User:K.e.coffman/Sandbox/Conspiracy

"Comments by politicians" in the recently blanked Trump section
Due to BLP concerns raised, I propose replacing the sub-section (if it's restored, the entire section in which it's housed is being blanked repeatedly) called "proponents" with a section called "comments by politicians" - draft here. This would occur in tandem with replacement of all recently blanked text. Any objections / thoughts? LavaBaron (talk) 08:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd rather wait until AfD closes to discuss. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * K.e.coffman - that's fine, however, as a general best practice, you can't continue making massive edits to this article without a willingness to discuss them until some deadline you've established (e.g. conclusion of an AfD) passes. LavaBaron (talk) 16:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If this article is kept, then I support including the draft content listed above. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Section claiming that Trump is Hitler's reincarnation
I recently deleted a portion of this article that discusses purported theories about Trump as Hitler's reincarnation. I am of the opinion that the deleted material violates WP:SYNTH and likely WP:BLP. Per WP:BRD, I am opening a discussion to see if other editors believe the material should be included here. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support removal as per Notecardforfree. While I might support this in an article titled "Supernatural claims of the United States presidential election, 2016" no one seems to be alleging an actual conspiracy here. This article needs to be a succinct itemization of conspiracy thinking, not a catchall for unusual, but non-conspiratorial, ideas. LavaBaron (talk) 02:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit
I removed recently re-added content with this diff. I assume this is part of the content that was recently deleted at AfD Articles for deletion/Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor. I believe it should stay out for BLP / POV reasons. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What BLP reasons? You may not like it that WP indexes information from RS that demonstrates a video cited by conspiracy theorists was manipulated, or that an alleged "neurologist" was actually a police officer, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete. We're not here to validate conspiracy theorists. We're here to provide facts, even if it shakes their (your?) worldview. Sorry. LavaBaron (talk) 05:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned about this revert. Was this part of the material previously deleted at the above mentioned AfD? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, you mean the content that cites a RS to demonstrate that a CT video was manipulated to support the hoax? Why does that concern you? Why do you want our article to omit information that this conspiracy theory is based on manipulated videos? Not sure WP may be a good fit for you (maybe try Conservepedia?), but I'll defer judgment for now. Your pattern of edits are somewhat concerning, though. LavaBaron (talk) 05:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm still curious if this was part of the content deleted at previous AfD. Was it? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No idea. I'm still curious why you want to delete/hide content from the Washington Post that undermines a conspiracy theory. Are you a Healther? LavaBaron (talk) 05:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * For the record, I'm not a "healther" -- I've learned this term today from the article in question. I do not subscribe to any of the theories being discussed.
 * On my question, I'm not following... I thought you were the editor/creator of the article that was deleted -- ? To quote : "I want to add, as well, that the content of the article is basically a recreation of two of LavaBaron's other articles -- one deleted (Clinton brain damage conspiracy theory), one still up (Trump plant theory) -- and almost nothing else." — Rhododendrites As someone with intimate knowledge of the deleted article, how come you cannot elucidate on what was in it? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you please clarify why you want to remove content that notes pro-conspiracy videos were manipulated to falsely make it look like Clinton was ill? Third request. Your refusal to address this is troubling. LavaBaron (talk) 05:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The inclusion of this section indeed has the appearance of validating the conspiracy theory, along with the video and images. Similar BLP concerns have been raised at the AfD: Articles for deletion/Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016. I became concerned when you requested protection for the article (which you created): Page protection request; hence I removed the images in case the article ended up protected. I hope this sufficiently answers your question.

Back to my question, was the material in the diff a part of the content that was deleted at the AfD above? Third request :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 06:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm commenting here via 's recent post at WP:FTN and find myself in agreement with 's removal of content here and also here, here, and here, and I feel safe assuming that the rest of the content removed by K.e.coffman was an improvement to the encyclopedia and not WP:NOTHERE. —PermStrump  ( talk )  06:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm busy dealing with this type of nonsense at Frank Gaffney and don't have time to do it here on top of it. Following is the content "K.e. coffman" (and probably Alex Jones, too) wants deleted (cites removed for ease of reading).

