Talk:Clinton plan intelligence conspiracy theory

Did you know nomination

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. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:10, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that investigators determined the purported "Clinton plan" was baseless and fabricated by Russian spies, while the Trump administration claimed it was real?
  • ALT1: ... that investigators were unable to verify an alleged "Clinton plan" mentioned in a hacked Russian intelligence memo, even as Trump administration officials publicly promoted the claim?
  • ALT2: ... that no evidence was found supporting a purported "Clinton plan" described in a hacked Russian memo, even as Trump administration officials publicly cited the claim?
  • ALT3: ... that a purported "Clinton plan" originated in Russian intelligence material obtained by Dutch intelligence hackers?
  • ALT4: ... that a purported "Clinton plan" cited by Trump officials came from Russian intelligence material later described as likely disinformation?
  • ALT5: ... that no evidence was found for a purported "Clinton plan" in a hacked Russian memo cited by Trump officials, and that Durham's sources included Russian spies discussing creating the material?

• Source:

• • Reviewed:

Created by Valjean (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:07, 6 February 2026 (UTC).

References

Discussion about formatting

• Comment: @Valjean: Please see WP:DYK200. It would also help to read WP:DYKTRIM. Viriditas (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
  • @Viriditas:, I fixed it. It's at 197 now. Thanks for catching that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:04, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
    • @Valjean: It's a bit of a fuzzy rule. Exceptional hooks may come close to 197, but if you look at the DYK archives, they tend to hover around 90-165 or so. I am curious about how many are really over 190. I think it's pretty rare, but the exceptions likely include multi-hook nominations. Viriditas (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
      • @Valjean: ALT2 is 260 chars. I get the sense you know that and are toying with me like a cat playing with its prey. :-) Viriditas (talk) 11:30, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
        • LOL! @Viriditas:, IIRC, that was created before I realized the size limit. I don't think it will be chosen. The primary version is under the 200 character limit. What is the purpose of the "ALT" versions? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:09, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
          • @Valjean: It's a good question. If you have a really solid hook and know it's going to work, then sometimes a nominator will offer only one. The alternate hooks give the reviewer the ability to choose using several different criteria, as well as preference. This can be handy when a topic or situation is fluid, allowing not just the reviewer to choose, but also the promoter. So you really want to tighten up all of the hooks and get them down below at least 170, IMO. However, if you feel really confident about a single long ALT, then feel free to include it. Viriditas (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
            • @Viriditas: WP:DYK200 says that 200 is the number, so I'm safe. I deleted the long one. How long does it take before this happens? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:19, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
              • @Valjean: Could be a week, could be a month, it depends on many different factors. For example, I'm trying (unsuccessfully it seems) to nudge you in the direction that would allow me to do a successful review. Just because DYK200 says 200 is the number in theory, doesn't mean it applies in practice. So far, I like where you are going with ALT1, but it can be trimmed in several different ways. Put that aside for a moment, as that is easy to do. The second problem you are going to have to deal with is the pushback from people at DYK who are against these kinds of political hooks, so I'm not really the person you will have to worry about at all. That's a good illustration as to why having ALTs ready to go is important. So let's start with a shortened version and call it ALT1a: "... that investigators determined the "Clinton plan" was baseless and fabricated by Russian spies, while the Trump administration claimed it was real?" How about improving on that kind of shortened form? That's 146 characters, which is just above the sweet spot you want to aim for in a hook. Play around with different formulations at about that length or below. Viriditas (talk) 02:48, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
                • @Viriditas: I have never done this before, and I'm trying to understand the process and cooperate. I really am. You need to get rid of or revise the "200" character limit that you linked to. You keep mentioning a smaller hook ("146 characters, which is just above the sweet spot you want to aim for in a hook."). Okay, I don't care either way, just be consistent. Don't link to "200" and keep pushing for a shorter hook. We aren't limited by bytes here anyway, so why the haggling over so few bytes? As far as "pushback", is there a requirement for limiting controversiality? You suggested a version that would definitely get pushback. I have no problem with controversial content (we are uncensored) as long as it's honest and backed by RS, and your version is both, so maybe I'll submit such a version as one option. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:51, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

• @Valjean: I gave this some thought. Here's what I came up with: write four hooks, ALT0, ALT1, ALT2, and ALT3. Make ALT0 your preferred hook, the one you want the reviewer to pass the promoter to promote. With the other three, you can have a bit of fun, but do something like this: make one the most political (or use ALT0 for that), and another the least political. Of the four, make one the longest and another the shortest. Have fun with it. Viriditas (talk) 09:06, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Okay, I have created more, and added size and a short description. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:01, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
    • Don’t use your own word count. Use the DYK character counter linked to the right, where it says "hook length”. Viriditas (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
      • Thanks for that tip. I'll use those numbers. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:22, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
        • In theory, I support what you are trying to do, but those things are for your internal use only. It looks like you are inadvertently prompting the reader, the reviewer, and the promoter, and we don't want to do that. Viriditas (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer's suggestions and discussion

