Talk:Melania Trump replacement conspiracy theory

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)
 * Cites based on actual widespread discussion by proponents. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * oh, totally, totally! You've now got me thinking about it and working on it ;-) - David Gerard (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe rename to "body double" theory. Started with supposed body double on certain occasions. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Think it's getting there. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * more sources: BBC, Snopes, Yahoo! Style
 * probably not an RS: Hollywood life
 * this is Tracey Ullman doing a sketch:  was this ever noted in an RS anywhere? - David Gerard (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Added BBC. Hyperbolick (talk) 13:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Ullman sketches predate the conspiracy theory, so probably shouldn't go here - David Gerard (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

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


 * 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)
 * Ok. Think it's ready. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * gi's a moment, just gonna review it and all sources - David Gerard (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * 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)

Categories?
Possible categories to add to this page? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Tried some. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Speedy support. "BLP is no concern" is one of the funniest things I've ever read. Red   Slash  21:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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.