Several videos and photographs were manipulated, or taken out of context, by conspiracy theorists to support claims of Clinton's alleged health issues, including:
 * A Getty Images photograph from February 2016 showing Clinton being helped by two men to ascend a flight of stairs. The rumor-examination website Snopes.com concluded that the August 2016 claim was a "mixture" of truth and falsehoods, noting that the photograph was "genuine" but "not recent," as it had been taken back in February. The Getty Images photograph also had a caption that stated that Clinton merely "slipped while [she] walked up stairs in South Carolina."
 * A June 10, 2016, video posted to YouTube showing Clinton at a campaign stop in which it appears she turns her head back-and-forth vigorously for several seconds. In fact, the video was manipulated to loop a much shorter Clinton head turn to create the appearance of a spasm.
 * An early August incident where a Clinton speech was disrupted by protesters and in which a man approached Clinton, who had paused, and reassured her that the situation was under control. Though some conspiracy bloggers alleged the man to be a neurologist, it was later confirmed he was in fact Secret Service Assistant Special Agent in Charge, Todd Madison.
 * Coffman - no one is going to let you turn this article into a platform to spout conspiracy theories without the rational, mainstream perspective to balance it. Stop removing content that demonstrates the Healther hoax is based on of manipulated photos and videos.. LavaBaron (talk) 07:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Clearly K.e.coffman's edits do not alter the article in a way that makes it seem like these conspiracy theories are true. —PermStrump  ( talk )  07:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you help me understand if the material being discussed in the diff above was part of the content removed at the prior AfD? It's a simple yes / no answer, so hopefully won't take up much of your time. I would really appreciate it. K.e.coffman (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to deleted articles, I can't help you. Sorry. LavaBaron (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, as an editor/creator of the deleted article, you do not recall if the section "Specific claims" was included in the "Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor" article. Is that correct? K.e.coffman (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Is the purpose of this question trying to figure out if this section was previously discussed a BLP violation? —PermStrump  ( talk )  19:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. It would also have impact on the RfC below. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to deleted articles either, but I certainly do have a memory and would be glad to help you - the answer to your question is yes - the section "Specific claims" was included in the "Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor" article. It was copied/pasted (along with some of the other content) into this article as can be seen here in this diff, here's a link to the AfD debate as well if you wish to peruse that.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  00:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing. Looks like a vaguely similar section, though some glaring differences as well. Don't see it mentioned in the AfD, though, and - of course - AfDs only impact an article en tote, not all content that ever appeared in it. For instance, if an article on a band is AfDed that doesn't prohibit us from ever mentioning that band in other articles when relevant. Besides, of course, this entire article just passed a AfD with that section in; consensus is undone by more current consensus. LavaBaron (talk) 01:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Election rigging section
Something about the way this section reads tells me it does not belong here at the moment. Please allow me to dissect the section as to why. I'm just putting this out for discussion, I haven't convinced myself yet. But the general tone seems to be about future "ifs", not anything that is alleged to actually exist, as opposed to the other allegations in the article (Trump/Putin, Clinton's health, etc.) that are about the past and/or present situation. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 08:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * First paragraph: This sentence summarizes the Politico article that is referenced at the end of the sentence. The discussion of Trump in this article relates to voter fraud. I can't see it being an allegation that this system was designed for Clinton to win; after all, couldn't Trump's supporters do the same? Looking at Sanders, my understanding is that his (supporters) complaint was that the system as a whole is rigged in the sense that only a small group of people stand a chance of competing, not rigged in the sense that it was specifically designed for Clinton to win.