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - n
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: - ?
• Other problems:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Earwig comes back high on 9 sources through extensive usage of quotes. While this is not plagiarism, a lot of these could be summarised instead of having to use so many quotes. Additionally there are a few sections that are very long, while not critical for DYK, I would suggest that they could do from either being broken up or from being summarised better.
Beyond that:

• the second paragraph of the "Denial of previous findings about Trump-Russia matters" section needs a citation at the end of it,
• the first, second and last paragraphs of the "Findings contradicting Trump's denials" section need citations at the end of them,
• the first and last paragraphs of the "Timing and investigative trigger" section need citations at the end of them,
• the first paragraph of the "Investigations and findings" section needs a citation at the end of it, and
• the first paragraph of the "Broader assessments of veracity" section needs a citation at the end of it. TarnishedPath^talk 04:06, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: it's nice to see an experienced editor like you here. Is this a place you often work? Thanks for the suggestions. I'll start working on this. My philosophy is that the more controversial an item is, the more likely a specific quote is better than a paraphrase. When in doubt, use attribution.

If you can be more specific (like exact words I can search for) about the things you listed, I'd really appreciate it. Any help is welcome. So far, few seem to know the article exists, and I haven't gotten much constructive help or seen many good revisions. I hope that changes. Controversial topics benefit from more eyes, so I hope you will help at the article. Just because I am the primary author does not mean I own it.

This topic is one part of the "grand conspiracy" theory being pushed by the Trump administration in an attempt to rewrite history and whitewash Trump and his campaign's involvement in Russian interference. Just because "conspiracy" was not proven does not mean there was no cooperation or deception by Trump involved. There are several disconnected attempts to deal with that issue here. We need a Grand conspiracy (Trump theory) article, or something like that.

I'm trying to figure out how to interpret and use the Earwig tool. I've never seen it before.

BTW, can this section get a heading? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:30, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I have taken a look at Earwig's comparison of the use of one Lawfare source. It marks a whole lot of wording that comes from many other sources I use, so it's marking common words that are not always cited from the Lawfare source.

Based on cues from that Earwig comparison, as well as serendipity, I fixed a few spots related to that Lawfare source that could be improved. Two blockquotes that aren't super long seem justified "fair use", so I won't change them. I don't see how I could paraphrase or summarize them better without running into accusations of adding my personal opinions or excessive editorializing. That too would be wrong. Here's a diff that shows the changes I made. If you notice anything else, please say so. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:58, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: I have now dealt with each one of your points. You can start with this edit and then look at each of the following ones, with the edit summaries. If you still feel changes should be made, just say so. I trust your wisdom here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:34, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

@Valjean:, I've been active at DYK for a bit over a year. I've mostly worked on promoting hooks to our prep areas. If you look at my list of nominations, you'll see that I'm no stranger to controversial topics. I'll have to be honest though, it's a long way from guaranteed that your article will make it onto the front page. This is only the first level of review and there are at least two others after this. Added to that your nomination will be two months old on the 4 of April at which point WP:DYKTIMEOUT may apply. We'll see what we can do, but if it doesn't make it onto the front page this time, you've alwasy got the opporutunity for another go if you get the article to WP:GA status.

I haven't had a chance to look what changes you've done so far, beyond looking at Earwig. I'll have more of a look after work. As far as Earwig goes, the results that stand out are for Lawfare and MotherJones, which come up as 79% and 70% respectively (don't ask me what those numbers mean, because I don't know exactly). For each you'll see your article on the left and the source on the right. Looking at Earwig takes a bit of getting used to. You'll notice that a lot of the red highlighting is for proper nouns. Those can be disregarded. What stands out to me is that for Lawfare, there are four long qoutes, a couple of which are paragraph long which are highlighted in red. Looking at MotherJones, you've got three long quotes highlighted in red. I understand where you are comming from not wanting to be accused of inserting your own interpretation; however, we're a tertiary source and our main role is to summarise. As I said I'll have more of a look after work, to see which of my other points above you've addressed. TarnishedPath^talk 00:38, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the Lawfare source and Earwig.....

These are the TWO "long quotes", which aren't really very long. They are definitely within fair use limits:

• The hacked emails originated from a broader Russian government cyber-espionage campaign targeting Democratic Party organizations during the 2016 presidential election. Lawfare described this history:

[T]hroughout 2015 and 2016, the Russian military intelligence agency the GRU hacked targets including the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the Clinton campaign, Open Society Foundations, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and other think tanks seen as promoting liberal internationalism. Russian military intelligence then selectively leaked the hacked material, usually with the intent of embarrassing the target at a strategic time.

