day)

{{smalldiv|1=Created by {{user0|Chetsford}}.

Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 163 past nominations.}}

Chetsford (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2025 (UTC).

{{DYK checklist

|newness = y

|length = y

|eligibilityother =

|sourced = y

|neutral = y

|plagiarismfree = y

|policyother =

|hookcited = y

|hookinterest = y

|hookother =

|picfree = NA

|picused =

|picclear =

|qpq = y

|status = y

|comments =

|sign = Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:46, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

• New article. Long enough. 2 QPQs done. This is being actively developed, but all the changes look [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disclosure_movement&diff=1292955413&oldid=1292200331 solid and productive]. For example, early history with Keyhoe was added, Steven Greer seems to be better contextualized as a notable figure rather the movement's leader, and much recent political activity has been added. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:46, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

----

{{yo|Chetsford|Rjjiii|SL93|Gatoclass}} 16px I've pulled this off the Main Page per a discussion at ERRORS; the sourcing in the article for this hook is really weak, so the claim that it's DUE to feature this fringe viewpoint (even if non-indulgently) very shaky. Further discussion/source digging can continue here, thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:theleekycauldron - contrary to your assertion that Inside Sources is a {{xt|"group blog"}} it's the landing page for the publisher of the New Hampshire Journal and Delaware Valley Journal, two of the regional politics outlets that proliferate in the NE US (e.g. PoliticsPA, FITSNews, etc.). The author, Michael Graham, is a contributor to CBS News [https://www.cbsnews.com/video/sen-kirsten-gillibrand-visits-new-hampshire-as-she-explores-2020-run/], [https://www.cbsnews.com/video/president-trump-endorsements-gop-congressional-candidates-help-or-hurt/]. It's not the New York Times, but I don't think there's any serious case to be made the claim was fabricated. Insofar as DUE, I wasn't aware there was a DUE standard for DYK hooks. It seems we may have to rethink many of our hooks if that's now the case. Chetsford (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:: There's certainly a DUE standard to include a claim in an article, and I can't find any evidence that Inside Sources or any of its subsidiaries has a serious editorial staff, an editorial policy, or a fact-checking policy. Could you point me in the right direction? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::: {{xt|"There's certainly a DUE standard to include a claim in an article"}} Your position is that one sentence in a 19 paragraph article is UNDUE? {{Xt|"I can't find any evidence that Inside Sources"}} Sounds like a discussion better had at WP:RSN. I'll start pulling stuff together and open it there. Chetsford (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::: In the WP:ERRORS discussion, {{u|Gatoclass}} comments "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors&oldid=1296972504#c-Gatoclass-20250623081400-SL93-20250623073700 an internet search does not reveal much support for the claim that this website's content syndicates to nearly 300 of the nation’s top newspapers, which certainly rings alarm bells.]" "Top newspapers" may be hyperbole but they syndicate to [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22InsideSources%22+-%22Inside+Sources.com%22&client=firefox-b-1-lm&channel=entpr&tbm=nws&uact=5&oq=%22InsideSources%22+-%22Inside+Sources.com%22 many regional newspapers] including the [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22InsideSources%22+site%3Amiamiherald.com&client=firefox-b-1-lm&channel=entpr&uact=5&oq=%22InsideSources%22+site%3Amiamiherald.com Miami Herald]. Podesta's conspiracy theory and appearance on Ancient Aliens are covered by other conservative outlets like the [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/420435/john-podesta-on-ancient-aliens-hillary-clinton-would-have-declassified-ufo-information/ Examiner]. If you look for coverage in news sources that are more clearly WP:RS, you'll find the the [http://archive.today/2021.04.22-032357/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/08/the-long-strange-history-of-john-podestas-space-alien-obsession/ Washington Post] and so on covering Podesta's views on aliens, UFOs, and disclosure leading up to the November 2016 election, but not after it. Most of our WP:RS are center to left, and after the election they covered the Clinton campaign in this lens of trying to figure out "[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/14/one-of-hillary-clintons-top-aides-nailed-exactly-why-she-lost/ why she lost]", and so did not cover Podesta's appearance on the show or his allegation. {{pb}}I may be misreading them, but {{u|Pokelego999}} and maybe {{u|Bagumba}} seem to be saying that someone could read the hook as not about Ancient Aliens or Podesta, but as citing them for a claim on Hillary Clinton? I found it to be clearly about the show, especially in the article itself, but do not mind reviewing additional hooks if that is the issue. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::: It definitely meets WP:USEBYOTHERS, with its reporting sourced by Politico, [https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/22/new-hampshire-senate-messy-gop-primary-00052945] the Washington Post, [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/04/chris-sununu-gop-trump/] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/06/multi-million-dollar-campaign-is-pushing-dems-ditch-antitrust-reform/] the ABA Journal, [https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/lawyer-disbarred-for-destroying-his-computer-altering-metadata-before-ethics-hearing] the Boston Globe, [https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/12/29/metro/nh-house-speaker-defends-handling-complaints-about-gop-member-with-invitation-only-press-event/] KVUE-TV [https://www.kvue.com/article/news/politics/perry-insists-hes-months-away-on-2016-decision/260207446], Factcheck.org, [https://www.factcheck.org/2019/09/deceptive-second-amendment-ads/] MSNBC, [https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/new-hampshire-gop-embraces-personhood-election-nears-msna418901] the Huffington Post, [https://www.huffpost.com/entry/new-hampshire-gop-personhood_n_5865316] the New Hampshire Union Leader, [https://www.unionleader.com/news/politics/statehouse_dome/state-house-dome-scheduling-conflict-starts-food-fight/article_f7eccb21-1d5c-5424-b8b4-a385eb9a9b89.html] The Independent, [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/transgender-soccer-bow-school-district-b2653046.html] The Hill, [https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/211150-aided-by-romney-brown-rakes-in-2m-for-quarter/] etc. I'm a bit out-of-pocket today so it will take me a few days to open an RSN RfC with links to publication ethics statements, author lists, etc. I'll try to get around to that later this week. Chetsford (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::: from WP:USEBYOTHERS: {{tq|If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not unduly represent contentious or minority claims}}. In other words, USEBYOTHERS is limited in how much DUE weight it can give a source that wouldn't otherwise even be considered reliable. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:32, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I think you're conflating two different and unrelated things. My USEBYOTHERS comment is only related to the incontravertible fact Inside Source is RS. Like I said, I'll present a full RfC at RSN later this week as I don't have time to complete writing it up with links to author lists, editorial policies, etc. today. Your comment as per DUE is a separate matter and hinges, apparently, on the novel position that one sentence in a 19 paragraph article constitutes UNDUE weight. I respectfully disagree. Chetsford (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::: If I inserted a sentence into Jimmy Kimmel's article that he went to some random diner fifteen years ago because a local newspaper mentioned in passing that he went there, yeah, I think that's UNDUE despite being one sentence in god knows how many paragraphs. Inserting random details into articles because they're fun trivia can absolutely be a violation of WP:BALASP and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, so no, i wouldn't say it's a novel position. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::An interesting hypothetical scenario, to be sure. And while it doesn't at all apply in this case — there's three sources in the article (two I added post-pull) and, as soon as I'm able, I'll drop a few more in there as there's plenty and plenty of references to support this as the most cursory search would reveal — it's a salient reminder in general. Had I anticipated an editor would find such an innocuous statement required a broadside of sources be fired into the article I would certainly have added them before now; this is an active article with several involved editors and not a single one had raised this very unique perspective in the active Talk discussion there, nor in the DYK review, nor during its promotion, nor really at any point prior to now. Chetsford (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::My main comment was that I don't think there was a BLP issue, but the hook could be a concern if WP:DYKHOOK's {{tqq|Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided}} was broadly construed to include Clinton's losing the election. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Yes, that would be a broad construction, indeed. Chetsford (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::: In my case, I was less so worried about the source itself (Even if there seems to have been a discussion on it) and moreso the fact we were treating what is inherently a minority viewpoint from an unreliable source (Ancient Aliens) on the main page. Leeky's discussion on USEBYOTHERS above cements basically what I'm saying: putting a minority claim on the main page as if it were a major point is just giving more stock to something that inherently is something we shouldn't be putting stock in. A TV show referencing a theory isn't something crazy, but Ancient Aliens is something that peddles a lot of unreliable information and conspiracy theories on the daily; what about this theory in particular indicates it's true in any way compared to what they usually put out? The fact we don't even clarify if the info is true or false or not in the hook could also convince some people that this completely unverified theory from an unreliable source could be true, which at best is just spreading misinformation. It's not helped by the absolutely minimal coverage this theory received.