 * Second paragraph: (1) The first quoted claim is an "if" - from what I remember, his overall tone during that speech was one of confidence and I can't recall Trump ever saying something like "I am going to lose because it is rigged". Conversely, he is trying to display a sense that he is so popular that it is inconceivable that he could lose fair and square. (2) The poll numbers are also an "if"; one in three people think it is a possibility and the article seems to Be more about the poll being based on a vague question about rigging in general, not specifically about Clinton being rigged to win. (3) The rest of the paragraph is about debunking the claims.
 * Third paragraph: For some reason I can't access this source right now, but it seems to be the only one containing a firm allegation that the primaries were actually rigged in Clinton's favour.
 * AtHomeIn神戸 I'm unclear if you oppose the entire section or only the inclusion of Sanders? Sorry, I may just not understand. LavaBaron (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair comment, it was a bit of a ramble. After further consideration, I think that Sanders is the only bit which belongs at the moment, if more detail could be given to it.
 * I do not see any detail as to how or why the general election will be rigged in Clinton's favour. The only concrete claim is that Clinton supporters will vote more than once in states with no ID laws? Nothing stopping Trump's supporters doing the exact same thing though, so that is not "rigging". Trump's claim "I'm more popular than her, so if she wins it's because she cheated" provides an excuse for a potential loss in the future, but I do not see how it is a "conspiracy theory" because there are no specifics about how it will happen. To put it simply, the poor health theories have various photos and film clips. Where is the "Zapruder film" that shows potential rigging? Of course I'm not saying there has to be actual footage, but at the moment there is no "grassy knoll" either, if you know what I mean.
 * The opinion polls do little more than show people, particularly Trump supporters, are suspicious of the overall system, not that Clinton or her people have specifically done something.
 * On the other hand, Sanders did actually lose the primaries. So, if there is a valid claim of a conspiracy behind Clinton's win, then that could be explored and expanded. But my current understanding is that Sanders' personal view is that the system inherently favours a certain type of candidate, not that there was active rigging for Clinton to beat Sanders. Admittedly, I do not follow the daily developments as closely as you would, so perhaps there is more detail in the email issue which surfaced recently. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * AtHomeIn神戸 - a conspiracy theory doesn't need to be, and usually isn't, rational. You're correct, there is no detail as to how or why the general election will be "rigged" in Clinton's favor. That's the hallmark of conspiracy thinking - detail is usually absent in favor of broad, vague, and sinister claims. Conspiracy thinking is, fundamentally, irrational. If there was any logical evidence to anything in this article it wouldn't be in this article. LavaBaron (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I see your point and agree generally, but I still feel there is a difference between this section and the others. They all have claims about something that has happened. The health claims have photos to "prove" Clinton has suffered ill health. The false flag claim has Trump's history of being an acquaintance of the Clintons and alleged phone calls to "prove" he has been planted to help Clinton. The Putin claim has past statements by Trump to "prove" he has a relationship with Russia. The Cruz claim has a photo to "prove" a connection with Oswald.
 * Conversely, the rigging claim is primarily based on the condition of Clinton winning, which hasn't happened yet and is not certain to happen. To take the definition from the first sentence of conspiracy theory, "a conspiracy theory is a belief that a secret conspiracy has actually been decisive in producing a political event or evil outcome which the theorists strongly disapprove of." I think this section fails the definition at this point in time. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This section is another Coat Rack, Synthesis and Crystal Ball. Just because an article called it a "conspiracy theory" does not mean that it needs to be included in an encyclopedia at this time. After the elections, when any impact from alleged conspiracy theories can be analysed, it may be appropriate to consider including such info. I would support removal of this section. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose for reasons stated. LavaBaron (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