• Lawfare describes Durham's four reasons why the "memos were likely not credible":

Page 5 of the annex gives four reasons why: hearsay, exaggeration, editorialization, and translation issues. The emails were additionally perceived as suspect. Durham notes that as he progressed through his investigation, there were disagreements about their authenticity among intelligence analysts who read them—some thought the emails might be real; others flagged inconsistencies. But, as the investigation continued, as the annex relates, the case for forgery grew stronger.

Regarding the Mother Jones source and Earwig.....

Also only TWO "long quotes".

• David Corn described expectations among Trump allies about the Durham special counsel investigation:

Durham, Donald Trump and his crew fervently hoped, was going to prove that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, former CIA director John Brennan, former FBI director Jim Comey, and other Deep Staters had conspired to cook up the Russia scandal to sabotage Trump. Within MAGA, it was widely assumed that Durham would get the goods, smash this cabal, and lock up all these wrongdoers.

• David Corn described Clinton's actions as a "natural" reaction given the public evidence of Russian hacking of the Democratic Party, documented Russian interference in the 2016 election, Trump's favorable comments about Putin, and his denials that Russia interfered to help him:

It would have been quite natural and not at all inappropriate for any candidate in Clinton's position to decide to push a narrative about Trump and Russia. Moreover, there was no evidence—Durham found none—that the supposed 'Clinton Plan' triggered the FBI investigation, the origin of which has been well documented.

That's what I found by looking at every single use of those sources. Looking at Earwig, I see highlighting of several longer quotes that are actually from primary sources quoted by Lawfare and Mother Jones, and my choice of using secondary sources in these cases is very deliberate. While citing primary sources is not totally forbidden, it should be done carefully and judiciously. I have tried to do that. So, some key and important quotes will be used more than once and by more than one secondary source, even though they originate in primary sources like the junk Durham report and very important Senate Intelligence Committee report.

I don't see that as an abuse of our MOS. Of course, each editor has their own "style" and way of applying our PAG. We have both been here for a long time and we no doubt have our own styles, and that's okay. I am not aiming for GA or FA, just a solid article that documents what RS have said about the topic. If someone wants to strive to reach those goals, I'm all for it and will help them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:15, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

@Valjean::

1. the first paragraph is the "Durham's formulation of the "Clinton Plan Intelligence" section is cut in half by a blocked quote. This appears to be a display error,
2. the paragraph reading Several news outlets described the episode as reflecting concerns about the politicization of intelligence and the public dissemination of unverified or potentially misleading material in the "Ratcliffe and first appearance of the theory in 2020" section does not have a citation,
3. the first paragraph in the "Timing and investigative trigger" section does not have a citation at the end of it,
4. the first paragraph in the "Investigations and findings" section doesn't have a citation at the end of it, and
5. the first paragraph in the "Broader assessments of veracity" section doesn't have a citation at the end of it.

See WP:DYKCITE for our requirement that each paragraph have a citation at the end.

The amount of quotes, isn't a deal-breaker perse; however I generally don't like seeing that much. I won't hold the nomination up once you add the citations, but be aware that others may also ask that you reduce the amounts of quotes. TarnishedPath^talk 07:47, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I added numbering for convenience. I hope you don't mind.

#1 Both sentences display fine and complete for me. There is no blockquote there. (I am using Firefox.)

#2 Fixed it

#3 I already fixed that one (which you mentioned previously), but I'll just copy the sources and add them to the end.

#4 Ditto, although a "lead" doesn't always require sourcing. An introductory lead is standard good writing practice which we sometimes use here, especially for large sections with several subsections. The hidden note for editors is supposed to head off complaints about the missing sourcing.

#5 Ditto, although a "lead" doesn't always require sourcing.

That WP:DYKCITE requirement is an odd one. (I assume that requirement is expressed in these words "must be cited to a reliable source no later than the end of the paragraph".) I'd like to know what MOS rule requires that. It's new to me. I've never encountered that requirement in all the time, since 2003, that I've been here, but then I've never tried a DYK before. My article creation process and all my editing has only adhered to MOS, not DYK. I assumed DYK would only be based on PAG. It certainly should be.

When you say "amounts of quotes", I assume you mean "number" of quotes. I could probably reduce that, but since the topic is very controversial (any content that touches on Trump administration lies and conspiracy theories is always controversial), exact quoting is often best. It defuses accusations of editorial bias when it's clear the wording is from the source. Regardless, I'll go through the article and try to summarize some of them to alleviate your concerns. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:56, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: okay, I have been through the whole thing and reduced, summarized, and eliminated a lot of block quotes, making the article rather boring, IMO, but it still works. I have kept a few key ones. I did it one step at a time and saved each edit, with an edit summary. Take a look. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:58, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

approved. I would suggest that any promoter go with either ALT0 or ALT4 as these seem the clearest in meaning to me.