::::::: I will clarify though my beef is mostly with the hook itself, less so the base article. Including a brief mention in the article isn't going to harm anybody, especially in the context it's written in, but the way the hook is written puts a lot of UNDUE emphasis, as described above. This also wasn't me bringing up a BLP issue, but I can see how it can be construed that way; admittedly BLP stuff is out of my usual topic scope, so I can't speak much on that. Hopefully this clarifies my stance a bit, since I was pinged above about this. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:25, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::{{xt|"the way the hook is written puts a lot of UNDUE emphasis"}} While I appreciate your opinion, DUE/UNDUE isn't a criteria applied to DYK hooks. It defines the amount of weight given to a particular perspective in an article relative to its treatment in reliable sources. In this case, the amount of weight in question is one sentence in a 19-paragraph article so it can't really get more DUE than that. In the context of DYK, DUE only comes into play to the extent that an otherwise DUE fact may be inappropriate for DYK if it obliterates context to paint a BLP in a false light as per WP:DYKBLP, which this doesn't do.
Per WP:DYKINT, the purpose of a hook is to present a fact that is so "unusual" and "intriguing" that it inspires the reader to click on it: The hook should be likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest in the topic. Intriguing hooks leave the reader wanting to know more – we want people to see the new articles our volunteers have put time and effort into crafting, and a hook that excites the reader into wanting to know more goes a long way towards that goal.
{{xt|"The fact we don't even clarify if the info is true or false or not in the hook could also convince some people that this completely unverified theory from an unreliable source could be true, which at best is just spreading misinformation."}} I believe we typically assume our readers have IQs higher than a houseplant, but perhaps I'm mistaken. Chetsford (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::"In my case, I was less so worried about the source itself (Even if there seems to have been a discussion on it) and moreso the fact we were treating what is inherently a minority viewpoint from an unreliable source (Ancient Aliens) on the main page" You're the first person to say that the source was unreliable. "The fact we don't even clarify if the info is true or false or not in the hook could also convince some people that this completely unverified theory from an unreliable source could be true, which at best is just spreading misinformation." Do you really think our readers are that stupid? I would feel insulted. SL93 (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::{{tqq|Do you really think our readers are that stupid?}} There's a growing set of disgruntled people in certain parts of the world that are putting more stock in conspiracy theories. It's perhaps easy to write them off as "stupid" when presumably editors here are more likely to have gone on to higher education compared to the general population.—Bagumba (talk) 01:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::I appreciate everyone's input and, while I disagree in the most intense terms with this pull, to mitigate the waste of any editor resources that will arise due to my inability to coherently argue against it -- the three editors advocating to pull apparently each doing so due to different reasons (BLP, DUE, and RS) while seemingly disagreeing with each other as to which actually applies -- I consent to abandon it. I reclaim both QPQs for future use. Chetsford (talk) 04:50, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tqq|the three editors advocating to pull apparently each doing so due to different reasons (BLP, DUE, and RS) ...}}: I'm not sure if I'm considered one of those three. I was more musing after the pull if DYKHOOK's "negative aspects" caveat applied. With Clinton being a public figure politician, I'd say any negative aspect here is minor compared to others I've seen posted. Don't count me as a formal oppose. I can see how DYK doesn't have a clear process on handling verifiable hooks regarding (arguably) false claims, which makes this frustrating for you.—Bagumba (talk) 05:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)