This describes speculation, rather than conspiracy theory. I went ahead and removed it: diff. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, the disputed text says, "Described by Politico as "number five" on its list of "five most dangerous conspiracy theories of the 2016 election", at several points during 2016 both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders seperately alleged or implied that the nominating process, or the future election, had been - or would be - rigged to ensure their defeat." Politico did not say that, it is an opinion attributed to its author.  And the source did not say that Sanders or Trump made any allegations or implications, but that their campaigns did.  And Sanders campaign said nothing about the election itself.
 * It is a fact that there were fewer Democratic primary debates and they were scheduled at off-peak hours. Furthermore the head of the DNC head and other official resigned when their pro-Clinton bias was revealed.   And the superdelegate system was deliberately designed to prevent the insurgent candidates from winning.  AFAIK the Sanders campaign never claimed the process was rigged or that had the process been entirely fair that he would have won.
 * This is typical of this article. The source begins with a non-standard use of the term conspiracy theory.  The author writes, "Sometimes they turn out to be true (think Watergate, for example)...."  Well no, conspiracy theories never turn out to be true, because they are predicated on an alternative view of reality where a small cabal that is absolutely powerful, all-knowing and evil have been manipulating history since the building of the Temple.  And conspiracy theorists do not follow the same logic as rational investigators.  No one ever talked about the "Watergate conspiracy theory," they talked about the "Watergate conspiracy."  Seven people were arrested on the night of the Watergate break-in, five of them inside DNC headquarters.  That is what a conspiracy is, an agreement by two or more people to commit a crime.  It does not require that anyone else knew anything about it.
 * TFD (talk) 05:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Health status as a conspiracy theory
That section is a BLP mess with little regard for sorting fact from speculation from conspiracy theory. The article is not long enough, nor should it be made longer, to separate what each side wants to label as fact and what they want to label as conspiracy theory. Credentials are undercut, diagnoses are minimized and exaggerated, treatment us underplayed and overplayed. The reality is that one wants all health concerns labeled as a conspiracy theory and the other wants all health concerns labeled as fact. Health then becomes a compaign issue where its documented and weighted appropriately for all credible views. It cannot live here as solely a conspiracy theory. Certainly attributing views held by doctors that have been critical of both candidates as a "conspiracy theory" is a BLP violation at minimum. The section of Clinton's biography article that deals with her concussion, cerebral blood clot and subsequent treatment is more critical than this article which labels all health concerns a conspiracy theory. I've removed it for numerous BLP violations, and quite frankly, that are not resolvable in an article predisposed to a conclusion. --DHeyward (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I concur. Another editor also confirmed above that this entire section was in the article on Clinton's brain tumor deleted at AfD. Please see: Articles for deletion/Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor. I would suggest that editor self-revert. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Cute but I'm not going to revert and turn this into a pro-conspiracy rant no matter how much you ask. LavaBaron (talk) 01:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've added sorting headers to address your concerns. In the meantime, I invite you to participate in the RfC and to collaboratively discuss changes rather than blanking large, sourced portions of this article; sections under a RfC should not be blanked. We're not going to turn this article into a pro-conspiracy rant by deleting rational claims that undermine conspiracy thinking. Not gonna happen. LavaBaron (talk) 01:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned that you've repeatedly re-inserted material previously deleted at AfD as a BLP violation. Why is this so? It's also troubling that an apparent memory loss prevented you from answering my question above. Having this material in the article creates the perception of the conspiracy theory being validated. You also appear to be past 1RR having reinserted this material twice within 24 hours. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm unaware of that occurring. Again, this section is subject to a RfC. Please choose to discuss and collaborate, don't blank. Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 01:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It's a BLP violation still (maybe even worse). Health issues are covered everywhere without BLP disparaging comments. Creating a BLP violating section and then creating an RfC on the BLP violation doesn't mean it should stay until the RfC is over. Quite the opposite. Please stop restoring BLP violating material.  --DHeyward (talk) 01:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Here you go on 1RR: Does this help? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * revert #1 at 05:25, 24 August 2016
 * reverrt #2 at 00:43, 25 August 2016.
 * It's a massive BLP violation. It's a coatrack of innuendo, faleshoods and guilt by association.  If just5 entences, there are BLP. BLPCRIME, COATRACK, and a number of other issues.  Pinsky is a doctor, for example, an internist.  His opinion is rather meaningless in the overall scheme and he's pundited his way on Trump and Clinton.  Only an article like this would cite him and it goes the extra mile to disparage him.  Just ignore him as that is what the BLP policy is for.  All of this should be ignored and left in the articles that cover the campaign and real issues.  Health is an issue but we make our coverage of it pretty shitty when we label it a conspiracy theory.  Sections like this turn into rabbit holes of partisan bickering because one side thinks all of it is a conspiracy theory and the other side thinks all of it is legitimate and the answer is "it's politics" and it needs to be covered in the political articles. --DHeyward (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It might be best for the creator of this article to step away from it for several days. Edit warring over BLP violations is deeply concerning. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You said: "we make our coverage of it pretty shitty when we label it a conspiracy theory" - I disagree firmly with you that we should not label a hoax a hoax. RS say this is a conspiracy theory - that's what we call it. And the standards that have to be met to blank a RfC are incredibly high. I am astonished you just did that. LavaBaron (talk) 01:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that, who has been involved in battlefield behavior on other WP pages, such as this DYK dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=728901856#Request_DYK_topic_ban with and filed a recent AN complaint against  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#editing_other_editors_Talk_comments concerning this page, is now canvassing for supporters on the above dispute from another page (Frank Gaffney) on which he has been fighting with other editors, notably  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Frank_Gaffney#related_issue.  Lavabaron was warned over edit warring in April in response to an AN complaint lodged by  and was accused of making edits to unrelated pages edited by  and awarding barnstars to editors who disagreed with  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive314#User:LavaBaron_reported_by_User:Firebrace_.28Result:_Warned.29  The uncivil comments by LB above appear to be part of a disturbing pattern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.3.106 (talk • contribs)
