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: promoted by Cielquiparle talk 06:55, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Group chat excerpt

• ... that Trump's vice president, defense secretary, state secretary, intelligence director, and security advisor leaked military plans to a journalist after accidentally adding him to their group chat (pictured)?
  • ALT1: ... that Trump's national security advisor, Mike Waltz, accidentally added a journalist to a group chat (pictured) in which he and other US national security leaders shared military attack plans?
  • Reviewed: Thin mouse shrew
  • Comment: I only named the top contributor as the author. The rest of the hard-working editors appear to have all contributed an equal amount, and it would not have been practical to name them all.

Surtsicna (talk) 08:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• The addition of the journalist to the group still seems unexplained. Various theories have been expressed and Musk has been asked to make a technical investigation. So, the suggested hooks (orig and ALT1) are premature in stating a definitive explanation in Wikipedia's voice. We need more ALTs. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific, Andrew? The lead of the article unequivocally states that Goldberg was erroneously added by Waltz. Is that not an indisputable fact? What are the other 'theories'? Should the article mention them? Surtsicna (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The lead of the article does not provide a citation for its statement. WP:V is Wikipedia 101 and providing a clearly cited statement is a fundamental requirement per WP:DYKHOOK. For some theories, see Was Signal-gate a mistake, hack or knife in the back?. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not citing Wikipedia as a source. The article cites its sources, obviously not in the lead. The 'analysis' you linked rests solely on the assumption that Waltz could not have been incompetent enough to do this, and that assumption is not shared by any significant portion of reliable sources. The 'theories' seem to be fringe. If you disagree and think they should be included in the article, I suggest starting a thread at the talk page. Surtsicna (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, the theories are not fringe; they all seem reasonably plausible and there's no solid evidence yet for any particular scenario. And pointing to an uncited portion of the lead is not the way that DYK works, "The facts of the hook in the article should be cited no later than the end of the sentence in which they appear". Andrew🐉(talk) 21:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plausibility is not what determines whether a theory is fringe or not. The fact of the hook is indeed cited at the end of the sentence in which it appears. Should the citation be repeated in the lead section? DYK does not say, and if that is the issue you have with the nomination, it is very easily fixed. Surtsicna (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I feel like the answer in both these cases is, yes, I did know that. I feel like we ought to be able to find a hook that would actually be something most folks don't know. Valereee (talk) 13:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most people in the US probably, but Wikipedia is written for a wider audience. Of course you may suggest alternative hooks. Surtsicna (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has been international news for a week now. I've read the article, nothing jumps out at me other than the fact Signal allows deletion, which is against record-keeping laws. Maybe we could build a hook around that? I dunno...that gets into negative about a BLP. Valereee (talk) 17:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative hooks could be based on how Goldberg's number got on Waltz's phone (see article talk page), or on the TeleMessage hack.

@Noble Attempt, Surtsicna, Andrew Davidson, and Valereee: Not seeing a hook on this page that meets WP:DYKINT.--Launchballer 01:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't followed the latest developments and so didn't know that an investigation had determined a plausible way that Goldberg's number was added to the chat. This update might interest others who want to know the latest. So, please consider ALT2 for which a source is How the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg got added to the White House Signal group chat. The hook deliberately doesn't get into the weeds of the technicalities as they seem too complex to explain briefly. The idea is to get readers to click through for the details. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ALT2 ... that the White House forensic investigation of Signalgate has determined the way in which a journalist was included in the group chat about Operation Rough Rider (pictured)?

Long enough, new enough. QPQ done. I see multiple paragraphs that require {{cn}} and these should be attended to. (There are also pretty big MOS:PARA and MOS:OVERSECTION violations, but I'll attend to those myself before I approve this.) The only decent hook in the article is a variation on ALT0: ALT3: ... that a United States government group chat recently leaked war plans? Earwig looks like an angry toddler kicked over a paint set and I'll assess that on a full stomach, both figuratively and literally.--Launchballer 15:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Noble Attempt, Surtsicna, Andrew Davidson, and Valereee: False positive. Please address the above.--Launchballer 21:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Noble Attempt, Surtsicna, Andrew Davidson, and Valereee: The nomination will time out in five days, so please respond to the above comment. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The article had one {{cn}} which I have just resolved. So far as I can see, there are no cleanup tags or significant issues and so the hook should be promoted. The suggested hooks are much of a muchness but what's most interesting now is that there has been a technical investigation which found a good explanation for the leak, which was previously mysterious. This will be interesting to readers like me who followed the story initially but didn't see the later update. That's what I've tried to summarise in ALT2 but some copy-editing might improve on that.

As I was the first editor to respond to the nomination with an objection, I'm ticking this to make clear my willingness for this to proceed.

Andrew🐉(talk) 15:57, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]