@Valjean:, I agree that there are some requirements for DYK that are a bit extra than our normal PAG. If you intend on nominating anything in the future, it might help to have a read of WP:DYKCRIT. Feel free to ping me at any time for advice. Lots of luck. TarnishedPath^talk 22:58, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for guiding me through this interesting process. You have been patient and helpful. I have learned a lot from you, and the article has benefitted. Now I hope that the DYK will get more eyes to show up and help improve and build the article. I have no doubt that there are lacks I have not perceived. There are so many RS and angles to this narrative.

I wonder if the MOS should have a section that explains/points to the special DYK requirements. I think that would be an improvement.

I will indeed contact you if I need more help and advice. Keep up the good work! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:12, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

@Valjean:, just note that there are at least two more levels of review before your article makes it onto the frontpage. TarnishedPath^talk 23:37, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay...?!?!? Is this worth it? I hope it's not like an AE/Arbcom proceeding. If so, I'd rather not go through such a process. I hope the next reviewers are as kind and understanding as you have been. I don't need more stress in my life. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:02, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@Valjean: nothing that stressful. Most of the time there is no further work required after approval and certainly nothing to the level of AE/Arbcom. lol. TarnishedPath^talk 01:08, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

That's a relief. This to shall pass. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:14, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Final notification: DYK for Clinton plan intelligence conspiracy theory

On 30 March 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Clinton plan intelligence conspiracy theory, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a purported "Clinton plan" cited by Trump officials came from Russian intelligence material later described as likely disinformation? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Clinton plan intelligence conspiracy theory. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Clinton plan intelligence conspiracy theory), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

Sources

More sources are welcome.

I found one by subject matter expert Marcy Wheeler, long known by the handle "emptywheel":

• John Durham Fabricated His Basis to Criminalize Oppo Research
  

It's worth reading, as she provides background to help one understand this better. Using some of her keywords may help one find more information published in RS we can use here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:51, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Here's a second one: Peter Strzok Claims He Spoke to John Durham about the Clinton Conspiracy Theory Document -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:21, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

A third one: John Ratcliffe and Kash Patel — and Durham Himself — Committed the Crime John Durham Was Hunting This one is very revealing. It exposes how the Russians discussed creating a conspiracy theory, and Trump's team used it. The Russians and Trump team ended up working as a unified group, with Russian intelligence providing the Trump team's fodder:

"The email between the two spooks — which could fairly be called “an exchange” — ties the attribution to Guccifer directly to the plan to start a conspiracy theory about Hillary.
Effectively, this exchange says, “fuck, they’re onto Guccifer, let’s start a conspiracy theory about Hillary! dark forces!! Deep State!!!” And then the follow-up email describes the conspiracy theory in terms of “vilifying” Putin and Trump.

A fourth one: How John Durham Buried Evidence He Had Been Doing the Work of Russian Spies … and then Tulsi Gabbard Buried More

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:29, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Am I reading this sentence right?

"On July 31, 2025,[4] during Trump's second administration, the annex was declassified and released 'mere hours before the first Trump-Biden debate'

How is this possible? That date was last year; Trump had been president for a few months by then and he had last debated Biden a year earlier.

I cannot figure out just what mistake was made here. It sounds like 2020 was meant. Daniel Case (talk) 02:48, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Daniel, thanks for catching that weird error. I have fixed it. Keep up the good work. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:41, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Article reads partisan

There's a good portion of this article that reads to me like the authors have a partisan leaning (pro democrat) and that makes the article read not like a historical or factual account. It reads more like this article is attempting to participate in the discussion it is detailing. Kikila mai Tawhiti (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

its also repetitive throughout, with each section including multiple paragraphs that reiterate tbe same information with similar citations or, as it reads to me, included solely to put in more citations. Kikila mai Tawhiti (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

It would be easier to address and fix any problems if you cited exact quotes. The sources used are mainstream RS, so there is no "democrat" partisan leaning, even if it might seem more favorable toward democratic POV. It has to lean one way or the other, so it can't be both. We don't play bothsiderism here. Such is life. When one side does something wrong, RS are going to call them out on it, and that has happened here. Then we document it, regardless of which side came out on top.

Be careful about saying "pro democrat" as that is a clear personal attack: "Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden. Editors are allowed to have personal political POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions."

Also, if you feel there is some type of balance issue, and if you have RS that provide more angles to the subject that maybe "balance" it, but without a false balance, that might be something to explore. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:53, 19 May 2026 (UTC)