 * So you're saying LavaBaron is an active editor that bumps heads with people sometimes? You already know where ANI is if you think the behaviour is that much of a problem. This is not the right place to discuss it. I'm not active at ANI, but I believe the folks there may appreciate you logging into your account when filing your complaint. ;) AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory related to Ted Cruz
Should this even be in this article, the 2016 US presidential election is between Trump and Clinton. Trump floated this theory about Cruz during the primary elections and caucuses. In addition, the story Trump quotes originated from the National Enquirer, which raises BLP concerns as well. I think it should be removed per BLP - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  17:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The presidential election is the entirety of the contest - primaries and all. As for inclusion, there was significant coverage of the matter in the major press, I don't think it's a BLP vio to say that, especially in an article that is specifically about conspiracy theories. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The presidential election is between Trump/Clinton, the primaries/caucuses decide who will be the candidate in the presidential election, and Cruz ain't one of them. And just because major press reported on this theory, doesn't negate the fact that the story originated in a tabloid. WP editor's have editorial control over what content is added to the encyclopedia and it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. I'm pretty sure Ted Cruz and Rafael Bienvenido Cruz are both living individuals and this policy would apply to them.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  18:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This section is unnecessary and SYNTH to list it with other conspiracies about Clinton and Trump. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have several issues with this section, first it is an egregious BLP violation to have an entire section devoted to a conspiracy theory about a living individual which originated from an unreliable source - the National Enquirer. The major news sources used as references in that section also make it clear the theory originated from the tabloid Enquirer and Trump makes it clear as well that he is referencing the National Enquirer article. Second, the section is titled - Conspiracy theory related to Ted Cruz - but the first sentence in that section says "Donald Trump accused Rafael Cruz", so the theory is related to and about Rafael Cruz, not Ted Cruz. Third, the second sentence about Roger Stone is sourced to an opinion piece, but without an inline attribution to the author who is expressing his opinion. Fourth, there is no mention of the fact that Trump has made various conflicting statements about this theory, including: “of course” he didn’t believe that the elder Mr. Cruz had anything to do with the plot...I’m not saying he conspired...I’m not saying he did it...I mean what was he doing with Lee Harvey Oswald, shortly before the death, Fifth, there is no mention of the statement from Cruz's campaign, “This is another garbage story in a tabloid full of garbage”...“The story is false; that is not Rafael in the picture.” I think the entire section should be removed per BLP, because it's irresponsible for WP to be repeating reckless speculation about a living individual that originated from a tabloid.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  17:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete it. The section exists to include only negative information about a living person with dubious sourcing. It's a repository for information too dubious for the Cruz bio article and this article title doesn't make the BLP violations okay. Stuff said about Ted Cruz that doesn't have enough reliable sources to be in his biography is not an article we need to create under ny title. --DHeyward (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it, as BLP violation based on an unreliable source: diff. Pls let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump
So now almost everything remaining on this page is about Donald Trump. That's hilarious. Let's just erase history, no matter how ridiculous the conspiracy theories are (and conspiracy theories are always ridiculous), shall we? That is so how Wikipedia works! 2601:192:4602:CEE0:CD9B:57BA:A84D:21CA (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I would not be opposed to Donald Trump sections be deleted. This is all BLP violations and SYNTH. Would there be any objections to this course of action? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, I think the "election rigging" and the Ted Cruz's father thing could be included as well... but that's about Trump too. I mean, it sort of just works that way. Anyway, I think this just shows that this article should be simply deleted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've already removed the election rigging and Cruz content earlier today. Would you like to do the honors on the Trump sections? :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 03:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * After the deletion review is closed and as suggested in the original afd, a new afd should be opened. If not a moved discussion should be considered.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I will go ahead and delete this section. This is innuendo, gossip, synthesis and BLP violation -- take your pick. :-) Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I was, at first, in favor of this article, but not anymore. For this to work, Wikipedia would need to loosen its BLP policies for articles of this sort, and that is not going to happen. Most conspiracy theories, after all, are BLP violations by nature. 2601:192:4602:CEE0:CD9B:57BA:A84D:21CA (talk) 21:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Concur. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * This appears to be an end run around the recent AfD which has reduced the article to a stub with no discernible relationship to its title. In its current (post stubbing) form it also grossly fails NPOV. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * An end run around the afd? I missed the AFD that resulted in a keep vote or that excluded the removal of content of the basis of policy.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No consensus defaults to keep. If you want to delete the article, this isn't the way to do it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This is clearly an end-run around AfD. If folks felt the entire article was a BLP violation, I think we've have deleted it. Hobit (talk) 19:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No consensus is simply no consensus. No action is taken because there is no consensus to take action. If you have any justification why the BLP had been misapplied please share it. A conspiracy theory of bad faith and a suggestion that had the BLP policy applied the article would have been deleted don't really cut it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So you are claiming all the folks that endorsed the outcome at DRV (and it was strongly endorsed) were endorsing the existance of an article that had so many BLP problems more than 90% of it had to be deleted? Hobit (talk) 19:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * When the AfD closes, the process reverts to normal editing, which this Talk page demonstrates. "No consensus" does not mean an endorsement of the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

De-Facto Deletion of this Article
This article recently survived, albeit barely, an AfD nomination. Subsequently a number of editors, acting I believe in good faith, have taken it upon themselves to edit this article in a manner that effectively has deleted it in all but name. It has been reduced to a stub that contains exactly one sentence that can be connected to the title of the article. The rest is a nakedly anti-conspiracy theory essay. I am no fan of conspiracy theories and in fact agree with the views expressed in the article essay. But this is clearly an end run around an AfD that didn't go the way they wanted. And the result is an article that has been turned into an anti-conspiracy theory POV hit piece. Like I said, I oppose the use of the project for the promotion of fringe theories, but this is not right. I am reluctant to mass revert edits but if you want to delete the article it should be done in an above board manner. The last AfD ended in no consensus. I suggest restoring most of the redacted material and renominating it. Or alternatively editing it in a way that does not constitute de-facto deletion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Is this an endrun by them around the AFD or an Endrun by you around the BLP? Certainly both are good faith and etc. If you disagree with any of the policy basis for the removal then please share.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * These issues were debated at AfD without consensus. The de-facto deletion of this article by mass redaction of pretty much the whole thing is basically flipping the bird at AfD. Again, if you want to delete the article do so in an above board and honest manner. In its current form the article probably should be deleted for NPOV failure and no real real relationship to its title. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on. The article was not deleted at AfD and that was strongly endorsed at DRV.  Are you seriously claiming that all those folks at DRV were endorsing an article that had so many problems that 90% of the article had to be deleted due to BLP problems?  Hobit (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd say more like 99%, but otherwise I fully agree with Hobit. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The article wasn't strongly endorsed at DRV. The close was strongly endorsed. There is a difference but I'm not going to explain it. Above you will see there is a conversation on Ted Cruz. If you disagree with the determination of the Three Editors there then go there and make your justification as to why there is no BLP violation. An Afd of no consensus is not a justification. Same for the others if you disagree. There's a section on The Donald and Hilary. No need to make an end run around discussion, they have discussed each part before removing each part.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with the wholesale restoration of this article. Significant portions of it were deleted at AfD that preceded the most recent one. Please see discussion above: Recent edit. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That shows a remarkable lack of understanding of how AfD works. Just because material is deleted at an AfD doesn't mean it can't be included elsewhere. Hobit (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Deleting all the material in the article after failing to delete it in an an AfD and the close being supported in a deletion review is clearly gaming the system. I WP:BOLDLY restored the deleted material. (Note that I !voted for deletion during the AfD but accepted the result that there was no consensus for deletion.) I strongly encourage everyone involved to start working on deleting anything that is poorly sourced and retaining that which is sourced, making your case for each section on the article talk page as you go. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, "BLP" is not a magic word that allows you to get your way every time. We already had an administrator evaluate the BLP arguments (I made one myself; check the AfD) and decide against deletion on BLP grounds. Then a clear majority of admins upheld his decision at deletion review. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide a diff to show where an administrator evaluated the BLP arguments and decided against deletion on BLP grounds. Because I know that none of these people, who were quoted in the article, are qualified to offer a medical opinion on the health of a presidential candidate:
 * Karl Rove suggested the clot had left Clinton brain damaged
 * Australian conspiracy theorist Paul Joseph Watson alleged Clinton had neurological issues and brain damage
 * Martin Shkreli (indicted former CEO) alleged Clinton was on levodopa
 * Drew Pinsky declared his belief that Clinton was not likely receiving adequate care
 * An anonymous physician speculated that "a traumatic brain injury with symptoms down the road is very, very likely here especially since she had a blood-clot on her brain"
 * The following Monday the National Enquirer ran a front-page feature titled "Hillary Clinton's Secret Health Crisis" while the Drudge Report posted a photo showing Clinton tripping on a flight of stairs
 * Do you think a conspiracy theory from the tabloid National Enquirer about Rafael Bienvenido Cruz, should be in a section titled Conspiracy theories about Ted Cruz, or for that matter, even be in this article, seriously now, The National Enquirer. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. And the essay you linked to clearly says - Looking at the history of WP:BLP, contentious material is primarily that, if untrue, would clearly cause harm to the subject. This is contentious material in a contentious topic area, and it's reckless speculation that is untrue and would clearly cause harm to the subject(s).-- Isaidnoway (talk)  06:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You can stop arguing BLP violations now. That issue has been settled.


 * Arguments posted that there is a BLP violation:


 * Involved closing administrator, having read the above arguments, closing as no consensus: This was an experienced administrator, and if he had determined that there was a BLP violation, he would have closed it as "delete".


 * Consensus of the community endorsing the close: If the members of the community who reviewed the deletion had come to a consensus that there was a BLP violation, the result would have been "overturn", not "endorse".


 * I am not going to try to defend individual sources or individual sections. If you think an individual section should be removed, make your case. If you think it should all be deleted, consider that some of the removed material was sourced to NPR, NBC News, Harpers, Scientific American, CNN, The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, Snopes.com, The Guardian, The Los Angeles Times, CBS News, BBC, and The Intercept. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Pointing out what the material was sourced to is somewhat beside the point. The material needs to be properly sourced to the actual subject of the article. It may be that there are some sources which do mention "conspiracy theories of the presidential election". If that's the case, they can be restored. But just because there is some article in, say, Harpers that is referenced doesn't mean the sourcing was done properly. jps (talk) 11:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add sources here
I am in favor of the article stub which reads very good to me.

To that end, I would like to start collecting sources that speak to the conspiracy theories of the US presidential election, 2016. If anyone has some they think would work well in this article, please list them here! Thanks!

jps (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The "seizure video"
I would like to discuss the following material picked pretty much at random from the article: (Link to un-gutted version of the article):
 * A June 10, 2016, video posted to YouTube showing Clinton at a campaign stop in which it appears she turns her head back-and-forth vigorously for several seconds. In fact, the video was manipulated to loop a much shorter Clinton head turn to create the appearance of a spasm.

First a bit of original research (OR cannot be used as a source, but can be used as a guide when finding sources):

As of today (03 September 2016) the top three Youtube videos on the incident appear to be:


 * "The Truth About Hillary's Bizarre Behavior" (3,883,370 views)


 * "Hillary Clinton has seizure / convulsions - tries to play it off making fun of seizures CLOSER LOOK " (2,409,365 views)


 * "Hillary Clinton has a seizure on camera" (1,894,847 views views)

The second one is the one the Washington Post refered to. The third appears to be an unedited longer version of


 * "Hillary Clinton Won’t Talk About Elizabeth Warren Meeting But Will Talk About Chai | NBC News" (752,838 views)

...which is the one the Washington post used as an example of an unedited video.

OK, so it appears that this conspiracy theory exists and has been covered by reliable sources such as the Chigago Tribune.

Could someone explain why this particular paragraph was deleted? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, what source do you propose is illustrating that this is a conspiracy theory about the presidential election? jps (talk) 17:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Seriously? You didn't read the first line of the Chicago Tribune source? "I've never been part of a conspiracy theory. Now, video of my surprised facial expression has become Exhibit A in the latest unfounded speculation about Hillary Clinton." You are aware that Hillary Clinton is running for president, right? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So you contend that the Chicago Tribune is a source which identifies certain interpretations of a video as part of a conspiracy theory about the presidential election. Great. What is that conspiracy theory? How would you explain it to a reader based on the Chicago Tribune source? jps (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You already have the version that explains that. It is at the top of this section, starting with the words "A June 10, 2016, video posted to YouTube showing Clinton at a campaign stop..." That's two Sea Lion questions in a row for you. Any further questions can be answered by reading the page you are on will be answered with silence. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no explanation of what the conspiracy theory is supposed to be in the wording above. It's pretty poor writing and it's good that it isn't in the encyclopedia. I look forward to you offering some content contributions here, maybe some wording that you come up with that I can understand. jps (talk) 23:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I am now ignoring jps because I no longer believe that he is here to improve the encyclopedia. See WP:IDHT. Does anyone else have any argument against including the specific, well-sourced conspiracy theory that Hillary Clinton had a seizure on camera at a muffin shop in Washington on June 10, 2016? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * It is unclear to me whether the passage describes a rumor / fringe theory that Clinton had a seizer, or an alleged conspiracy to promulgate such as rumor. The former would be outside of the scope of this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Certainly you have provided a source that someone tried to push a theory that Clinton is hiding her poor health. But I do not know that elevates a hoax into a conspiracy theory.  It is still possible that Clinton has undisclosed, undiagnosed or undetectable health concerns.  It is not that outlandish to speculate about the health of a 68 year old woman, just as reasonable people speculated about the health of 71 or 72 year old presidential candidate John McCain.  We recently learned for example that a concussion erased part of her long term memory.  As it turns out, McCain would in all likelihood have outlived the 2009-2013 term with all his faculties intact.  TFD (talk) 08:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't get to decide whether it is or is not a conspiracy theory. Two reliable sources (the Chicago Tribune and CNN) called it a conspiracy theory. We just report what is in the sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What is the conspiracy theory, though? The others in this discussion are pointing out it is difficult to identify what exactly the Chicago Tribune and CNN are identifying as the conspiracy theory. I still don't quite understand. I have a feeling it is the kind of conspiracy theory K.e.coffman is describing, but we don't have sources identifying this. jps (talk) 11:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Indeed, we do not get to determine what is or is not a conspiracy theory, which is why this article should be deleted. And neither CNN nor The Chicago Tribune have called it a conspiracy theory.  Those are the opinions of the writers of the articles you presented.  Since neither explains what they mean by conspiracy theory, we do not know whether they are used the term in the same sense as Hofstadter and others or merely as a synonym for an unfounded or malicious rumor.  Is questioning Clinton's health in the same category as thinking the world is controlled by the illuminati?  Are these writers saying that?  jps, I agree.  To be a neutral, this article must begin with a definition and include only examples where it is clear the authors are talking about the same concept.  TFD (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Restore pre-blanked version while AfD is ongoing
Whatever the merits of this article—I haven't looked—replacing it with a nonspecific stub while it's being considered at AfD is an end run around the formation of consensus regarding the fate of the article, potentially prejudices the discussion, and would only be justifiable on urgent BLP grounds, which clearly do not exist since a very recent AfD was closed "no consensus". The blanking is therefore in contravention of AfD guidelines and should be reversed. Starting a new section here since the AN/I to which editors are referred in the above closed section has been repeatedly brushed off as invalid and there is no pre-existing general section here. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:WRONGVERSION. jps (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support in principal. But really, what's the point? This article is on its way out. An AfD is not supposed to be a vote count but that doesn't mean I can't read a scoreboard. And while I will be very disappointed when its deleted, and I do disagree with the all but certain outcome, I will respect the verdict. Yeah, I agree it has likely been prejudiced by the militant edit warring that has kept the article blanked. But there's a good chance it would have gone down even if the old version were up. That said, while I respect the AfD process, I make no such concession where the recent editing history of this article is concerned. That has been nothing less than a scandalous abuse of the system. In the end the real losers will be our readers who have been ill served in this sad affair. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Clarification: "replacing it with a nonspecific stub while it's being considered at AfD" is not what happened. The current (locked version) was the state of the article when the 2nd AfD was initiated. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You will have to pardon those of us who consider a bang-bang-bang AfD->delete-review->AfD all happening within days to be one long attempt to delete the article (which, I remind you, I supported deleting on the first AfD). --Guy Macon (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that the closer of the 1st AfD recommended renominating "within days", at which point normal editing of the article resumed, as can be seen by the article's Talk page. The the article was renominated by Ad Orientem, who objected to stubbyfying the article. I don't see a vast "anti-conspiracy" conspiracy theory here. :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 23:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose We would need agreement which previous version to restore, but there are objections to each one. You can post a link to a previous version at AfD if you choose.  TFD (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)